by Rexford Semrad | Aug 11, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
An alternate solution
While I commend Johnson for defending the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, I am convinced that he is going about it the wrong way. The key to understanding the well-meant offer is not found by delving into the secret, decretive will of God and asking, “for whom did Christ die?” Rather, it is found in rightly upholding and believing the preceptive will of God.[1]
Quite simply, what God commands, He actually desires. When God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, He actually wants all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. When Jesus Christ invites sinners to come to Him, He really desires that they come to Him. The rationalism of the Hyper-Calvinist declares that this cannot be so, because we cannot say that God wants what He has not decreed. But to defend God’s decretive will by denying His preceptive will is not biblical.
Allow me to illustrate. God commands all men to be faithful to their wives. So if a man came to us and asked, “Does God want me to cheat on my wife?” we would emphatically reply, “Of course not! He has commanded you not to commit adultery.” We would not say, “Let’s wait and see. If God has decreed that you will cheat on your wife, you will, and then we will know that He wanted you to.” The fact that God’s decree is His will cannot be allowed to negate the fact that God’s command is His will. The implications of the idea that God does not really desire what He commands can be devastating and we must never allow ourselves to be guilty of doing this.
So, in the very same way that I can tell every pregnant woman that God earnestly desires that she refrain from murdering her baby at Planned Parenthood, I can tell anyone and everyone that God sincerely desires that they repent of their sins and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the eternal welfare of their souls. We should not shrink back for a moment from the statement that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But neither should we shrink back from the truth that God has by His decree determined that most will not do so. Perhaps in eternity God will give us some insight as to how these two truths coincide, but for now, it is our place to hold them both in tension, for both truths are revealed in the Word of God.[2]
I am not proposing two opposing wills in God. We must be careful not to speak of God as if He were schizophrenic. William Perkins explains:
There is but one will in God. Yet God does not equally will all things, but wills all things in divers respects. He does not will and nil the same thing. He wills the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approves it as a good thing in itself. In that he commands it, and exhorts men to repent and believe and be converted. It is also good in that he gives them the outward means of their conversion. But, He does not will it in that he did not decree effectually to work their conversion. For God approves he may require many things which nevertheless for just causes known to himself, he will not do. [3]
Conclusion
Clearly, there are a number of points with which I am in disagreement with Johnson, and I cannot accept many of his arguments or his primary thesis. A more revealing title for the book would be He Died for the Reprobate. Yet I would not hesitate to recommend this book (with obvious qualifications) to anyone who already has a solid understanding of the doctrines of grace. While I do not think Johnson’s arguments against John Owen’s [4] view of particular redemption actually hold water, I still think it is good for them to be heard. Too many Calvinists today have never been exposed to anything but Owen’s view, and Johnson does a fantastic job of introducing his readers to viewpoints of other Reformed theologians.
I think many Calvinists who read this book will have a gut reaction to declare that Johnson is not really Reformed, that he is an Amyraldian or four-point Calvinist, and simply dismiss him out of hand. I strongly exhort anyone with this temptation to refrain from such conclusions! Just because Johnson rejects John Owen’s method of defending the doctrine of limited atonement does not mean he rejects the doctrine itself. He is not outside the Reformed tradition. A perusal of the original sources the he quotes for support will make this clear. Though they may not all support his thesis as much as he would like, he is not abusing them. Anyone still not convinced need only to read p. 402 in vol. 3 of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics.
Johnson is a talented writer as well as a faithful minister of the Word of God. He Died for Me has been the catalyst that caused me to give more thought than ever before to the atonement we have in Christ Jesus, and for that I am forever in his debt.
[1] Deut. 29:29.
[2] For an excellent discussion of this point, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 8, Section 3.
[3] William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will, (2012, Puritan Publications) Kindle Edition.
[4] Johnson brings up Owen sixty times in this book. It is clear that one of his primary goals is to reject Owen’s view of the atonement.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 9, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
The well-meant offer of the gospel
Johnson spends eleven pages on what he calls The Theological Argument for Universal Sufficiency (133-143). While statements like, “And if we are commissioned to call all to repentance and faith in the gospel, then there must have been a sufficient provision made for all, or otherwise God is commanding reprobates to place their faith in an empty promise” (141) are not troubling if understood in the sense that Owen does (part 4), it becomes a problem when we realize that for Johnson, sufficient provision demands that Christ died for all. He asks, “…how can we truthfully call all people to [the] gospel of Christ if Christ did not die for all people?” (135).
First of all, I would argue that the idea that coextensive provision is necessary for a genuine, sincere offer is false. Roger Nicole illustrates this point: “For instance, advertisers who offer some objects on the pages of a newspaper do not feel that honesty in any way demands of them to have a stock coextensive with the circulation figures of the newspaper. Really, the only requisite for a sincere invitation is this—that if the conditions be fulfilled, that which is offered will actually be granted.”[1] In gospel proclamation we do not tell all men Christ died for them, but we urge all men to come to Christ with the sure and certain promise that every sinner who comes to Him in faith will find a perfect, sufficient and effectual Savior who will never cast him out.
