Genuine General Call

[CatRandy]

I've been studying Calvinism for several months, but there are a few things that don't make sense to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone could help me to understand. I understand that the atonement is limited to the Elect, and that God issues a general call to all mankind, and that this call is a genuine call to all, including the reprobate. However, how can there be a genuine call to people for whom there is no atonement? Even though the Atonement could cover everyone who ever lived, the intent of the Atonement is limited to the Elect.

CatRandy

 

[JM]

I've been studying Calvinism for several months, but there are a few things that don't make sense to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone could help me to understand. I understand that the atonement is limited to the Elect, and that God issues a general call to all mankind, and that this call is a genuine call to all, including the reprobate. However, how can there be a genuine call to people for whom there is no atonement? Even though the Atonement could cover everyone who ever lived, the intent of the Atonement is limited to the Elect.

CatRandy

Not all Calvinists are in agreement on this issue. Some believe that God desires to save all and therefore the Gospel is a general call and offer of salvation to all. This is sometimes called Hypo-Calvinism. Others, myself included, believe the Gospel is not an offer of salvation in any sense but a proclamation of how Jesus Christ died to save sinners. Those who believe and call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The proclamation of the Gospel is free to all and has a twofold effect. Firstly, the elect are called to belief and secondly the reprobate condemned.

But as I wrote above…not all Calvinists are in agreement on this issue.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

This might be helpful in understanding why some Calvinists reject the well-meant offer or free offer of the Gospel:

Source

Why did Hoeksema refuse to subscribe to the doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel even though the price he paid was exclusion from the Christian Reformed Church? Why do the Protestant Reformed Churches repudiate the offer today?

Hoeksema opposed the doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel that was taught by the Christian Reformed Church in the first point of common grace of 1924. The teaching of the first point is that God has a "favorable attitude...toward humanity in general and not only toward the elect," that there is "a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general," and that "the general offer of the gospel" is an expression of that favor of God to all men...

The well-meant offer teaches that God goes out in the preaching to many sinners in love and grace, desiring to save them and trying to save them, but failing to save them... The issue at stake in the doctrine of the offer is nothing less that the truth of sovereign grace: "The standpoint of 1924 is Arminian. That the preaching of the gospel is common grace—this is the Arminian conception." In opposition to the well-meant offer, Hoeksema held, not that there is not a call to all who hear the gospel but that "the preaching of the gospel is grace only for the elect, and that is not and can never be anything else for the reprobate than the judgment and a savor of death to death." This is the issue: this is "our difference with the Christian Reformed Church."

The well-meant offer teaches that God's grace is universal. The Protestant Reformed Churches maintain that God's grace is particular, specifically now in the preaching of the gospel. The truth that God's grace is particular is essential for a confession of the sovereignty of grace. If God's grace in the preaching is for everybody, it is not sovereign grace. And the truth that God's grace in the preaching of the gospel is particular, sovereign grace is the very heart of the Reformed faith...

It is indisputable that the Protestant Reformed Churches' rejection of a well-meant offer and a conditional promise is not and never was motivated by hyper-Calvinism, that is, by a refusal to preach the gospel to every creature, a refusal to call every hearer to repentance and faith, and a refusal to proclaim to everyone the promise that whoever believes shall be saved. This was simply not the issue. Rather, the issue in the doctrine of a well-meant offer of the gospel is this: does God love and have a gracious attitude toward everyone who hears the preaching, and does He in the preaching desire to save everyone? As Hoeksema never wearied of asking, "What grace does the reprobate receive in the preaching?"...

That which is objectionable in the "free offer of the gospel" or "well-meant offer," is not the teaching that the church must preach to everyone and must call all hearers to faith in Jesus Christ. But the error of the doctrine of the offer, and the reason why a Reformed man must repudiate it, is its teaching that the grace of God in Jesus Christ, grace that is saving in character, is directed to all men in the preaching of the gospel. Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, and expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner. (end quote)

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I've been studying Calvinism for several months, but there are a few things that don't make sense to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone could help me to understand. I understand that the atonement is limited to the Elect, and that God issues a general call to all mankind, and that this call is a genuine call to all, including the reprobate. However, how can there be a genuine call to people for whom there is no atonement? Even though the Atonement could cover everyone who ever lived, the intent of the Atonement is limited to the Elect.

