John Murray - Free Offer of the Gospel

John Murray author of The Free Offer of the Gospel

Those who have followed theearstohear's commentaries in recent years are no doubt familiar with our position that great errors in both doctrine and practice have been introduced among God's people by the false notion that the gospel is a well-meant offer of salvation to all of humanity. Perhaps no single work has been cited more often as definitive proof of this teaching than John Murray’s, The Free Offer of the Gospel. It is our opinion that this work clearly teaches that eternal salvation is conditioned upon acts that must be performed by men and that it is therefore not teaching salvation by sovereign grace but salvation by works.  

Murray’s argument is fundamentally based on about a dozen passages of scripture: Matthew 5:44-48, Acts 14:17, Deuteronomy 5:29; 32:29, Psalm 81:13ff, Isaiah 48:18, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34, Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11, Isaiah 45:22, and II Peter 3:9. This commentary endeavors to demonstrate that none of these scriptures support the assertion that the gospel is a sincere or free offer of salvation to all of humanity.

The first warning signs that Murray's theology rests upon an Arminian foundation are manifest in statements such as...

“…the salvation [eternal salvation, teth] to be gained through compliance…” (p.4)

“…the blessed result [eternal salvation, teth] to be achieved by compliance…” (p.4)

“…he desires them to comply with the indispensable conditions of salvation.” (p.5)

All of these phrases make it clear that in Murray’s soteriology, man’s destiny is contingent upon personal acts of “compliance” which meet the “indispensable conditions” of eternal salvation. In stark contrast, the sovereign grace position is that eternal salvation comes to men who are dead in trespasses and in sins (Ephesians 2:1), who are ungodly and without strength (Romans 5:6), and who are therefore utterly incapable of meeting any conditions whatsoever. All of the conditions of eternal salvation were met in the person and work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, period. It follows then that any acts such as belief or repentance are done in response to an eternal salvation already imparted in immediate Holy Spirit regeneration. And so we can say with the apostle Paul that we are saved “not by works of righteousness which we have done.” (Titus 3:5)

As we shall see upon closer inspection, John Murray’s theology is a very convoluted form of Arminianism styled as "salvation by sovereign grace." It is convoluted in that, while embracing the fundamental Arminian flaw that works are necessary for salvation, it lacks the clarity of the Arminian system by denying that this is so. Consider the following summaries of various Christian soteriologies:

     Arminianism

     Salvation is part of God and part of man and we understand it.

     NeoCalvinism (John Murray)

     Salvation is all of God yet man is also responsible and we do not understand it.

     Primitive Baptist  

     Salvation is all of God and we understand it.

The Arminian system has the advantage of being understandable. If God must do his part and man his part in order to have eternal salvation, then this is a completely rational, synergistic system, albeit at the expense of being completely unbiblical in equal measure. Numerous scriptures demonstrate that synergism is untenable. (Titus 3:5, II Timothy 1:9, Romans 3:20, 9:16, etc.)  

The NeoCalvinists's system is self-contradictory. Their view at once embraces that Christ died for the elect only but also that the gospel is a well-meant, sincere, or free offer of salvation to all of humanity. Stated more plainly, it attempts to make rational sense of contradictory precepts by resorting to irrationalism. Plainer still - it is peddling nonsense as God's truth. This position sets itself in opposition to the Lord's own testimony that the scriptures can be rightly divided in a rational and harmonious fashion (John 10:35). Murray's position is more accurately described as antinomy-Calvinism because it relies on pious irrationalism rather than right division to bind the whole system together.

In contrast, Primitive Baptists take the biblical position that salvation is all of God, who redeemed us by his blood (Hebrews 9:12), perfected us by his one offering (Hebrews 10:14), made us righteous before his throne by his one obedience (Romans 5:19), and regenerates us by his spirit (John 3:3) as a result of his having chosen us as sons (Galatians 4:6) in the covenant of election before the world began. (Ephesians 1:4) This system is both scriptural and understandable.