Perhaps a more important point is that I do not believe Johnson’s solution actually solves his own problem. If we cannot truthfully call all people to the gospel of Christ if Christ did not die for all people, then how can we truthfully call all people to the gospel of Christ if Christ only died for all people in an organic manner, but His death is only ever made effectual in those who were already joined to him in federal union at the time of His death?
Johnson’s perceived need to tell all men that Christ died for them is not shared by many of his fellow Moderate Calvinists. In his notes on Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Thomas Boston is careful to explain that when Fisher says “Christ is dead for you” he does not mean “Christ died for you.” “Christ is dead for you” means that Christ is available to you, that if you turn to Him in faith you will most assuredly find a sufficient and effectual Savior.[2] He also makes this explicit statement, “Our Lord Jesus Christ died not for, nor took upon him the sins of, all and every individual man, but he died for, and took upon him the sins of, all the elect, (John 10:15, 15:13, Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25, Titus 2:14), and no other doctrine is here taught by our author touching the extent of the death of Christ.”[3]
Andrew Fuller urged preachers to take no regard to the secret things of God, such as particular redemption, when freely offering the gospel:
There is no contradiction between this peculiarity of design in the death of Christ, and a universal obligation on those who hear the gospel to believe in him, or a universal invitation being addressed to them. If God, through the death of his Son, have promised salvation to all who comply with the gospel; and if there be no natural impossibility as to a compliance, nor any obstruction but that which arises from aversion of heart; exhortations and invitations to believe and be saved are consistent; and our duty, as preachers of the gospel, is to administer them, without any more regard to particular redemption than to election; both being secret things, which belong to the Lord our God, and which, however they be a rule to him, are none to us. If that which sinners are called upon to believe respected the particular design of Christ to save them, it would then be inconsistent; but they are neither exhorted nor invited to believe any thing but what is revealed, and what will prove true, whether they believe it or not. He that believeth in Jesus Christ must believe in him as he is revealed in the gospel, and that is as the Saviour of sinners. It is only as a sinner, exposed to the righteous displeasure of God, that he must approach him.[4]
When Johnson asks, “[I]f Christ’s death is not sufficient for the salvation of all people, then on what basis does God promise to forgive all people?” (136), he is making a mistake. God nowhere promises to forgive all people! God promises to forgive all who come to Christ and trust in Him alone for their eternal salvation. Even if we take our cue from John 3:16, this is plain to see. For God loved the mass of wicked fallen sinners so much that He sent His only begotten Son, so that every single one of those wicked sinners who trusts in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. What makes this a genuine, bona fide offer that does not “push the dishonesty onto God” (137), is not that Christ died for all men in some manner that is only effectual for some of them, but that it is a promise that has never and shall never fail! Every sinner who comes to Christ will be saved, and we have no need to delve into the secret will of God to make that declaration, or to call men to Christ in honesty and sincerity.
Part 6
[1] Roger Nicole, “The Case for Definite Atonement,” Evangelical Theological Society Bulletin (Fall 1967), 207. Cited in Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An introduction to Calvinism (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008), 96.
[2] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009), 153.
[3] Ibid., 122.
[4] Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, in The Works of Andrew Fuller (East Peoria, IL: Versa Press, 1841; reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), 171.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 31, 2017 | Course offerings, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology
The following is Dr. Sam Waldron’s introduction to his lectures for our upcoming module:
In the historic documents which brought to its climax the confessional development sparked by the Reformation—the Westminster Confession (1644-46), the Savoy Declaration (1658), and the 1689 Baptist Confession—the free offer of the gospel is confessed in each in chapter 7 and in identical language. The Westminster Confession and its daughter and grand-daughter confessions each speak of “the covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners, life and salvation by Jesus Christ.”[1]
It is both the conviction and assumption of these lectures that the crux of the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel is God’s Indiscriminate Desire for the Salvation of Sinners. To put this in other words, at the core of the free offer of the gospel is what is called the “well-meant” offer of the gospel. Though it may be well to speak of the “well-meant” offer of the gospel for the sake of doctrinal clarity, I am jealous to affirm here that this is both the natural and necessary implication of the “free” offer confessed by the climactic Reformation confessions.
My conviction is that the “free” offer in the confessional documents is and must be understood as a “well-meant” offer. Though this affirmation may be defended at length (and will be by Dr. Daniel in his historical treatment in this course, it may be proper here for me to briefly mention the grounds upon which my conviction is based. I maintain that the “free” offer in the confessional documents is and must be understood as a “well-meant” offer for a number of reasons.
- It is, I think, the logical and necessary implication of speaking of a free offer. In fact, it seems to me that this is the implication of both the word, offer, and the word, free. “Offer” contains in it the notion of a proposal presented to someone which the one presenting it desires for him to accept. An offer not presented with such intent or desire would be regarded as insincere. What man proposes marriage to a woman without a desire that she should accept his proposal? What woman would regard such a proposal as authentic or genuine if it was not accompanied by the desire of the man for it to be accepted. The word, free, however, emphasizes the notion of a desire that one should take the offer presented. An offer is presented with the desire that it should be taken by the one to whom it is presented. A “free” offer accentuates such desire and the “well-meant” character of the offer by providing an extra incentive for the proposal to be accepted.