CatRandy

It is genuine because of the way assurance works, I can have assurance that I am one of the elect, but this does not give me assurance concerning others. We cannot judge who is and is not elect by "fruits" as some might think, because these same "fruits" may be counterfeited in the non-elect, and there are many deceivers falsely putting on the pretense of "fruits" (this includes false religions). The problem is that in the eyes of man, even those who are elect looking with eyes of flesh, can plainly see even the wicked love their own children, and worldly people love worldly people, they do "good" in the eyes of man for whatever motives, but without saving faith in Christ. These works for whatever they're worth, do not please God, they are not the kind of works which Christ speaks of pertaining to the elect. So, with this in mind, the call is general and genuine because the preacher does not know who will or will not respond to the gospel call, he does not know who the elect are, such that he could pluck them out of the masses of non-elect. Finally the call should be general (though can be both general and particular) because God commands it and designed the message to be given in such manner. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Others, myself included, believe the Gospel is not an offer of salvation in any sense but a proclamation of how Jesus Christ died to save sinners. Those who believe and call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The proclamation of the Gospel is free to all and has a twofold effect. Firstly, the elect are called to belief and secondly the reprobate condemned.

I am in agreement with you. Even just looking at this from two attributes of God, his omniscience and immutability, it should be obvious, any supposed "offer" if only an "offer" in the eyes of man, because it is all settled in the mind of God, before the foundation of the world even.

 

[CatRandy]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems there are 3 areas to consider in this.

1. The intent of the general call. Was the intended audience the lost, or are they in effect hearing a message not really intended for them.

2. Genuine in regards to whom? Is it a genuine call in regards to the Lord who commanded that the call be made, or is it genuine in regards to those proclaiming the Gospel in that they don't know who is or is not Elect?

3. What is the message of this general call. If the general call is an offer of salvation, then it could not be a genuine offer from God who knows which are or are not Elect, but it could be a genuine offer from those proclaiming the message who don't know which are which. If it is not an offer of salvation, but rather proclaiming God's command for all to repent and believe, then the general call could be genuine on God's part since He is not limited in His authority to command by our moral inability to obey, but I'm not sure it's possible to separate the command to repent and believe from the promise of salvation in relation to the intent of the general call. The only other option I can see is for the message of the general call to be the command to repent and believe with the promise of salvation to those who obey, but that makes salvation a result of obedience to the command.

Here's something to consider. If all of the Elect had a glowing "E" on their foreheads, would there still be a genuine general call?

Yours in Christ,
CatRandy

 

[JM]

We said it wasn't an offer of salvation...that does away with the idea of an "offer" of salvation.

 

[CatRandy]

We said it wasn't an offer of salvation...that does away with the idea of an "offer" of salvation.

This external call includes, (1.) A declaration of the plan of salvation. (2.) The promise of God to save all who accede to the terms of that plan. (3.) Command, exhortation, and invitation to all to accept of the offered mercy. (4.) An exhibition of the reasons which should constrain men to repent and believe, and thus escape from the wrath to come. All this is included in the gospel. For the gospel is a revelation of God's plan of saving sinners.
Charles Hodge Systematic Theology Vol 3 Chapter 14 Section 2

If it's not an offer of salvation, Charles Hodge seems to think it is in invitation to accept the offered mercy. However is it genuinely offered to the non-Elect?

 

[JM]

The London Baptist Confession of1689 reads;

ch.14
“The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,”

“By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself”

“and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed”

ch.15
“This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin”

The idea that all men everywhere must repent is biblical, BUT, the repentance required of the reprobate is legal. All men are guilty of breaking God’s law and therefore must repent of their deeds and they never do. Sure, unsaved people feel guilt or regret over their sins but they still rage against the holy and living God. Only the elect are given the “evangelical grace” of repentance and faith that leads to eternal life.

