Theology Online: Theology, Back to the Basics

I am reading Rudolph Gualther and he is speaking about the sin of curiosity, and then I realised: Lapsarianism is the sin of curiosity.

Its the Reformed equivalent of curiosity about dates, years and times when Christ will return.

David

This post follows up from these posts, Rainbow on Augustine, Rainbow on Prosper,and Rainbow on Luther,

Behold our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, abased himself for a time, as says S. Paul Now if there were no more but this, that he being the fountain of life, became a moral man, and that he having dominion over the angels of heaven, took upon him the shape of a servant, yea even to shed his blood for our redemption, and in the end to suffer the curse that was due unto us: were it convenient that notwithstanding all this, he should nowadays in recompense be torn to pieces, by stinking mouths of such as name themselves Christians? For when they swear by his blood, by his death, by his wounds and by whatsoever else: is it not a crucifying of God’s son again as much as in them lies, and as a rending of him in pieces? And are not such folk worthy to be cut of from God’s Church, yea, and even from the world, and to be no more numbered in the array of creatures? Should our Lord Jesus have such reward at our hands, for his abasing and humbling of himself after that manner? God in upbraiding his people says thus: My people, what have I done to you? I have brought you out of Egypt, I have led you up with all gentleness and lovingkindness, I have planted you as it were in my own inheritance, to the intent you should have been a vine that should have brought me forth good fruit, and I have tilled thee and manured thee: and must thou now be bitter to me, and bring forth sower fruit to choke me withall? The same belongs to us at this day. For when the son of God, who is ordained to be judge of the world, shall come at the last day: he may well say to us: how now Sirs? You have borne my name, you have been baptised in remembrance of me and record that I was your redeemer, I have drawn you out of the dungeons where into you were plunged, I delivered you from endless death by suffering most cruel death myself, and for the same cause I became man, and submitted myself even to the curse of GOD my father, that you might be blessed by my grace and by my means: and behold the reward that you have yielded me for all this, is that you have (after a sort) torn me in pieces and made a jestingstock of me, and the death that I suffered for you has been made a mockery among you, the blood which is the washing and cleansing of your souls has been as good as trampled under your feet, and to be short, you have taken occasion to ban and blaspheme me, as though I had been some wretched and cursed creature. When the sovereign judge shall charge us with these things, I pray you will it not be as thundering upon us, to ding us down to the bottom of hell? Yes: and yet are there very few that think upon it. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 33, 5:11, p., 196.

The above quotation is one I found in Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy. It is not one listed by Rainbow in his discussion of Calvin. So here is a classic comment from Calvin on the reality that the redemption of Christ can be voided with regard to some.

What should be read very straightforward, Jonathan Rainbow turns upside down when you argues that Calvin only spoke of souls seeming redemption. For example speaking to these sorts of statements from Calvin, he says:

While stating that unfaithful pastors are charged with the souls they lose, and are guilty of sacrilege for profaning the blood of Christ, and have undone Christ’s redemption-strong language which implies that the success of salvation depends on man, not God–Calvin added “as much as in them lies” (quantum in se est)… Apostates, he said, are those who, “as much as in them lies (imo quantum in se esti), crucify the Son of God again… Men intend to crucify gain the Son of God… But they cannot… The phrase “as much as in them,” in its variant forms, was designed to protect against the theological conclusion that the wicked acts of men can every actually harm or thwart the design of God.  The point at issue-whether Calvin’s “souls perish” statements imply universal redemption-may now be directly addressed. For Calvin used this phrase also in conjunction with the nullification of the death of Christ that seemingly [emph., mine] happens when someone apostatizes. He said that unfaithful pastors “have negated the redemption which he obtained.” But does this actually mean that pastors can undo the work of Christ by their sloth? No…. Again, the idea is not that God’s covenant in Christ’s blood can be frustrated, but that wicked men intend to do so by their actions and attitudes.¹

And a little later, he says: “The Church must proceed as if every member is elect, as if ever every member is redeemed by the blood of Christ, and as if the loss of souls from the visible church is therefore a loss to the honor of God.”² Rainbow goes on to make the comment-with regard to souls outside of the Church, whom Calvin likewise says have been redeemed by the blood of Christ-that:

The assumption in the case of unbelievers was one which dovetailed with the universal saving will of God revealed in preaching: God loves all sinners and wills all sinners to be saved. This, as we have seen, was not for Calvin theologically true. But it was the assumption which has to be made concerning Christian activity toward the world of men outside the church.³

Of course, that last should be self-evidently seen as absurd, as it posits that Calvin assumed as true, things which he knew to be untrue. All this, Rainbow postulates without any evidence. All he has is this slender idea claim to Calvin’s frequence use of ‘as much as in them lies,’ which actually for Calvin means that for their part, men void the price of redemption which should have been the means of their own salvation, not that Christ never paid the redemption of price for them. Further, Rainbow’s claims are further discredited because of his claim that Calvin did not believe in a universal non-electing love or universal saving will. Even the most cursory reading of Calvin will completely falsify this. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Almost as an aside, I should mention that in Rainbow’s list of 12 ‘wasted-blood’ quotations, the ‘as much as in them lies’ statement is found only once that I can see, and yet Rainbow hangs everything on it. I admit Calvin does use it more than once, but the fact that Rainbow grounds his claims on one use is a little worrying.

Of course, the problem with combating Rainbow’s claims is that any counter-evidence adduced, Rainbow will just invoke these claims and argue that Calvin was just judging people from the perspective of the judgement of charity or something like that. Rainbow has precluded as a priorily impossible that as an Augustinian, “Calvin did not believe that the incomparable price of Christ’s blood could be made void.”⁴

But now, if we put aside the fact that of all his historical claims addressed at this blog, Rainbow has been shown to be wrong, given that he has no solid evidence that Calvin could seriously propose something he believed to be untrue, and given that Rainbow is also completely wrong on Calvin’s theology of the general love of God and saving will for all men, how might we further show Rainbow’s claims incorrect?

One of the methods I have been using for the last 8 years in this project is to ascertain how Calvin’s contemporaries have been using phrases and theological terms. My assumption is, which I think is completely warranted, if nearly all of Calvin’s contemporaries were using phrases, even exegeting the same texts in a standard manner, while holding unequivocally to unlimited expiation and redemption, that if Calvin, himself, used the same or near identical expressions, then the most plausible conclusion is that Calvin was in line with his contemporaries. I argue that it is the burden of argument is strongly upon men like Rainbow to prove-with even a modicum of reasonable evidence mind you-that when Calvin used the exact or near exact phrases, he did not mean the same thing.

So let’s put my theory to the test.

Calvin:

“Which he hath purchased.” The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of his love toward the Church in shedding his own blood for it. Whereby it appears how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it follows, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lies. And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish; and it is said that God hath purchased the Church, to the end we may know that he would have it remain wholly to himself, because it is meet and right that he possess those whom he hath redeemed. John Calvin, Acts 20:28.

I have been talking about family resemblances, so let us put a statement from Gualther back to back with this one from Calvin, on the same biblical text:

The third reason is deduced of the dignity of the Church, which appears in this, for that God has purchased it with his blood. He attributed blood unto God by a figured called communione or property of tongues, because Jesus Christ which is God from everlasting, at a time long before appointed, became man, and redeemed the Church with the price of his blood. Therefore the church is dear unto Christ, and they are guilty of the blood of Christ, that neglect the Church, and either abolish the profit thereof themselves, or else suffer it to perish and decay. Mark how the Church belongs to no one man, but unto God, who has redeemed and purged her with his blood, and espoused her unto himself. Therefore as no man may challenge unto himself, must look that they consecrate themselves to God only, and addict not themselves to worship any creature. All so this serves for our consolation, that it is impossible, that God should neglect them, whom he redeemed with so great a price. Think that there is the like reason before God of all creatures. For as every man is created after the image of God: so are they redeemed and purchased with the blood of the Son of God. Shalt thou go unpunished, if thou slander any of them, do him wrong, violently hut him, or contumaciously disdain him, or offend him in religion, or conversation of life? Read the things written of Paul. Rom. 14. Which make much for this place, and the 8 chapter of the first to the Corinthians. Radulphe Gualthere, An Hundred, threescore and fifteen Sermons, uppon the Acts of the Apostles, trans., by John Bridges, (London: no publ, 1572), 751-2.