The errors which drive Murray's false conclusion that the gospel is a free offer to all of humanity fall into one of three categories:

1. Irrelevant Passages - which do not deal with overtures of grace in the gospel.
2. Audience Errors - applying statements made to Israel to all of humanity. 
3. Unsubstantiated Assertions - insisting a particular meaning without proof.

With that by way of introduction, we bring you a number of excerpts from Murray's tome along with TETH's commentary.

Commentary Section------------------------------

Introduction

“The question then is - What is implicit in, or lies back of, the full and free offer of the gospel to all without distinction? The word ‘desire’ has come to be used in the debate, not because it is necessarily the most accurate or felicitous word but because it serves to set forth quite sharply a certain implication of the full and free offer of the gospel to all. This implication is that the free offer there expressed not simply the bare perceptive will of God but the disposition of loving kindness on the part of God pointing to the salvation to be gained through compliance with the overtures of gospel grace.” (Free Offer of the Gospel, John Murray, p.4, underline mine)

This statement alone should send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes that eternal salvation is by sovereign grace. Many questions come to mind:

·      If man is totally depraved, how can he comply?

·      If he can comply, is he totally depraved?

·      If God enables man's compliance, has God begun a good work in him?

·      If God has done a good work in him, is this man in possession of eternal life?

·      Those in possession of eternal life cannot subsequently do anything to obtain eternal life.

·      Is “compliance” a work of righteousness? 

·      Is “compliance” something we actually do?

·      Paul said we are saved “not by works of righteousness which we have done.” (Titus 3:5)

·      Doesn't that exclude our compliance from the work of our eternal salvation?

·      Paul said the obedience of one made us righteous. (Romans 5:19)

·      All compliance is obedience.

·      The requirement of compliance for eternal salvation then is the obedience of two.

·      Does man have to be willing to comply?

·      Paul says it is not of him that willeth. (Romans 9:16)

Problematic questions that confound Murray's assertion could be produced ad nauseum, but suffice it to say that Murray's statement is highly problematic.

“And the word ‘desire’ has been used in order to express the thought epitomized in Ezekiel 33:11, which is to the effect that God has pleasure that the wicked turn from his evil way and live. It might as well have been said, ‘It pleases God that the wicked repent and be saved.’” (Murray, p.4)

This is a classic logical fallacy. I might say, “I take no pleasure in hauling-off garbage.” To assert that this must mean that, “I take pleasure in letting garbage pile up,” is ludicrous. More to the point however is that for Murray's assertion to have any bearing upon his case for the free offer, he must prove that the "wicked" in this passage is in reference to every man, woman and child of Adam that has ever lived. A closer look at the context of Ezekiel 33 is helpful in dispelling this myth.  

Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman... Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?  Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth. (Ezekiel 33:1-2,10-12)

This is spoken to Israel under the Old Covenant. It is not spoken to Egypt or Assyria or any other nation but to God's peculiar people. National Israel under the Old Covenant is the type of Spiritual Israel under the new covenant. The New Covenant application of this text is that it is speaking to God's elect people, not to all of humanity, in precisely the same way that this Old Covenant admonition was made to none but Israel under the Old Covenant.  

While it is true that all men are "wicked" and "evil" by nature as a result of Adam's transgression, it is not true that the terms like "wicked" and "evil" are only used in reference to all of humanity in the bible. Because all men are evil by nature (Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:3), the non-elect are ever and only evil (Romans 14:23, II Thessalonians 3:2), but even  the regenerate elect still evidence the remaining evil of their Adamic nature as a result of remaining sin (I John 1:8, Romans 7:18-21). As a result, terms such as "wicked" and "evil" in all their various forms are used in a variety of ways in scripture. Based upon context, these terms can have reference to:

• The Unregenerate - as distinct from the elect family of God (Psalm 10:4, II Peter 2:7, II Thessalonians 3:2). This is by far the most common usage in scripture.