John Gill’s comments on Acts 20.21 are useful in understanding this subject and so, I post them below.

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,…. To the Jews first in their synagogue, and then to both Jews and Greeks, or Gentiles, in the school of Tyrannus; opening and explaining to both the nature and use, urging and insisting upon, and proving by undeniable testimonies the necessity,

of repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ: the former of these is not a legal repentance, but an evangelical one; which flows from a sense of the love of God, and an application of pardoning grace and mercy, and is always attended with hope, at least of interest in it, and as here with faith in Christ Jesus: it lies in a true sight and sense of sin, as exceeding sinful, being contrary to the nature and law of God, and a deformation of the image of God in man, as well as followed with dreadful and pernicious consequences; and in a godly sorrow for it, as it is committed against a God of infinite purity and holiness, and of love, grace, and mercy; and it shows itself in shame for sin, and blushing at it, and in an ingenious confession of it, and forsaking it: and the latter of these is not an historical faith, or an assent of the mind to whatsoever is true concerning the person, office, and grace of Christ; but is a spiritual act of the soul upon him; it is a looking and going out to him, a laying hold and leaning on him, and trusting in him, for grace, righteousness, peace, pardon, life, and salvation. Now these two were the sum of the apostle’s ministry; this is a breviary or compendium of it; a form of sound words held fast and published by him: and as these two go together as doctrines in the ministry of the word, they go together as graces in the experience of the saints; where the one is, there the other is; they are wrought in the soul at one and the same time, by one and the same hand; the one is not before the other in order of time, however it may be in order of working, or as to visible observation; repentance is mentioned before faith, not that it precedes it, though it may be discerned in its outward acts before it; yet faith as to its inward exercise on Christ is full as early, if not earlier; souls first look to Christ by faith, and then they mourn in tears of evangelical repentance, Zec 12:10 though the order of the Gospel ministry is very fitly here expressed, which is first to lay before sinners the evil of sin, and their danger by it, in order to convince of it, and bring to repentance for it; and then to direct and encourage them to faith in Christ Jesus, as in the case of the jailer, Ac 16:29 and this is, generally speaking, the order and method in which the Holy Spirit proceeds; he is first a spirit of conviction and illumination, he shows to souls the exceeding sinfulness of sin, causes them to loath it and themselves for it, and humbles them under a sense of it; and then he is a spirit of faith, he reveals Christ unto them as God’s way or salvation, and works faith in them to believe in him. Moreover, these two, repentance and faith, were the two parts of Christ’s ministry, Mr 1:15 and are what, he would have published and insisted on, in the preaching of the word, Lu 24:47 so that the ministry of the apostle was very conformable to the mind and will of Christ.

 

[JM]

A video I post on YouTube:

“All descriptions of Arminians and workmongers seem to regard repentance as a something preceding spiritual life, and exacted as a condition of salvation, but the Scriptures assure us that it is the gift of God, and that it is a sense of the goodness of God entertained by quickened sinners that leads them to repentance; a vital principle in them leading them to a godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto life, which needeth not to be repented of. The repentance enjoined on these converts at Pentecost, was that they should renounce Judaism, confess their sins, and rely alone on the risen Redeemer for salvation, to take his yoke, own his name, obey his commands, follow him as their leader, and honor him as their God and Savior.” (Repentance, 1865)

“From the confused theory of Arminians of a legal repentance grows also the doctrine of obligatory repentance. That repentance which is unto life and is connected with godly sorrow is the gift of God; it proceeds from a godly principle implanted in the heart, and which cannot possibly flow from an ungodly source. Any sorrow or repentance that could come from an ungodly sinner’s heart, or from any sinner’s heart before a godly principle is therein implanted, would be like the fountain from whence it emanates; ungodly. We search the law and gospel both in vain to find this obligatory repentance which is in so great demand among all the legal work-mongrel tribes of the Arminians. We do not wonder that our dear brother’s mind has been puzzled and perplexed to bring the obligation of repentance upon unregenerate sinners. We might as well speak of their obligation to remit their own sins as to procure their own repentance, seeing Christ alone is exalted to be a Prince and Savior, for to give, both the one and the other unto Israel.

