I have often been asked why I so frequently write against the notion of the Well-Meant Offer of salvation to all of humanity (WMO). My answer is that this belief is among the very most prevalent errors in Christendom today. The WMO distorts the nature of the gospel message and in so doing posits a God who contradicts his own testimony regarding election (Ephesians 1:4-5), particular redemption (John 17:2), and the purpose of the gospel (II Timothy 1:10). The prophet Isaiah wrote...
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)
This verse of scripture is bursting forth with theological truth, provided we are willing to investigate it. Isaiah's testimony is that the word of God is 100% effectual in accomplishing its intended task. If the "word" to which Isaiah makes reference includes the gospel, then Isaiah's statement has unavoidable theological implications. Consider this:
Q: Does the gospel "prosper" in the work of eternally saving all men?
A: No. The bible's testimony is that some men are not eternally saved (Matthew 25:41).
Q: Then can the eternal salvation of all men be "the thing whereunto" God sent the gospel?
A: No. It cannot, because it does not prosper to that end.
Q: Then can the gospel be a well-meant offer of salvation to all of humanity?
A: No. It cannot be because the salvation of all men was never its purpose.
That logic is both relentless and unavoidable. It is the complete undoing of the Well-Meant-Offerism upon which the majority of evangelicalism finds its unsure footing. The gospel is not an offer, it's a proclamation, and we need to understand that with clarity if we are to avoid distorting the nature of the gospel message by misrepresenting the purpose of Christ's atoning work.
It is a difficult concept in John 3 -- Jesus even acknowledging it. It involves both at the same time, God's justice and His mercy.
ReplyDeleteHe speaks to Nicodemus as one who does not believe. And, those who do not believe are "condemned already." So, it follows, if they have not been born again, and thus, unable to come to the light, is their "belief" a matter of their own will, or God's will.
I believe the gospel is a proclamation to the captives -- His children. But, it is also a condemnation to the others. If justice has already been served -- God having mercy on whom He will, it seems their condemnation, in a manner of speaking, is that they will not believe.
When one looks at statements like John 3:36 - "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" - I believe that in order to properly understand this statement, it is important to answer the question - what perspective gives rise to this remark? In other words, is this statement speaking from a covenantal perspective or from an experimental perspective?
ReplyDeleteIf we consider this statement from the standpoint of the covenant, then it is categorically false. Consider this, there was a time when Paul did not believe on the Son in the way that John 3:36 has in mind. It therefore would be incorrect to state that "Paul shall not see life" given that Paul was clearly embraced in the covenant and thus his eternal salvation was a matter of certainty from BTFOTW, though he did not ALWAYS believe. So John 3:36 cannot be speaking from the standpoint of the covenant, because ALL MEN begin their existence in a faithless state of depravity and unbelief.
However, if we consider John 3:36 from an experimental standpoint, then the statement makes sense, IMO. In other words, it is saying, "From the standpoint of observation, those who believe have eternal life and those who do not believe lack what the bible describes as the primary evidence of salvation - which implies their condemnation from an observational standpoint." So we must regard this statement as experimental or observational in nature and not absolute or covenantal, given that we see men moved by God from unbelief to belief over the course of their natural lives.
Your statement regarding an element of "condemnation" involved in the gospel message is well stated. Paul put it this way, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" (II Corinthians 2:15-16)
Yes, exactly. The hostility sometimes observed in others toward believers, toward the gospel, toward Christ -- toward the love of God, that is the only thing that could save them -- is so irrational and otherworldly, it is an amazement to me. They seem provoked over nothing and in full rebellion against everything good, upright and holy. As if a switch has gone off and they will spend what time remains in full, head-on rage against their Creator and anything they feel represents Him and His work.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is certainly true. Ironically, this observation affirms a truth found in the word of God which such people reject, namely that "the carnal mind is enmity against God." (Romans 8:7) I am a firm believer that we must proclaim the truth of God's grace in accomplishing the salvation of his people with such clarity that the message cannot be misunderstood. I likewise believe that apart from having a spiritual mind, one cannot believe such things, because they are hated and regarded as foolishness by the natural man (I Corinthians 2:14). So the old adage that "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink" is applicable, if incomplete. We might do well to append, "and horses that aren't thirsty are liable to kick your front teeth out if you try and make them."
DeleteTETH,
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with "the Clark - Van Til controversy"?
The reason I ask is because the issue you take up with in this short article is one that has been dealt many times over and with many outcomes.
I mean when I read the arguments from others in favor or against the WMO, I find sometimes common ground between them in their arguments but also many different arguments and outcomes.
Reading those men, such as Gordon Clark, van Til, Hoeksema, or more recently Robert Reymond, who certainly is agianst the paradoxes or antinomies that in his own Westminster circle seems to be widely accepted.
I recently read something I had not read or heard before in the 'discussion' concerning rightly dividing Gods Word of truth & rationalism, irrationalism, logical, paradox, etc. That was about archetypal and ectypal theology.