- That this is the meaning and implication of a “free offer” was generally recognized by the modern opponents of the free offer in the controversy over common grace in the Christian Reformed denomination in the controversy that came to its denominational culmination in 1924. The Protestant Reformed Churches denied the free offer because they properly understood that a free offer was a well-meant offer—an offer that contained common grace. So much is this the case that Herman Hanko referencing the first point of common grace adopted by the Christian Reformed Church at the synod of 1924 and writing in the official journal of the Protestant Reformed Churches can write:
In the discussions which followed the adoption of this statement of doctrine, the reference to the free offer was often called, “het puntje van het eerste punt.” (The main point of the first point.) While it is our intention to deal more specifically with this question at a later date, the point we wish to make now is that a denial of the free offer of the gospel is a part of the doctrinal confession of the Protestant Reformed Churches from their very beginning. This denial of the free offer of the gospel by the Protestant Reformed Churches has set them apart from almost every ecclesiastical fellowship.[2]
- That by the confessional free offer was intended a well-meant offer is the necessary conclusion to be reached from the historical backdrop of the climactic Reformed confessions. The high points of this backdrop (Calvin and the Canons of Dort) teach a free and well-meant offer. This is not the place for a detailed presentation of the evidence for this. Dr. Daniel will be providing such a presentation. It may be good, however, to illustrate the truth of this assertion. Perhaps the classic affirmation of the Free Offer by Calvin comes in a letter to Melancthon. There he says:
And it cannot be attributed to hallucination, that you, a man acute and wise, and deeply versed in Scripture, confound the election of God with His promises, which are universal. For nothing is more certain than that the gospel is addressed to all promiscuously, but that the Spirit of faith is bestowed on the elect alone, by peculiar privilege. The promises are universal. How does it happen, therefore, that their efficacy is not equally felt by all? For this reason, because God does not reveal His arm to all. Indeed, among men but moderately skilled in Scripture, this subject needs not to be discussed, seeing that the promises of the Gospel make offer of the grace of Christ equally to all; and God, by the external call, invites all who are willing to accept of salvation.[3]
- The classic assertion of the free and well-meant offer of the gospel by the Canons of Dort comes in The Second Head of Doctrine, Article 5 and The Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, Articles 6-8. The second reference bears comment. In Articles 6 and 7 gospel preaching and calls given to many who are not elect are described as “grace” and “so great and so gracious a blessing.” Article 8 then asserts, “As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly declared in His Word, what will be acceptable to him; namely, that all who are called, should comply with the invitation.” If this language does not assert a free and well-meant offer, one wonders how such an idea could be stated without using the exact or precise words.
To all this needs to be added a comment about the more recent history of Reformed truth. The resurgence of Reformed theology beginning in the 50’s and 60’s of the 20th Century can be traced in large part to Banner of Truth Trust; a Westminster Theological Seminary dominated by Cornelius Van Til and John Murray; and the revival of interest in the writing of Charles H. Spurgeon. In so far as this is true it is right to say that this resurgence of Calvinism was committed to the free and well-meant offer of the gospel.
In spite of all this and with the blossoming of wider interest in Reformed theology, there has come a denial of the well-meant offer of the gospel in recent years. It is this resurgence of a denial of the free and well-meant offer which has given birth in my mind to the necessity of this course and these lectures.
My lectures are not intended strictly speaking as a supplement to those of Dr. Daniel. It seemed better for us both to follow our own track in opening up this subject. I think we are of single mind on the subject, but perhaps such duplication as there may be between us will serve the student. Perhaps as well, whatever differences of emphasis there may be will also be of value to the student.
Outline of Dr. Waldron’s Lectures
Part 1: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Scriptural Exposition (from John 5:34)
Part 2: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Biblical Confirmation
Part 3: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Confessional Position
Section 1: The Explicit Assertion
Section 2: The Implicit Affirmation
Part 4: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Doctrinal Implications
Section 1: The Love of God
Section 2: The Will of God
Section 3: The Mystery of God
Part 5: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Major Objections
Section 1: The Objection from the Doctrine of Election
Section 2: The Objection from the Doctrine of Simplicity
Section 3: The Objection from the Fact of Anthropopathisms
Part 6: The Well-Meant Offer—Its Practical Applications
Section 1: The Warning against Rationalism
Section 2: The Warrant of Faith
Section 3: The Way of Preaching
It’s not too late to register! Register Here
[1]This language is found in chapter 7, paragraph 2, in the 1689, but in chapter 7 paragraph 3 in the Savoy and Westminster.
[2]Herman Hanko, The History of the Free Offer, accessed on the Internet July 21, 2017 http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Free%20Offer/Introduction.htm. Further confirmation of the Protestant Reformed denial of the free offer of the gospel may be seen in David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel: An Examination of the Well-Meant of the Gospel (The Reformed Free Publishing Company: Jenison, MI, 2014).
[3]Calvin, John, Selected Works of John Calvin, ed. by Henry Beveridge, trans. by Jules Bonnet (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), vol. V, p. 379f.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