It would be equally as proper and scriptural to speak of their obligation to be saved, to go to heaven, and to make themselves sons and heirs of God. But, does man’s inability to repent, or to believe, or even to keep from sinning, relieve him from his obligation to do so? Certainly not, if it can be found that such obligations are upon him. Now the sinner is one that has sinned. Sin is the transgression of the law; but where has the law under which the unregenerate sinner is held, either required him to repent or believe the gospel? The law truly forbids him to transgress, and holds him answerable for every transgression. Sin, not a want of repentance or faith, is what the sinner is condemned for.” – Gilbert Beebe (Repentance, 1865)

I’m not trying to start a big fight or cause a lot of fuss but I found a sermon on the subject of Duty Faith. Never heard one preached before. Sure, I’ve read works contra Duty Faith but never heard a sermon on it.

What is Duty Faith? “…the duty of all men where the gospel comes, to repent and believe unto salvation…” John Foreman

It is argued that faith cannot be a duty of the reprobate or unregenerate sinner as a condition of salvation, rather, our faith is the gift of God after regeneration. (please correct me when I error) Foreman uses a covenantal argument against the idea of Duty Faith. I’ll leave you with a quote from Foreman’s work and the sermon by Pastor Smith.

The error of mixing the covenants: Now I cannot see what the obligations of the Eden covenant of nature can have to do with faith in this covenant of mercy, by a surety’s blood, as a duty; because the most perfect obedience maintained in Eden could in no way, from its very nature, be any title, or even any sort of introduction, to any of the mercy favours: of this covenant. And as the Eden covenant, which was but a fair legal contract between sinless man and his holy Maker, could not, from its very nature, embrace one single salvation blessing of this covenant of mercy, so neither could it devolve one single obligation on man, in regard to the parental and household requirements of this covenant of forgiving mercy to those whom the law of that covenant at once condemns.

The law of works is the standard of the natural man’s legal, and of the sinful man’s penal, obligations to God, according to the Eden covenant; and by that law it was, and is, every natural man’s duty to be naturally pure and sinless, as Adam was at the first, and all in him, and had power so to be; but it is no man’s duty to be a saint in Christ Jesus; it is a great favour to be so, and it is divine favour only that makes any man to be so, and it is the power of divine favour only, that makes any poor sinner to know, believe, rejoice, and live to God under the truth of it. And this being on so different a foundation altogether to that of the natural covenant with pure human nature in Eden, duty faith in this covenant of mercy to the guilty could never come as an obligation on any man from that covenant with sinless nature; which will not even now know any thing but innocency or death; repentance and faith being no part of the obedience or state of man required by the law of works.

And we might very property ask, are the favours of the covenant of life and peace universal, while the covenant itself is undeniably declared to be particular? Are election, predestination, redemption, justification, peace, pardon, sanctification, and final glory in heaven with Christ, universal favours? Because if they are not, to believe them so, Is to believe a lie; and to teach so, is to teach a lie; and to teach any one thing that justly leads to the conclusion that all the rest, to be consistent, must be universal, is but little better than at once teaching of lies altogether. And it must be very fallacious to talk about universal faith without universal interest, since faith and interest are inseparable, according to the word of God. And since faith is the sign of interest, by the promise of God, can it be the duty of all to believe and wear the sign universally, of what is not universally warranted by promise? And are the promises universal? Because, no promise, no ground for faith; for even grace does not give faith where it has not given promise. Or is it the duty of all men to believe unto salvation in such a way, as that by believing they may make that eternally general, which God himself has made eternally particular and discriminate?