• The Regenerate - in sinful rebellion and in need of repentance (Deuteronomy 15:9, Isaiah 55:7, Ezekiel 18:27, Ezekiel 20:44, Hebrews 3:12).

• All of Humanity - in reference to the common Adamic nature (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 16:4, James 3:8).

So while it is true that terms like "wicked" and "evil" most often refer to the unregenerate, and more specifically to the non-elect, it is NOT true that these terms ever and only refer to the unregenerate.

“Again, the expression ‘God desires’, in the formula that crystalizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition of loving-kindness inherent in the free offer to all; in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given.”  (Murray, p.4, underline mine)

Again, clearly not the sovereign grace position but one of conditional salvation. Murray would do well to acquaint himself with such texts as Ephesians 2:1, Titus 3:5, I Timothy 1:9, and Romans 9:16.

“Still further, it is necessary to point out that such ‘desire’ on the part of God for the salvation of all must never be conceived of as desire to such an end apart from the means to that end. It is not desire of their salvation irrespective of repentance and faith.” (Murray, p.4-5, underline mine)

Here we see Murray’s view that man’s eternal salvation is contingent upon repentance and faith. An unregenerate man has no faith (II Thessalonians 3:2) and is dead in trespasses and in sin (Ephesians 2:1). Salvation by sovereign grace views repentance and faith as fruits of the eternal life already imparted in regeneration (Galatians 5:22); not as prerequisites.

“If it is proper to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate, then he desires such by their repentance and so it amounts to the same thing to say, ‘God desires their salvation,’ as to say, ‘He desires their repentance.’ This is the same as saying the he desires them to comply with the indispensable conditions of salvation.” (Murray, p.5, underline mine)

In Murray’s soteriology there are “indispensable conditions” men must meet in order to obtain eternal salvation. This is not salvation by sovereign grace, this is synergism, the belief that God must do his part and man must do his part in order for one to receive everlasting life. Salvation by sovereign grace is the believe that the Lord Jesus Christ met all of the conditions required for eternal salvation apart from any works or cooperation from man whatsoever. 

Scriptural Basis

Murray's theology of the free-offer is founded on his interpretation of the following texts:

Matthew 5:44-48 – “this passage does not deal with the overtures of grace in the gospel. But it does tell us something regarding God’s benevolence that has bearing upon all manifestations of divine grace.” (Murray, p.5, underline mine)

By Murray’s own admission, this text does not prove anything regarding the free offer of the gospel. It follows that this is an irrelevant passage.

Acts 14:17 – “This text does not express as much as those considered already.” (Murray, p.8)

Correct. And since Murray admits that the previous text (Matthew 5:44-48) does not deal with overtures of grace in the gospel, it follows that this text adds nothing to the case that the gospel is a free offer of salvation to all of humanity. It follows that this too is an irrelevant passage.

Deuteronomy 5:29, 32:29; Psalm 81:13ff; Isaiah 48:18 – “It is the Lord who is speaking and we shall have to conclude that here we have the expression of earnest desire of wish or will that the people of Israel were of a heart to fear him and keep all his commandments always.” (Murray, p.9, underline mine)

This is the Lord God addressing the people of Israel under the old covenant. Where in scripture is national Israel used as a type of all of humanity? The nation of Israel under the old covenant is the type of spiritual Israel in the new covenant – the covenant of eternal salvation. It follows that this is in reference to God’s attitude toward the elect family of God who have been born of the Spirit and saved by His grace. It is not in reference to all of humanity. Murray's interpretation of these passages are all audience errors.

Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34 – “In this passage there should be no dispute that the will of Christ in the direction of a certain benign result is set in contrast with the will of those who are contemplated as the subjects of such blessing… That which Jesus stated to be the gathering together of the children of Jerusalem, as a hen gathers together her chickens under her wings. This surely means the gathering together of the people of Jerusalem under his saving and protecting grace.” (Murray, p.11-12, underline mine)

If the gathering in view here is the saving grace of God, then you have God’s plan of salvation being thwarted by the actions of a few wicked Jewish leaders. This interpretation is obnoxious and is not in keeping with salvation by sovereign grace. It follows then that Murray’s assertion that this gathering “surely means” eternal salvation is unfounded. This is in reference to the fact that the wicked Jewish leaders prevented many of God’s chosen family from entering into the gospel ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would have brought them great comfort (Isaiah 61:2) and rest (Matthew 11:28). It is not in reference to eternal salvation. Murrays' interpretation is based on an unsubstantiated assertion.  

It is worth pointing out that this is a classic Arminian proof text and that Murray’s interpretation is the Arminian position, not the sovereign grace position.

“Our Lord in the exercise of his most specific and unique function as the God-man gives expression to a yearning will on his part that responsiveness on the part of the people of Jerusalem would have provided the necessary condition for the bestowal of his saving and protecting love.” (Murray, p.14, underline mine)

Consider the ramifications of this statement. In this statement Murray has given us insight into his ordo salutis that clearly demonstrates that he is not in keeping with salvation by sovereign grace. Consider Murray's assertion that:

Man's RESPONSE leads to the RESULT which is God's SALVATION.

This is without controversy quid pro quo salvation, not salvation by sovereign grace. This position denies depravity and posits acts of faith prior to the impartation of eternal life in salvation. The sovereign grace position believes that regeneration precedes and enables both faith and repentance, in other words:

God's SALVATION leads to the RESULT which is man's RESPONSE.

This is supported by numerous passages of scripture (John 1:12-13, 3:3, 3:8, 5:24, 8:47, I John 5:1, etc.). It follows then that Murray’s view is 180 degrees out of phase with the sovereign grace position and is really nothing more than the old-line Arminian view tarted up in some Calvinistic Sunday-duds.

“In this lament over Jerusalem, furthermore, there is surely disclosed to us something of the will of our Lord as the Son of God and divine Son of man that lies back of, and is expressed in, such an invitation as Matthew 11:28. Here we have declared, if we may use the thought of Matthew 23:37, his will to embrace the laboring and heavy laden in the arms of his saving and loving protection.  And it is an invitation to all such to take advantage of that will of his. The fullness and freeness of the invitation need not now be argued. Its character as such is patent.” (Murray, p.14)

In Matthew 11:28 Jesus is addressing the “laboring and heavy laden.” In Murray’s view this is identical to addressing “every man, woman and child on earth.” But this is most certainly NOT the case. Jesus is referring to the same group of “sinners” he had in mind when he said, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:32) “Sinners” here is in reference to those people who have been born of the Spirit of God and who are thus sensitive to their own sin and their need of a savior. It is those who are looking to a solution to their sin problem that lies outside of themselves. It is those who are laboring and heavy laden under the unrelenting perfection that the law demands in light of their sinful inability to comply. To say that the “laboring and heavy laden” in Matthew 11:28 is “all men” is an abject misunderstanding of the word of God.

Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11 – “The sum of the matter may be stated in the following propositions. It is absolutely and universally true that God does not delight in or desire the death of a wicked person. It is likewise absolutely and universally true that he delights in the repentance and life of that wicked person. It would surely be quite unwarranted to apply the latter proposition less universally or more restrictively than the former. The adversative construction and the emphatic form by which the protestation is introduced are surely not compatible with any other conclusion. And if we carry over the perfectly proper rendering of the first clause, the thought can be expressed thus, ‘God does not desire the death of the wicked but rather their repentance and life.’” (Murray, p.17)

“Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11)  Every bit of this is addressed to the nation of Israel. This is in reference to God’s covenant people in the old covenant, not to all of humanity under the new covenant. This is another audience error.  

