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.
by Sam Waldron | Dec 28, 2016 | Interviews, Reformed Theology
Questions 9-10: (SW – Sam Waldron, CD – Curt Daniel
SW: “In your view does the Confession teach the view of the free offer (7:2) and common grace (14:3) which you hold and defend?”
CD: “I agree with the 1689 in upholding the free offer of the Gospel (7:2) and common grace (14:3).”
1689:7:2 Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe
1689:14:3 This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
SW: “What is at stake in Reformed Baptists today continuing to hold clear views of the free offer of the gospel?”
CD: “Reformed Baptists must uphold the doctrines of grace as Biblical and not succumb to the temptation to misuse them in order to deny the free offer, Duty Faith or common grace. Once those truths are rejected, our evangelism suffers enormously. There is a tendency to lose zeal for lost souls, decrease in obedience to the Great Commission, and to lessen prayer for the lost. I have found that Hyper-Calvinism also breeds a dry, proud and moribund attitude, sometimes also legalism and an unhealthy introspection. We need to maintain the biblical balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I agree with great Calvinists in the past on these issues, such as Spurgeon and Edwards.”
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.
by Sam Waldron | Dec 27, 2016 | Interviews, Reformed Theology
Questions 4-8: (SW – Sam Waldron, CD – Curt Daniel)
SW: “I have talked with people who believe that in your dissertation you assume Amyraldianism or Four Point Calvinism as your own position. In reading your dissertation I could easily conclude the same. Is this assessment of your position true? If not, why not?”
CD: “I am neither 4 point Calvinist nor Amyraldian. At the time of my dissertation I bordered on those views but did not actually hold them.”
SW: “Have your views of the atonement developed since you wrote your dissertation? To be specific, are you now more comfortable with identifying yourself with limited atonement or particular redemption? Please explain why?”
CD: “Since then I have continued to research the subject. I hold to particular redemption (also called definite atonement or limited atonement). As I have been researching a book I am writing on the extent of the atonement, I am amazed at how many biblical proofs there are in favor of particular redemption—more than one may realize.”
SW: “With the increasing support for and commitment to the 1689 Baptist Confession, it has become an important touchstone in terms of Reformed Baptist orthodoxy. Do you hold the Confessional view on the subjects related to the atonement and the free offer of the gospel?”
CD: “I agree with the 1689 Confession in upholding particular redemption and the free offer of the Gospel.”
SW: “In your view does the Confession teach limited atonement or particular redemption?”
CD: “The 1689, like the Westminster Confession, teaches particular redemption, though not as explicitly as the 1644 Baptist Confession. Particular redemption may be found in the 1689 in 3:6 and 8:5 and 8:8.”
1689:3:6 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only
1689:8:5 The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.
1689:8:8 To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.
SW: “What does the Confession mean when it affirms particular redemption in 3:6 and 8:5 and 8? Is there any way in which you would like to supplement or qualify the confessional statements of particular redemption?”
CD: “As I hope to show in a book I am writing on the extent of the atonement, I would agree with the old formula that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect. I have discovered many leading Reformed scholars who taught that there is a universal dimension as well as a particular dimension to the atonement (Hodge, Shedd, Edwards, Iain Murray, many others). This is not Amyraldianism, for Amyraut taught that Christ died “equally” for all men. He does not seem to have placed any limitation in the atonement. I do. We need to delineate just what the universal dimension is without denying particular redemption.”
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.
by Sam Waldron | Dec 20, 2016 | Reformed Theology
Introduction:
I have been surprised over the last several years to sense a rise of views which I associate with Hyper-Calvinism or “Half-step Hyper-Calvinism.” Forty years ago I with my wife were new members of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids (now called Grace Immanuel Reformed Baptist Church). This church was one of only a handful of Baptist churches in the United States espousing the doctrines of grace. And we were staunch five-pointers. So we were called, of course, Hyper-Calvinists. We always thought this odd because to us five-point Calvinism was just Calvinism and thus could not be Hyper-Calvinism.
As the years wore on, the church grew. More and more of our members began to come from various Dutch Reformed denominations in the large Dutch Reformed community in Western Michigan. We began to be aware that there were folks in that large Dutch Reformed community who really did at some level deserve the name Hyper-Calvinists.
We had discovered the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It was the Confession of our church. In it were not only the doctrines of grace (including particular redemption). In it also we had discovered the doctrines of the free offer of the gospel (chapter 7, paragraph 2) and common grace (14:3). More study assured us that both these doctrines were in the original confessional statement of the doctrines of grace, the Canons of Dort.
Yet at least one of the local Dutch Reformed denominations not only denied the free offer and common grace. It was built on a denial of those doctrines. Its leaders continued in a vehement polemic against the free offer and common grace (Spurgeon’s so-called two track theology) which affirmed both the dimensions of God’s will (known variously as secret and revealed or better as decretive and perceptive).
For this reason, the leaders of RBCGR were frequently engaged in a two front war. We had to fight the Arminianism of the local Baptist churches and institutions, but also the Hyper-Calvinism or Half-step Hyper-Calvinism of the Dutch Reformed denomination mentioned above. We were confident that our Reformed Baptist brethren shared with us our position.
Now, however, I am aware of blogs and brothers which have if not verbally, at least virtually, have adopted substantially the views of the Hyper-Calvinism or Half-step Hyper-Calvinism mentioned above. Brother Curt Daniel has a couple of times invited me to speak at the yearly conference of his church in Springfield, Illinois. Since he wrote his dissertation on the subject of Hyper-Calvinism, I talked to him about my concerns. One of the results was the interview which I want to share with you in three blog posts that are to follow.
Dr. Sam Waldron
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.