Below you’ll find a sermon preached by Pastor Jared Smith of The Baptist Church, Kensington Place London.

 

[JM]

This one is for twin...

Huntington, “The perfect work of a gospel minister is doing the work of an evangelist, or the work of a minister of the Spirit; and he that doth it must be one that is born again, and interested in the love, favour, and finished salvation of Christ, and in union with him, who shines in his light, stands in his strength, burns in his love, and enjoys life, righteousness, peace, and rest, in him; and so spreads the truth of his word, the power of his hand, the favour of his name, the mysteries of his kingdom, and the benefits of his cross; and by enforcing these things influences others, by the good hand of God upon him, who promises to give testimony to the word of his grace, and to no other doctrine: this is a divine work, and therefore called a good work, because it brings souls to believe in Jesus, to love him, and to worship God in spirit and in truth, to glorify him, and to ascribe the glory of their salvation to him. But the works here complained of are of another sort; timeserving, walking in craftiness, and handling, the word of God deceitfully; which is legalizing and carnalising of them, beginning in the spirit and ending in the flesh, confessing truth, and publishing it at the beginning of their profession, and then departing from it, and condemning it; swearing allegiance to the king, and then preaching against him; subscribing the Articles of the Church, and then lampooning them and all that maintain them. These are the works of the present day.

“Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent.” How the church received, and what she at first heard, may be seen in the above mentioned articles, predestination and election, redemption by the blood of Christ, pardon and peace by his sacrifice, and justification by faith in Christ righteousness; as may be seen in Luthers works, in Calvin’s, and in the Church Articles: these are the things which used to be heard and received, but can we say that these are held fast in our days? No; so far from it, that the generality of professors wage, war with every one that preaches them and the experience of them, and with every one that professes them and abides by them. The Lord’s exhortation to us is, to hold fast,

“And repent,” for the generality of professors are without repentance, and altogether ignorant of it, and so are the generality of preachers; they think it consists of a little natural sorrow, springing, from self-love, a sense of guilt, and fear of future punishment; but this is the repentance of Judas when the devil entered into him; whereas true repentance follows upon the devil’s departure out of the sinner. True repentance is not pressed, squeezed, nor extorted, by the workings and violent struggles of guilt and wrath, fear and torment; but it flows out under the sin-pardoning, operations of the Spirit of love, accompanied with the blood of atonement, attended with a believing view of Christ and of interest in him, and of God’s appearing reconciled and well pleased in Jesus, shining upon us in his blessed face, accepting us in the beloved, and blessing us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him: this is repentance unto life, and is the gift of God. In the next words our Lord calls for watchfulness.” Discoveries and Cautions from the Streets of Zion

 

[CatRandy]

to JM

I think you're missing the whole point of my initial question. I have no doubt that repentance and faith are gifts of grace and not works of man, but a genuine general (or external) call seems to have a missing point of logic to it.

1. God commands an general (external) call.
2. This call includes "(1.) A declaration of the plan of salvation. (2.) The promise of God to save all who accede to the terms of that plan. (3.) Command, exhortation, and invitation to all to accept of the offered mercy. (4.) An exhibition of the reasons which should constrain men to repent and believe (3.) Command, exhortation, and invitation to all to accept of the offered mercy. (4.) An exhibition of the reasons which should constrain men to repent and believe.
3. This call includes the non-elect.
4. Particular atonement shows that Christ died to save only His elect.
Therefore:
This would mean that God is making a genuine call to " save all who accede to the terms of His plan", when the people He's making the genuine call to have no Atonement from Christ because Christ didn't die for them because they were not elect.
So how can it be genuine?

The problem with Hoeksema is that in eliminating the external call, he's also eliminating common grace. Just because God doesn't have a salvific love for the non-elect doesn't mean that He lacks the basic love of creator toward His creation. If that were so, God in commanding us to love our enemies would be asking of us more than He is willing to do Himself.

CatRandy

 

[JM]

One more definition for you. Another video I posted on YouTube.