It goes a bit far to explain here what it all means in full, but it has to do with that there's a difference between theology as God knows is and as we do it. That he reveals just 'a bit' of His thoughts and so in some way there's no way we could ever fully harmonize the issues as the WMO, sovereign grace and the responsibility etc. It has to do with the creature / creator distinction.
Are you familiar with the terms in general and/or the arguments behind it and what are your thoughts on it?
TETH ANSWER 101
ReplyDeleteANON: Are you familiar with "the Clark - Van Til controversy"?
TETH: I am. I've read the book and having come from a Reformed Presbyterian background I have read a lot of ancillary materials related to the debate.
ANON: The reason I ask is because the issue you take up with in this short article is one that has been dealt many times over and with many outcomes.
TETH: Yes. There's been a lot of ink spilled on the topic. Most fascinating to me is that Clark won the battle (was deemed to have the correct, orthodox understanding that rejects the WMO) and yet Van Til won the war for the hearts and minds of his Reformed Presbyterian colleagues and his views have essentially dominated RP academic circles ever since - and that to the detriment of having a clear understanding of the truth, IMO.
ANON: I mean when I read the arguments from others in favor or against the WMO, I find sometimes common ground between them in their arguments but also many different arguments and outcomes.
TETH: I have never found the arguments for the WMO compelling. The passages invoked are so obviously taken out of context that it does not take much digging to expose that fact. Nevertheless pro-WMO-ers persist in quoting those passages like they are the end-all-be-all of establishing the WMO beyond any dispute. My article on John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel takes a closer look at those commonly cited passages and points out the contextual reasons why they DO NOT support the WMO as so many in our time insist.
https://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2012/10/book-review-01-john-murray-free-offer.html
ANON: Reading those men, such as Gordon Clark, van Til, Hoeksema, or more recently Robert Reymond, who certainly is against the paradoxes or antinomies that in his own Westminster circle seems to be widely accepted.
TETH: It certainly seems that "paradox-theology" (as I often call it) is the soup-du-jour among modern Calvinists. It is an appealing idea to them because it allows them to reason from the scriptures so long as reason supports their theology, but then to throw logic under the bus when it no longer supports their theology while saying "we can't understand this," quoting Deuteronomy 29:29 and Isaiah 55:9, and asking that we accept their illogical interpretation on that basis. They don't realize it but they have dubbed themselves the arbiters of when logic can be used and when it cannot. With that hermeneutic you take the parts of the bible you want and reject the parts you don't when they don't reconcile with your previous assertions. In a word, it's INSANITY passed off as pious academia.
ANON: I recently read something I had not read or heard before in the 'discussion' concerning rightly dividing Gods Word of truth & rationalism, irrationalism, logical, paradox, etc. That was about archetypal and ectypal theology.
TETH: Yes. I've encountered this idea a fair amount, though rarely using this terminology.
ANON: It goes a bit far to explain here what it all means in full, but it has to do with that there's a difference between theology as God knows is and as we do it.
TETH: I certainly affirm that there is a difference in the quantity of God's theological knowledge vs ours, but not the quality. In other words, the truths that God has revealed to us are THE SAME TRUTHS that he understands and we are able to understand them too, else the bible is NOT a revelation to us. When God says, "Jesus is the Son of God" that is the SAME truth that we can embrace and believe. Are there things that God has not revealed? Yes. But that is a matter of quantity, not quality.
TETH ANSWER 102
ReplyDeleteANON: That he reveals just 'a bit' of His thoughts and so in some way there's no way we could ever fully harmonize the issues as the WMO, sovereign grace and the responsibility etc. It has to do with the creature / creator distinction.
Are you familiar with the terms in general and/or the arguments behind it and what are your thoughts on it?
TETH: I'll agree that God has not revealed everything to us.But to invoke that as a means of sustaining an irrational and non-harmonious interpretation of scripture is just silly, IMO. I believe what God has told us fits together systematically and can be reconciled to itself. If we don't proceed with this assumption we don't have any means of reconciling anything because there could always be some additional fact that would completely undo our previous reconciliations. I believe it is a dangerous hermeneutic but it is one that is very popular and appealing to those whose theology is riddled with untenable logical conundrums because it is the "get out of jail free card" for contradictory assertions and men are far more fond of "magic wands" than they are dedicated to the difficult matter of right division that may force them to change their opinions on some long-held beliefs.
TETH: In essence I believe this hermeneutic invokes "his thoughts are not our thoughts" as cover for contradictory theological assertions. If "his ways are not our ways" means "God's revelation to us cannot be logically reconciled" then those who promote this idea have done far more than fix their argument for the WMO, they've denied the perspicuity of scripture and reduced the bible to a pile of irrational nonsense that we can't really make heads or tails of. They would be loath to admit that characterization, but it is unavoidable when this idea is taken to its conclusion. It is for this reason that they have (perhaps unwittingly) dubbed themselves the arbiters of when logic can and cannot be used, as some arbiter is required to keep illogic at bay. But on what basis do they make the determination of when logic fails? Is that determination based on logic? If it is, how do we know that THE DETERMINATION ITSELF is not one of those things that does not conform to logic? It is a childish position to adopt and it deceives the naive who do not think it through. Those who adopt this position prove that they are very short-sighted where the ramifications of the ideas they promote are concerned. It's a product of very addled thinking, IMO; popular and broadly promoted by many, but addled nonetheless.
