Theology Online: Theology, Back to the Basics

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

“The righteous shall see that, and shall rejoice.” The prophet now draws the conclusion, that so many evident tokens of God’s superintending and overruling providence could not transpire before the righteous without attracting their notice, and that their vision being illuminated by faith, these scenes are contemplated by them with unfeigned delight; while the wicked remain perplexed and mute. For he very judiciously makes a distinction between these two classes of persons. In whatever manner the wicked may be constrained to recognize God as the supreme ruler of the universe, nevertheless, in seeing they see not, and derive nothing from the sight, except that their conduct is rendered the more inexcusable. But the righteous are not only able to form a good and sound judgment of these events, they also spontaneously open their eyes to contemplate the equity, goodness, and wisdom of God, the sight and knowledge of which are refreshing to them. For the joy which they experience in this exercise is a pledge that their thus observing these things was the spontaneous effusion of their hearts. With regard to the despisers of God, it is not meant that they are so deeply impressed as truly to acknowledge that the world is under his superintending care, but that they are merely so far kept in check as not to presume to deny the existence of that providence as their natural inclination would lead them to do; or, at least, that they meet with a vigorous repulse whenever they attempt to speak in opposition to it. Although the judgments of God are before their eyes, yet is their understanding so darkened, that they cannot perceive the clear light. And this manner of speaking is more energetic than if it had been said, that the wicked themselves are become mute. In fact, they do not cease from murmuring against God’s dispensations of providence; for we see with what arrogance and contempt they set themselves in opposition to our faith, and have the hardihood to pour forth horrid blasphemies against God. This does not impeach the veracity of the prophet’s statement, that the mouth of wickedness is stopped, because, in fact, the more proudly and violently they assail God, the more notorious does their impiety appear. Besides, the joy here mentioned arises from this, that there is nothing more calculated to increase our faith, than the knowledge of the providence of God; because, without it, we would be harassed with doubts and fears, being uncertain whether or not the world was governed by chance. For this reason, it follows that those who aim at the subversion of this doctrine, depriving the children of God of true comfort, and vexing their minds by unsettling their faith, forge for themselves a hell upon earth. For what can be more awfully tormenting than to be constantly racked with doubt and anxiety? And we will never be able to arrive at a calm state of mind until we are taught to repose with implicit confidence in the providence of God. Moreover, it is declared in this verse, that God manifests his goodness to all men without exception, and yet there are comparatively few of them who benefit by it. Wherefore, when he formerly called upon all to celebrate the goodness of God, it was in order that the ingratitude of the majority of them might the more plainly appear. Calvin, Psalm 107:42.

Now this defence, offered in your name to all the godly, will we hope be a strong and effectual remedy for healing those that are curable as well as a wholesome antidote for the healthy and sound. The subject is worthy of study by the sons of God, lest they neglect their heavenly origin and birth. For because the Gospel is called the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, some have made this a pretext for obliterating the election of God. But it ought to have occurred to them to ask whence faith arises. Scripture everywhere declares that God gives to His Son those who were His, calls those whom He elects, and begets again by His Spirit those He had adopted as sons; and finally that those men whom He teaches inwardly and to whom His arm is revealed believe. Hence, whoever holds faith to be earnest and pledge of grace confesses that it flows from divine election as its eternal source. Yet knowledge of salvation is not to be demanded by us out of the secret counsel of God. Life is set before us in Christ, who not only makes Himself known in the Gospel but also presents Himself to be enjoyed. Let the eye of faith look fixedly in this mirror, and not try to penetrate where access is not open. Since this is the way, let the sons of God walk in it, lest, by flying higher than is right, they plunge themselves into a deeper labyrinth than they had wished. For the rest, as there is no other gate into the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ contained in the promises of the Gospel clearly set before us, it is the most crass stupidity not to acknowledge that the eyes of our mind are opened by God, since, before we were conceived in the womb, He chose us to be faithful. But it was the object of this impure and worthless fellow not only to destroy all knowledge of God’s election from the mind of men, but also to overthrow His power completely. This is clear from those mad dreams of his which you have, written by his own hand, in your public records. There he affirms that faith does not depend on election, but rather that election rests upon faith; that none remain blind on account of innate corruption of nature, since all are really illumined by God; and that we do God injustice in saying that those whom He does not condescend to illumine by His Spirit are passed by. He affirms that all men in general and equally are drawn by God, and that distinction only begins with obstinacy; and that when God promises to make hearts of flesh out of hearts of stone, all that is meant is that we are to be capable of receiving the grace of God, this being promiscuously offered to the whole human race, though Scripture clearly declares it to be the singular privilege of the Church. As for the providence of God by which the world is ruled, the godly should confess and hold to this, that there is no reason why men should make God associate in their sins, or in any way involve Him with themselves as participant of the blame. Scripture teaches that the reprobate are also instruments of God’s wrath, for by some He instructs His faithful in patience, and on others He inflicts the punishments which as enemies they merit. But this profane trifler contends that no act of God is just unless its plain reason lies before our eyes. Thus he removes the distinction between remote and proximate causes. He will not allow the sufferings imposed on the saintly Job to be considered the work of God, lest He should be made equally guilty with Satan and the Chaldaean and Sabaean robbers.

Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Author’s Preface, 50-51.

David: I liked these comments so I thought I would post them. Notice how Calvin wants to keep away from the decrees as a basis of knowing one’s salvation and election. It always strikes me that Calvin’s starting point has been completely flipped on its head. I wish so much that we could return to his way of seeing salvation and the Christian life.

David

Calvin:

Now I want to consider not so much what and how Pighius speaks, as how this worthless fellow may fall and lie buried under the ruins of his desperate impudence. So pious consciences will be reassured; for, as I know, they are often disturbed because of their inexperience. So I shall select from the almost unlimited stream of his loquacity whatever is specious, so that all may perceive that with all his speaking he says nothing. That Christ, the redeemer of the whole world, commands the Gospel to be preached promiscuously to all does not seem congruent with special election. But the Gospel is an embassy of peace by which the world is reconciled to God, as Paul teaches (II Cor 5.18); and on the same authority it is announced that those who hear are saved. I answer briefly that Christ was so ordained for the salvation of the whole world that He might save those who are given to Him by the Father, that He might be their life whose head He is, and that He might receive those into participation of His benefits whom God by His gratuitous good pleasure adopted as heirs for Himself. Which of these things can be denied? So the apostle pronounces the prophecy of Isaiah to be fulfilled in Him: Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me (Is 8.18; Heb 2.13). Christ Himself declares: All that the Father gave Me, I keep lest any perish (Jn 6.37). We read everywhere that He diffuses life only to members of His. And whoever will not allow that to be grafted into His body is a special gift has never read attentively the Epistle to the Ephesians. From this follows also a third thing: the virtue of Christ belongs only to the sons of God. Even those opposed to me  will concede that the universality of the grace of Christ is not better judged than from the preaching of the Gospel. But the solution of the difficulty lies in seeing how the doctrine of the Gospel offers salvation to all. That it is salvific for all I do not deny. But the question is whether the Lord in His counsel here destines salvation equally for all. All are equally called to penitence and faith; the same mediator is set forth for all to reconcile them to the Father-so much is evident. But it is equally evident that nothing can be perceived except by faith, that Paul’s word should be fulfilled: the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to all that believe (Rom I. 16). But what can it be for others but a savour of death to death? as he elsewhere says (I1 Cor 2.16). John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 102-103.

There are a couple are a few things here that need to be underlined. Firstly, the controlling premise of Pighius is that election and unlimited redemption and gospel offer (either or separately) are incompatible. Christ can not be the redeemer of the world if election is true; and vice versa. The irony is, is that this is the exact premise of many PRC-type hypercalvinists and others. Many today claim that Calvin could not have held to a doctrine of unlimited redemption, because he held to the doctrine of election. Of course this begs the question, and is never demonstrated to be so. So many of Calvin’s contemporaries never seemed to have had a problem here, such as Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli and so on.  Calvin does not “solve” Pighius’ dilemma by denying that Christ is the redeemer of the world, but by limiting the application of the redemption to the elect alone.

Secondly, Calvin says that in the gospel offer, not only is the universality of God’s grace evident, but that its purpose is salvific. For Calvin, the gospel offer to all is the salvation of the hearers. Cole translates this line as: “it is preached that those who hear might be saved,” [“Eternal Predestination,” in Calvin’s Calvinism, 94]. The claim that Calvin held that the gospel merely comes to the non-elect to condemn them is just plain false. What is more, it baffles me why so many hypercalvinists seem to rub their hands with glee at the suggestion that God sends the gospel of peace to men merely that they have an increased accountability and condemnation. That’s an evil God. I should add, that the claim that for the reprobate, the gospel is ill-meant is also a perversion of God. When a so-called Calvinist says this, every one of us, Arminians included, should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. That idea needs to be denounced and exposed at every possible turn.