There are three layers here that should be addressed. Firstly, the profit of the church is voided if the shepherds of the flock neglect the sheep. Gualther goes on to speak wolves getting into the flock and attacking it. This is in line with Calvin’s sentiment.⁵ The second layer is Gualther’s reference to all imager-bearers being redeemed. Again, what is really interesting is that we have a few of identical sentiments from Calvin. For example:

Again when we see a man scourged at God’s hand as fore as may be: let us consider not only that he was created after the image of God: but also that he is our neighbour, and in manner all one with us. We be all of one nature, all one flesh, all one mankind, so as it may be said that we be issued all out of one selfsame spring. Sith [since] it is so, ought we not to have consideration one of another? I see moreover a poor soul that is going to destruction: ought I not to pity him an to help him if it lie in my power? And although I be not able: yet ought I to be sorry for it. This (say I) are the two reasons which ought to move us to pity when we see that God afflicts such as are worthy of it. Then we bethink ourselves, sure either we must needs to be hard-hearted and dull-witted, or else we consider thus, behold a man that is formed after the image of God, he is of the selfsame nature that I am, and again behold a soul that was purchased with the blood of the Son of God if the same perish ought not we be grieved. John Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon, 71, 19:17-25, p., 333

And that speaks not only to those who are charged with the responsibility of teaching God’s word, but to everyone in general. For on this point the Holy Spirit, who must be our guide, is not disparaging the right way to teach. If we wish to serve our Master, that is the way we must go about it. We must make every effort to draw everybody to the knowledge of the gospel. For when we see people going to hell who have been created in the image of God and redeemed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that must indeed stir us to do our duty and instruct them and treat them with all gentleness and kindness as we try to bear fruit this way. John Calvin, Sermons on Acts 1-7, Sermon 41, Acts 7:51, pp., 587-588.

 And now there is another reason we must extend this teaching a bit further. It is, as I have already said, that, seeing that men are created in the image of God and that their souls have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, we must try in every way available to us to draw them to the knowledge of the gospel. First, we try to reach them through gentleness and kindness. But have we determined whether men can be brought into obedience unto God in this way? Since we see that there is such hardness and rebellion in them that they cannot be won in this way, it is no longer a matter of using gentle tactics. Rather, we must storm out against them, as the Holy Spirit shows us here. And because of that, we understand why many people think they would like for us to refrain from all harshness when we speak of the pope and his ilk, calling him an antichrist, a murderer, a robber who kills poor souls, a thief who pillages God’s honour. John Calvin, Sermons on Acts 1-7, Sermon 41, Acts 7:51, p., 593.

The third layer is Gualther’s reference to Roms 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. No doubt he is referring to Romans 14;15, and 1 Corinthians 8:11-12.

Calvin:

The next thing is-that when the weak conscience is wounded, the price of Christ’s blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach. John Calvin, Romans 14:15.

There is, however, still greater force in what follows-that even those that are ignorant or weak have been redeemed with the blood of Christ; for nothing were more unseemly than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die, in order that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, reckon as nothing the salvation of those who have been redeemed with so great a price. A memorable saying, by which we are taught how precious the salvation of our brethren ought to be in our esteem, and not merely that of all, but of each individual in particular, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was poured out for each individual… For if the soul of every one that is weak is the price of Christ’s blood, that man, who, for the sake of a very small portion of meat, hurries back again to death the brother who has been redeemed by Christ, shows how contemptible the blood of Christ is in his view. John Calvin, 1 Corinthians 8:11 & 12.

If course, I know of these last two, Rainbow waves his wand and invokes his judgement of charity spell and so would have us believe Calvin assumed an untruth to be true, yet for me that is hardly convincing.