God bless,
TETH
Very, very strong comment on such a topic and I totally agree!
ReplyDeleteThanks for this Biblical & comprehensive answer.
That is something hard te get from the other side of the 'controversy', but that seems to make even more sense now.
In addition to this I would like your opinion on something that regularly comes back to my mind. It certainly has to do with the issues above, but more with further consequences of it I think.
When speaking of Christians and sharing the Gospel, responsibility, consequences, judgement, etc.
I was thinking (speaking to myself) Do you really think that we as christians, (now or in the end) can and will be charged or receive more punishment, chastisement for not sharing the Gospel, verbally? This of course in relation to people that we meet throughout our lives, that are ignorant unbelievers on their way to hell. We don't share with them, so they remain, maybe because of us, ignorant of the Gospel and can't believe. Because they have not the Gospel knowledge they need to believe. While IN FACT, in the end, they were not elect/chosen! So even sharing the Gospel would not have led to their eternal salvation. It would probably only have added to their condemnation because the Bible teaches that that's the other effect of Gospel preaching, or evenagelism if you will.
Is that a knowledge or insights I ought not to seek or know? What do you think of it?
The other part is (and I should have probably said this first) but I do heartily share the Gospel. Many times with many people and in many circumstances. Even to the point that people sometimes beg me to stop speaking of it. But I love to share this great work that He did for and to me and whosoever believeth in Him!
Its just that I try to match certain things I see, read and hear. Besides that It is so much pressed upon christian people to evangelize, and that if they don't .... well, then follow implicit and explicit the accusations, judgments and consequences by wich many become afraid, uncertain and sad.
Well I have tried to make it a little bit clear of what I think with regards to this aspect of it and hope you can share some of your thinking.
Thank you, it is encouraging to read and listen your materials.
ANON: Very, very strong comment on such a topic and I totally agree! Thanks for this Biblical & comprehensive answer. That is something hard to get from the other side of the 'controversy', but that seems to make even more sense now. In addition to this I would like your opinion on something that regularly comes back to my mind. It certainly has to do with the issues above, but more with further consequences of it I think. When speaking of Christians and sharing the Gospel, responsibility, consequences, judgement, etc. I was thinking (speaking to myself) Do you really think that we as christians, (now or in the end) can and will be charged or receive more punishment, chastisement for not sharing the Gospel, verbally?
ReplyDeleteTETH: We should share the truth as the spirit leads during our natural lives. There is no condemnation for us in eternity for ANY sin that we practice (Romans 8:1), only temporal consequences (Isaiah 1:20).
ANON: This of course in relation to people that we meet throughout our lives, that are ignorant unbelievers on their way to hell. We don't share with them, so they remain, maybe because of us, ignorant of the Gospel and can't believe. Because they have not the Gospel knowledge they need to believe. While IN FACT, in the end, they were not elect/chosen!
TETH: The gospel is not instrumental in regeneration so I don't think this is an issue at all. If we fail to share the gospel it will not prevent someone from being born again by the Spirit of God (John 5:25). Neither will sharing the gospel with the non-elect regenerate them. We proclaim the truth so that those who have the ears to hear it can benefit from it in THIS lifetime (Isaiah 61:6).
ANON: So even sharing the Gospel would not have led to their eternal salvation. It would probably only have added to their condemnation because the Bible teaches that that's the other effect of Gospel preaching, or evangelism if you will.
TETH: We are to proclaim the truth and leave the matter of eternal mercy and eternal salvation to the Lord. We are to make disciples of those who believe and instruct them in the truth.
ANON: Is that a knowledge or insights I ought not to seek or know? What do you think of it?
TETH: Focus on presenting the gospel accurately as you are given opportunity. The matter of who is and who isn't eternally saved is God's business.
ANON: The other part is (and I should have probably said this first) but I do heartily share the Gospel. Many times with many people and in many circumstances. Even to the point that people sometimes beg me to stop speaking of it. But I love to share this great work that He did for and to me and whosoever believeth in Him!
TETH: That's great.
ANON: It's just that I try to match certain things I see, read and hear. Besides that It is so much pressed upon christian people to evangelize, and that if they don't .... well, then follow implicit and explicit the accusations, judgments and consequences by which many become afraid, uncertain and sad.
TETH: There is no condemnation for God's people in eternity (Romans 8:1).
ANON: Well I have tried to make it a little bit clear of what I think with regards to this aspect of it and hope you can share some of your thinking. Thank you, it is encouraging to read and listen your materials.
TETH: Thank you for your kind words.