 

[JM]

I apologies for being terse. I’ve limited time to respond.
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
The external proclamation of the Gospel is the means by which the elect are called, regenerated, given faith, etc.

 

[CatRandy]

JM thanks for the videos. I'll watch them tonight at work

CatRandy

 

[JM]

I don't mean to flood you with info but I think it's important we have a working understanding of what legal and evangelical repentance, grace (common grace), faith, proclamation and general call, offer, duty faith, etc. mean. I don't believe the Gospel is an offer to the reprobate, that just doesn't make sense...but the preaching of the Gospel is the God given means by which the elect are saved.

A quote from Theopedia: Means of grace are instruments that God uses to convert and bless people, like the reading and preaching of the word, prayer, singing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; Acts 16:25; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), enjoying the beauty of God's creation, baptism, and the Lord's supper.

 

[JM]

 

[AMR]

There are no unfulfilled desires in God. The free offer--all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved--is clearly taught in Scripture. Such is the design of the call in keeping with the Scriptural fact that our Lord died for all kinds of people, not each and every people. The offer is sincere (well-meant), but restricted to the revealed will of God. So while understanding the clearly taught in Scripture design of the call, we must not presume to know the design of He who calls, for many are called, but few are chosen. The gospel does not require a person to believe he is saved by Christ before he believes. The Gospel provides the warrant to believe in Christ, with the promise of salvation and full forgiveness to them who believe. The promise is quite clear: all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. None who do so will be lost. Going beyond this is presuming to know the secret will of God and forbidden (Deut. 29:29).

The traditional Reformed view is that which found expression in the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that the virtue of Christ's death is offered to all men upon condition that they will believe. That is, Christ is dead for all hypothetically in the gospel offer. Hence all have a warrant to take Christ for their Savior without having to first settle the question of whether or not they are elect and Christ died for them. Whereas, the Reformed Calvinist offers God's love and grace to the sinner to be embraced by faith, whereas the Arminianizing Calvinist seeks to assure the sinner of that love and grace before he has believed, and makes this the warranting ground of the offer.

In other words, Arminianism seeks a warranting ground in a doctrine of "general grace." That is, of a certain, hand-wringing wistfulness on God's part that all men should be saved, which so far is a saving purpose—a purpose, however, that does not secure the actual salvation of any one. Rather this only puts it into the minister's power to say to every sinner, "God loves you." On the other hand, Calvinism only enables the minister to say, "God's love, with its graces, is offered to you in the Gospel."

The teaching of God's "universal love and will" is Amyraldian and Arminian.

 

[JM]

With respect AMR, I disagree.

History is a curious thing…

The Morrow Men, those who promoted the theology found in the Marrow of Modern Divinity and created the Marrow Controversy were condemned by the General Assemblies of the Scottish churches for introducing into Reformed theology the Arminian concepts. So, what did they do? They broke off and started their own church. Now "THE FREE OFFER" is consider "Reformed" even though it was condemned by a Reformed Assembly.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: SOURCE FOR THE NEXT THREE POSTS: http://www.reformedalberta.ca/History/Free_Offer/Free_Offer06.html

 

[JM]

The History of the Free Offer Chapter 6

The Marrow Controversy
In order to understand the Marrow controversy in its historical perspective, it is necessary to make a few remarks about the history of the Reformation subsequent to the Westminster Assembly.

Although the Reformation was never as strong in England as on the continent, due to the efforts in England to make a Protestant State Church from a Roman Catholic Church - which efforts differed from the Reformation on the continent where reformation took place by way of separation from the Romish Church nevertheless, Arminianism itself did not appear in England until 1595, when it was taught by Peter Baro, Margaret professor of Divinity at Cambridge. His teachings occasioned the formulation and adoption of the Lambeth Articles which were added, though never officially, to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. The Lambeth Articles made specific certain points of doctrine involved in the defense of the truths of sovereign grace over aginst Arminianism, which were less explicit in the Thirty-Nine Articles.39 In 1596 Baro resigned his position because of his views.