Isaiah 45:22 – “The universalism of this command should be apparent from the expression, ‘all the ends of the earth.’ This is a characteristic Old Testament phrase to designate all nations and peoples. The universal scope is, however, confirmed by the context.” (Murray, p.22)

But what do we find in the context of this passage? In verse 17 we read, “Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation.” This is a reference to spiritual Israel, not national Israel. Whether spiritual or national, it is not universal. Isaiah is making the very same point that the apostle Paul makes in Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” The fact that Paul is quoting from Isaiah 59:20 in this passage solidifies the notion that he and Isaiah are speaking of the same thing. So verse 17 gives us the context of Isaiah’s remarks. The context is not universal. Rather it is spiritual Israel, not every man woman and child on the planet.

In verses 19 and 20 we read, “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain:  I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come, draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations.” Here we see explicitly who is in view when Isaiah refers to ‘all the ends of the earth’, it is “ye that are escaped of the nations” which is none other than spiritual Israel - “redeemed… by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9)

The context of this passage is not universal. It is in reference to spiritual Israel, not all of mankind, and so we have yet another audience error.

“If it is his pleasure to will that all repent and be saved, it is surely his pleasure that all repent and be saved.” (Murray, p.23)

Murray does not understand that such references are in regard to spiritual Israel, not all of humanity. Neither does he understand that “our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Psalm 115:3) Murray’s Psalm would have to read, “Our God is in the heavens: he hath done somewhatsoever he hath pleased.”

“While, on the one hand, he has not decretively willed that all be saved, yet he declares unequivocally that it is his will, and impliedly, his pleasure that all turn and be saved.“  (Murray, p.23)

When the scriptures are wrongly divided, they end up being set at odds with one another.  This is the beginning of paradox theology. The matter of the “two wills of God” has been discussed extensively among the Neo-Calvinists. Much of this could be cleared up by recognizing that the word “will” has two different meanings. One meaning is “ordained.”  Things that God has ordained will certainly come to pass. These are the things that God does by his good pleasure. Another meaning is “command.” Things that God has commanded men to obey do not always come to pass. It follows that these things are not ordained. These things are not set at odds with one another once this is understood, provided one does not embrace the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things or absolutism. Murray recognizes the contradiction inherent in his interpretation and attempts to explain it away…

“We are again faced with the mystery and adorable richness of the divine will.  It might seem to us that the one rules out the other. But it is not so. There is a multiformity to the divine will that is consonant with the fullness and richness of his divine character, and it is no wonder that we are constrained to bow in humble yet exultant amazement before his ineffable greatness and unsearchable judgments.” (Murray, p.23) 

Murray invokes paradox theology to “explain” this logical contradiction. This is to attempt to make rational sense of two contradictory precepts by resorting to irrationalism. In short - nonsense. He suggests that to embrace this contradictory nonsense is to recognize the greatness of the LORD’s divine character. But what statement does this make regarding the character of a God who loves and desires the salvation of all men, yet fails to accomplish that end?

One possible defense of God’s character in such a system is that salvation is dependent upon ratification by man. If salvation is a cooperative, then God is exonerated where man fails to hold up his end of the bargain. This, however, is Arminianism, not salvation by sovereign grace. It is the old covenant, not the new covenant. It is law, not grace. That this is Murray’s real position on the matter is evident from his introductory statements that make eternal salvation contingent upon the “indispensable condition” of “compliance” on the part of a sinner.

Salvation by grace is the belief that eternal life comes to men who are dead in trespasses and in sin (Ephesians 2:1), who were without strength and ungodly (Romans 5:6), from a savior who met all of the conditions for eternal salvation (Romans 8:34). 