To wrap up, something else is happening in Calvin. Its way to simplistic and implausible to just invoke an unwarranted judgement of charity claim. When Calvin uses the same phraseology as his contemporaries-who were clear in their position-I want something more than just a wave of the hand, and an assertion that Calvin was just being “wonderfully broad,” as Iain Murray claimed. I want to see serious and credible historical analysis from men like Rainbow. And so, the burden of proof is clearly on Rainbow to demonstrate-not just assert-that when Calvin used the identical language, he meant the opposite in theology: or was it the case that all of Calvin’s contemporaries were also just being “wonderfully broad” as well? But how ridiculous would that claim be as well?

Families look alike, but so too can theologies or theological expressions.

Bullinger:

Also they declare by the way, whom he has redeemed: that is to wit, men of all tribes, &c. In which rehearsal he does imitate Daniel in the 7. chapt. and signifies an universality, for the Lord has died for all: but that all are not made partakers of this redemption, it is through their own fault. For the Lord excludes no man, but him only which through his own unbelief, and misbelief excludes himself. &c. Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons Upon the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. (London: Printed by John Daye, Dwellign over Aldersgate, 1573), 79-80.

And now Calvin:

“To bear,” or, “take away sins”, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that not all receive benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them. At the same time this question is not to be discussed here, for the Apostle is not speaking of the few or of the many to whom the death of Christ may be available; but he simply means that he died for others and not for himself; and therefore he opposes many to one. John Calvin, Hebrews 9:28.

He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. John Calvin. Romans 5:18.

The structure and juxtapositioning here is interesting.  I cant take seriously the claims that seek to subvert the force of Calvin’s language.

Whats really cool is that we can look at it from another angle.

That first was Bullinger on Rev 5:9-10.

Now here is David Paraus on the same verse range:

The same benefit of redemption the Elders celebrate, Chap.5:9. “Thou has redeemed us to our God by thy blood.” And indeed this benefit we enjoy in this life: for now, as many as through faith, are “sealed” in the blood of the lamb, are redeemed; howbeit the fulness of our redemption is reserved to the life to come. But are not all redeemed by Christ, died he not for all? Says not the Apostle Peter that he bought these “false prophets,” by whom he is denied? To this Augustine well answers, that all are said to be redeemed, according to the dignity of the price: which would suffice for the redemption of all men, if all by faith did receive the benefit offered. But as many as pass the time of their being in this life in infidelity, they remain unredeemed through their own fault. The sealed therefore are only redeemed, because they alone by faith receive the grace of redemption, through the grace of election, which God vouchsafed them (not to the others) from all eternity. David Pareus, A Commentary Upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist, John (Amsterdam: Printed by C.P. Anno, 1644), 333-334.

But this resemblance is also cool again, because Paraeus cites Aquinas from his commentary on Revelation and from the same verse range:

Thomas on the 5. Of the Apoc. writes on this manner.

Of the redemption purchased by the passion of Christ we may speak in a double sense & signification, either respecting the sufficiency thereof; & so his passion redeemed all because as concerning himself he delivered all. For his passion is sufficient to serve & redeem all, yea if there were a thousand worlds as says Anselm in his 2. book [?] 14. Chapter Cur Deus Homo &c: or else we speak thereof respecting the efficacy, & in this sense he redeemed not all by his passion, because all cleave not fast unto the Redeemer, and therefore feel not nor perceive the virtue of redemption.

Lets go back to Calvin and Bullinger but another comment.

Bullinger:

And he who outwardly receives the sacrament by true faith, not only receives the sign, but also, as we said, enjoys the thing itself. Moreover, he obeys the Lord’s institution and commandment, and with a joyful mind gives thanks for his redemption and that of all mankind, and makes a faithful memorial to the Lord’s death, and gives a witness before the Church, of whose body he is a member. Assurance is also given to those who receive the sacrament that the body of the Lord was given and his blood shed, not only for men in general, but particularly for every faithful communicant, to whom it is food and drink unto eternal life. The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XXI “Of the Holy Supper of the Lord.”

Calvin:

“Which is shed for many.” By the word “many” he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke–Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated. John Calvin, Mark 14:24.

Later I will type out Gualther’s comments on Acts 20:28 with Calvin’s comments on the same, showing how they are nearly identical.