These same views were, however, taught and defended by others. We have noticed earlier how Amyrauldianism came into England and was taught by the Davenant School and represented at Westminster by the men who belonged to this school of thought. But the same ideas were taught by Richard Baxter (1615-1691).

In his doctrine of Christ and the atonement he was Grotian; in his teachings on salvation he was Amyrauldian and Arminian. He believed it his calling to fight a certain antinomianism that had appeared in the church, but he became in fact neo-nomian and taught justification by faith and the works of the new law.

It is of some interest to note in this connection that the charge of antinomianism is often an easy charge to make and was many times brought by Arminians in their opposition of the truth of justification by faith alone. When some in the church lived lax lives, certain opponents of the truth of sovereign grace were quick to find fault with the truth of justification by faith alone and blame this doctrine for wicked excesses among the people, when in fact, the problem lay elsewhere. Already the Heidelberg Catechism addressed itself to this problem in Question and Answer 64: "But doth not this doctrine (of justification by faith) make men careless and profane? By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness."

It is important to understand this because the question of antinomianism and neo-nomianism occupied an important place in the Marrow controversy.

However all that may be, Baxter was opposed by John Owen, especially in his famous book on the atonement: The Death of Death In the Death of Christ.40 In the introduction referred to in the footnote, J. I. Packer claims that Owen was writing against: 1) Classical Arminianism, 2) Amyrauldianism, and 3) The views of Thomas More. He also claims that Usher, Davenant, and Baxter, while holding to a modified Amyrauldianism, had not yet appeared in print with their views at the time Owen wrote his book. But, Packer insists, and correctly so, the book is not only about the atonement; it is also about the gospel.

"Surely all that Owen is doing is defending limited atonement?" Not really. He is doing much more than that. Strictly speaking, the aim of Owen's book is not defensive at all, but constructive. It is a biblical and theological enquiry: its purpose is simply to make clear what Scripture actually teaches about the central subject of the gospel the achievement of the Saviour. As its title proclaims, it is a "treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of Christ; with the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby." The question which Owen, like the Dort divines before him, is really concerned to answer is just this: what is the gospel? 41

Concerning the gospel Owen taught that the preacher may not preach that Christ died for each one who hears and that God's love is for each one.42 Man cannot save himself. Christ died for sinners. All who confess sin and believe in Christ will be received. And those who do confess sin and believe in Christ are those whom God has chosen from all eternity. All who hear the gospel face repentance and faith as a duty, but to this is always added a particular promise so that the general command which comes to all through the preaching is always accompanied by a particular promise which is made only to those who repent and believe, i.e., the elect.

The preacher's task says Owen, is to display Christ. In this connection, Packer claims that Owen held to the ideas of an offer and invitation..43 But this is not entirely true. Owen used repeatedly the word "offer," but, as we have noticed before, it can be used in a good sense -- as many early theologians used it. He used it in the sense of Christ presented, Christ portrayed, Christ set forth in the gospel -- a meaning which comes directly from the Latin root: offere. It is also true that Owen used the word "invitation," but used it in the sense of the invitation of a king, i.e., the command comes from the King Jesus to all who hear the gospel to repent from sin and turn to Christ. Yet Packer makes a point of it that Owen pressed home the idea, so important a part of Puritan thinking, that God through Christ urges upon all sinners to believe, and does this with the tenderest of entreaties and most urgent pleas.44

These issues were also to occupy the attention of the men who were involved in the Marrow controversy. And they were of particular concern in connection with the dispute over a book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity, which was first published by Edward Fisher in 1645 and republished in 1648 or 1649. The first part of the book, the part which is of particular concern to us, is written in the form of a conversation between Neophytus, a new convert to the faith, Nomista, who represents the position of antinomianism, and Evangelista, a pastor, who speaks the views of the author and expresses what Edward Fisher considered to be the truth of Scripture. It is therefore a discussion about the relation of the gospel to antinomianism and neo-nomianism.