II Peter 3:9 – “The reading ‘to us-ward’ is clearly the weakest reading, judged by external evidence; and it is not commended particularly by other considerations.  Hence the choice falls between ‘to you-ward’ and ‘on your account.’”  (Murray, p.26)

Murray spends two pages setting up the case for accepting ‘to you-ward’ or ‘on your account’ instead of ‘to us-ward.’ Whether ‘us-ward’, ‘you-ward’, or ‘on your account,’ the meaning of this text is unaltered. Peter is writing “to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our savior Jesus Christ.” (II Peter 1:1) This is none other than the elect family of God, for whom Christ died and who will live with God in glory. It is evident in II Peter 3:9 that Peter is speaking about those of the elect family of God, who are yet to be either born or born again or both. Conclusion: another audience error.

We do not deny that this passage refers to an elect people composed of both regenerate and unregenerate in time. We affirm however, that all that are in view here will be regenerated in time, and that they will all come to repentance, that is, a change of mind regarding sin and their own sinfulness and need of redemption. If Murray embraces that this passage is in reference to some who will never be regenerated, he must also embrace that the very reason Peter gives for God’s longsuffering toward them is in vain, since clearly some of them will not come to repentance. Murray’s interpretation is saddled with insurmountable obstacles. This is what paradox theology does to the minds of men. Logical contradictions, no matter how grotesque, lose their jarring efficacy in a mind that is increasingly addled by irrationalism and wrong division of scripture. (For more on this passage check out the video Office Theology 109 - II Peter 3:9 available on our YouTube channel.)

“If the reading ‘to you-ward’ is adopted, the thrust of the passage is not essentially altered. The delay is not due to slackness in God, but is to be regarded as an express of longsuffering towards men, including very specifically those addressed in this Epistle.” (Murray, p.28)

Murray’s view here would lead to either universalism, because God accomplishes that thing for which he is longsuffering, or failure, because though God waits and waits, they still aren’t saved.

Incidentally, if salvation is all of God’s doing, what prevented God from accomplishing what he was waiting for? This is more evidence that Murray’s position is synergism. God is waiting for man to comply with the "indispensable conditions of salvation." This is not salvation by sovereign grace; it is salvation by human works, because it fails to embrace the simple truth that Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the indispensable conditions of salvation and thus made eternal life unconditional so far as his elect are concerned.

TETH Conclusion

Murray does not demonstrate that the gospel is a free offer of salvation to all of humanity. This position is both logically and scripturally inconsistent in that it is based on irrelevant passages, address errors and unsubstantiated assertions. It fails to recognize the typology between the old and new covenants. It is at odds with the doctrine of election and salvation by sovereign grace. Murray’s real accomplishment is the clarity with which he reveals that his system of salvation is contingent upon man meeting the “indispensable requirement” of “compliance.” This is nothing less than a rejection of the finished work of Christ in salvation and a denial of salvation by sovereign grace. It is the very mixture of law and grace that Paul warns us about in the first chapter of Galatians and in Romans 11:6. 

We believe Murray portrays God’s attitude toward eternal salvation as “be warmed and filled.” (James 2:16) It "desires" the salvation of all men, but it “gives them not those things which are needful” to accomplish that end. This perspective on eternal salvation faces insurmountable difficulties for those who purport to be preaching salvation by sovereign grace. Obviously, if salvation is all of God, then the “needful thing” is something that God himself did not provide for all men. Faced with this untenable position, Murray instead opts for thinly veiled synergism by positing “compliance” as the “indispensable requirement” that man must meet in order to obtain eternal salvation. This has the benefit of being consistent with some of his assertions, at the expense of leaving the realm of salvation by sovereign grace. In short, Murray's Free-Offer-of-the-Gospel-ism is paradox synergism cloaked in a thin veneer of sovereign grace terminology. I would summarize the work in two short sentences:

The Free Offer of the Gospel by John Murray is not salvation by grace.  

It is therefore not the gospel. (Galatians 1:6)  

I would recommend Murray's work as an excellent, concise, and inexpensive sparring partner for those who endeavor to defend the doctrines of grace. It covers many of the verses commonly employed to defend the free or well-meant offer of salvation to all of humanity and provides arguments that support that conclusion. The combination is a valuable revelation of the threadbare nature of the theology of well-meant-offerism.