The cumulative evidence that there was a common family theology is building up quite solidly.

David

II To Whom Sins be forgiven.

If we consider of them which do purchase the forgiveness of their sins by the grace of God, there is but a small number of them, even as it is of the elect in respect of the reprobate, whose sins be withhold for evermore. But we seek not here to whom this grace of forgiveness does befall, but rather to whom it is to be taught and set forth. We can not here appoint upon any certain persons, to whom only this forgiveness of sins is to be preached. All men be generally called unto it, both Jews and Greeks, learned and unlearned, wise and foolish, rich and poor, old and young, men and women. For like as God enclosed all under unbelief that he might have mercy upon all, so he will have this grace of his mercy to be set forth to all men: “So God loved the world,” (says our Saviour), “that he gave his only begotten son, that everyone which believes in him should not perish, but have life everlasting.” And in the first epistle of John, we read this: “But in case any man do sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation not for our sins, and for our sins only, but for the sins also of the whole world. I think that there is meant by the world, all mankind, by which the world does consist, from the beginning of it, until the end. Therefore when it is said, that God gave his son for the world, and that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world what else is meant, but that the grace of forgiveness of sins is appointed unto all men, so that the Gospel thereof is to be preached unto all creatures? In this respect the gentle love of GOD towards man is set forth unto us to be considered, whereby he would not have any to perish, but all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. But for all that, this general grace has some conditions going withal, of which we will speak hereafter. 

Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578), 577-8.

David: Its official, I am converting to Muscularism. I am henceforth a Muscularite.

Within this one quotation he has related all the critical parts: The unlimited expiation; the world in j3:16 and 1j2:2 as all mankind; the general “gentle” love of God; and general grace. The ideas expressed here are almost identical to that found in Calvin, and many others. Some of this reminds me of Scudder’s comments, as well as comments by Stephen Charnock.

David

Musculus:

By these and other like testimonies, it is manifest, that the same other mean whereby we do apprehend and take hold of the grace of Justification, is neither works, neither the worthiness of any quality of course, but faith in Christ, unto which our salvation and everlasting life also is attributed by many testimonies of the doctrine of the Gospel: which because we may find them everywhere, we will not allege them at this present. And they be¹ to be understood not only of the historical faith, albeit that the same be requisite also, but of the same Faith, whereby in believing the promises of the Gospel, we do give up ourselves wholly, with sure trust unto Christ our Saviour and redeemer. For by this faith wherein we be joined unto Christ, we be discharged of our sins, we be delivered from the guilt of them, and we be justified and that freely by grace. Wherefore they do teach aright, which do call this faith, the sure trust, leaning to the promises of the Gospel. And we may find this in the sense of this word, not seldom, but very often in the Scriptures: where to believe is used, for to trust, and faith for trust: nor there is no other sense that does agree with this saying, when it is said faith does justify: for it is most manifest, that Justifying comes not by historical faith: for so the devil should be saved also, for he believes and doubt nothing of the history of Christ. Wherefore it must needs be, that we must understand that this saying is concerning the trust, whereby in believing we do assuredly trust in the promises of the Gospel, that we be redeemed by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God the Father. Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578), 547-8.

What is interesting is that earlier I posted Musculus’ defintion of the Gospel. Here it is again:

So Christian men may also most rightly call the memory of the Lord’s death. This by the way of the name of the Gospel, in what sense it was used of men heretofore.

But as concerning Christian men, this name is so passed over unto them, that it is become unto them most frequent and common, and of good right also most proper and peculiar for nothing in all the world, from the beginning therefore unto the end, befell mankind thereof unto the same which began to be told and preached in every place through the whole world under the name of Christ. That is, that mankind is redeemed by the death of the only begotten Son of God, & that the forgiveness of all men’s sins and life everlasting, is ready for all them that do believe in him. Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578), 337.

There are a lot of interesting theological and historical material here for the honest seeker of truth.  What is now undeniably clear is that the sort of gloss Rainbow would impose upon Calvin–that somehow its okay to pastorally say even unbelievers are redeemed, even tho he, Calvin, never theologically believed that was the case at all²–for that is clearly denied by Musculus. Earlier in his Common Places, Musculus asserts that faith only believes in things which are true.