The book did not attract a great deal of attention when it was first published, but came to the attention of the Scottish theologians in the early part of the eighteenth century under rather interesting circumstances.

The Presbytery of the Church of Scotland called the Auchterarder Presbytery was examining a certain candidate, William Craig, for licensure to the ministry. In the course of the examination he was asked to subscribe to the statement: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ." To this rather strange statement and clumsily worded article of faith William Craig refused to subscribe. Put into a bit more simple language, the expression simply meant that it was heretical to teach that it is necessary to forsake sin in order to believe in Christ. Or to put it yet differently: Orthodoxy says that one can come to Christ without forsaking sin. Because he refused to subscribe to this statement, William Craig was denied licensure to the ministry and the matter came to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for resolution. The statement under question became known as "The Auchterarder Creed."

The General Assembly, after long discussion, decided: 1) that subscription could not be required of any statement but what the Assembly itself required. The Auchterarder Presbytery was reprimanded for going beyond anything that the General Assembly had required of her ministers. 2) The creed of Auchterarder was condemned as being antinomian because it taught that repentance was not necessary to come to Christ. 3) At the same time, the Assembly also warned against the evils of denying the need for holiness (antinomianism) and warned against the teaching that good works are the basis for salvation (neo-nomianism).

While the Assembly condemned the Auchterarder Creed, the Presbytery itself was not disciplined because the members of the Presbytery gave to the creed a good interpretation, namely, that one must come to Christ with his sins to obtain pardon for them; else there was no point in coming to Christ. While the Assembly accepted this interpretation, it nevertheless insisted that the creed itself was capable of an antinomian meaning and ought to be condemned.

During the course of the discussion over this matter, a delegate by the name of Thomas Boston (famous for his book, Human Nature in its Fourfold State) leaned over and whispered to John Drummond that he knew a book which answered admirably all the points which were under discussion. He referred to The Marrow of Modern Divinity that he had picked up at a friend's house and read with great enjoyment. Shortly after the Assembly concluded its meetings those who were impressed with its contents republished the book.

Because of its popularity and doubtful teachings, the book soon became the object of official scrutiny, and the contents of the book were officially treated by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1720. After study, the book was condemned on the following grounds.

1) It held that assurance was of the nature of faith.

2) It taught a universal atonement and pardon in the cross. (While this point was not specifically discussed in the book, the Assembly considered it a necessary part of the teaching of the book that the universal offer of the gospel was a warrant to each man to receive Christ. It was at this critical point that the whole question of the offer of salvation entered the discussion.)

3) It taught that holiness was not necessary to salvation.

4) It taught that the fear of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be motives of obedience.

5) It held that the believer is not under the law as a rule of life.

While it is clear that the book was particularly condemned for its antinomian teaching, nevertheless, the point of major concern to us is the second point that involves the relation between the atonement of Christ and the free offer of the gospel.

There were many in the church that were dissatisfied with this condemnation of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Twelve such men, later called "The Marrow Men," protested this action of the Assembly. These twelve included, among others, such well-known theologians as Thomas Boston, James Hog, Traill, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine. A commission was appointed to examine the question. In the course of the investigation it became evident that the "Marrow Men" had, among other things, asserted that in condemning the universal offer of salvation, the Assembly had condemned the divine commission to preach to all men salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.45 It also became evident that the Marrow Men, while denying that they taught a universal atonement, nevertheless did exactly teach that the atoning work of Christ was universal in some sense. These men distinguished between a giving of Christ in possession and a gift of Christ as warranted men to receive Him. The former was limited to the elect; the latter was offered to all. In connection with this, they maintained that while the statement, "Christ died for all" is clearly heretical; it is sound and orthodox to teach that Christ is dead for all.

The commission reported to the General Assembly in 1722 where the original decision of 1720 was maintained and the Marrow Men were once again condemned for their view.46

There have been various interpretations given to the Marrow controversy, some of which we mention here in an effort to highlight the issues which were involved.