The other interesting thing is that see how for Musculus (as it was for Zanchi) saving faith is an assurance that Christ died for me. However, this doctrine or construction was denied later in the 17^th century as such knowledge can only be known by what was then called a ‘reflex act of faith.’ This denial and configuration of what faith is, further sustains the reality that there was a profound reworking of the early Reformation’s atonement doctrine.

Lastly, this also impacts the development of the later doctrine of Assurance. Post-Calvin, assurance was located in the syllogismus practicus, or the practical syllogism: the empirical and inductive syllogism a believer was to invoke in order to ground his assurance of salvation.

David

Here is an interesting snippet. I have a long-standing and almost thorough disagreement with Herman Hoeksema and the PRC; Recall I used to be a member of the EPC (Australia) which has a “less than sister church” relationship with the PRC of America.

This book by de Jong was very helpful when I first read it.  What de Jong notes here is that Hoeksema correctly identifies the basic elements of an offer, if the offer is to be sincere etc.

De Jong:

Hoeksema has always maintained that there are four indispensable elements which constitute the idea of offer. First of all, the term contains the idea of an honest and sincere desire on the part of the offerer to give something. Without such an earnest will and desire on the part of him who makes the offer, the offer would not be honest or upright. Second, there is included in the idea of offer the fact that the offerer possesses that which he extends to some person(s). In the event of acceptation the offerer must be in a position to impart that which is offered. Third, the offerer reveals by his offer the desire that it be accepted. This means that God “de ernstige begeerte openbaart, dat alle menschen zullen zalig worden, ieder, hoofd voor haofd on ziel voar ziel.”  Four, the one who offers something does so either unconditionally, or upon the condition that he is aware that the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition. This would imply that God knows that all men are able to accept the offer of grace. If anyone of these elements is eliminated from the concept, the idea of offer is no longer retained. It is apparent that so conceived the idea of a gospel offer would deny such Biblical truths as unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity and irresistible grace.

A.C. de Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K Schilder, (Franeker: T. Wever, 1954), 43.  [C.f., de Jong on the offer.]

There is a lot here one can unpack. Assertion one is self-evidently true. Imagine I offer a person a ride from after church. My desire is to bless them and be a blessing to them. In other words, my offer has to be  well-meant.  My motives must be benevolent. However, if that is not the case, my motives are out of line with my revealed intention. I am being double-minded. I am being insincere and hypocritical.  The second assertion is intuitively true too. I offer this man a ride home, but have no means to take him home. The third assumption is intuitively true too. I offer this person a ride home but secretly I wish they don’t accept my invitation. That again is hypocrisy.  And the last is intuitively too. Here we have to get into the distinction between natural and moral ability of course. As the writer says, and as Paul repeats, in order to take up my offer, the man does not have to ascend to heaven or to the depths, that is perform some insurmountable task in order to benefit from my offer. Of course, Hoeksema expressed condemned a conditional offer or a conditional promise to all.

Hoeksema was a genius (I’ve been reading his works for over a decade now, even though I strongly disagree with him). He spotted the core elements of many issues.  The problem is, his solutions were skewy.  Hoeksema saw what an “offer” entailed. So did John Gill. Gill rejected the “offer” for much the same reasons as did Hoeksema. Today, some wish to use the language of “offer” but smuggle in the theology of Gill and Hoeksema. Indeed, many are rather Gillite Calvinists with a Gillite theology, but using the language of traditional Reformed theology. How postmodern is that? They speak of affirming the offer, but deny its essential constituent elements. For as Heoksema realized, if you deny one of the four elements, there can be no sincere offer, let alone a well-meant one. And being a hypercalvinist, he argued that there are, indeed, grounds for denying these critical elements: God does not love all, there is no atonement for all in any sense, and men do not have the ability to respond, according to him.

If anyone wants to read the best response to Gillite hypercalvinism, Andrew Fuller’s, “The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation,” is the best read. Fuller completely dismantles the hypercalvinism of men like Gill and Brine.

David