Pride: “it spreadeth, marreth, and corrupteth all”

One of the greatest dangers of the Christian life, according to James Durham (and scripture!) is pride.  One of his exhortations on the danger of pride particularly stuck home with me:

What an evil thing pride is, especially when it entereth among Churchmen: Oh how evil a thing it is! it is the inlet of all confusion, it openeth a door to it and every evil work, and hath a special hand in overturning whatsoever is beautiful in a Church, James 3.14, 16 … The more eminent folks be in place or power, they are sooner kindled with the fire of pride; the higher men’s places be, they are the readier to grow proud … men of gifts sooner than others, they have fuel to the fire that others do want … they being eminently and highly planted, pride hath the more matter to work upon … it is a rare thing to be eminent and humble; to be great and in prosperity, and yet to be lowly: prosperity and gifts are a snare to many … Pride is especially incident to Church-men … It is a great plague and judgement, and bringeth great hurt to the Church: when this fire of pride and contention entereth and kindleth among the Officers of the Church it spreadeth, marreth, and corrupteth all … This should make us all respect unity and peace in the Church, and watch against pride and contention that marreth it.
A Commentary on Revelation, (rept. Old Paths, 2000), 544-5.

What it particularly significant in the above is Durham’s emphasis on the damage pride does, not only to individuals but also to the body of believers.  Where pride comes in “whatsoever is beautiful in a Church” is overturned and contention and disuinty follow.  Durham himself had personal experience of this.  He lived to see the Church in Scotland tear itself apart in the Protester/Resolutioner controversy with men of the caliber of Samuel Rutherford and David Dickson alienated from one another.  This was a cause of immense grief to Durham, so much so that his dying hours were spend dictating a final plea for unity “The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland or, A treatise Concerning Scandal”.  From the above I think we can be sure Durham saw pride was at the root of the division.

Pride is a horrible thing, it has destroyed individual Christian testimonies, congregations and denominations.  It is surely the duty of ever Christian to do everything in their power, looking to him who works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, to put it to death in their hearts and esteem themselves “less than the least of all saints”.

Fairbairn on the Free Offer (He’s good here too!)

Patrick Fairbairn was probably the best exegete the Free Church of Scotland produced.  Sinclair Ferguson says that he “was one of the brightest stars in the galaxy of brilliant biblical theologians in nineteenth century Scotland.”  His works on The Interpretation of Prophecy, The Typology of Scripture, The Revelation of Law in Scripture and Opening Scripture: A Hermeneutical Manual Introducing the Exegetical Study of the New Testament are magisterial treatments of the subjects covered from a reformed perspective.  In addition to these works the application of Fairbairn’s exegetical principles can be see in his works on Ezekiel, The Pastoral Epistles and Jonah.  He also wrote a work on Pastoral Theology.

I might post some time on Fairbarin’s painstaking work on how the NT writers quoted the OT.  Roger Nicole comments “It is high time that in the midst of controversies in which all kinds of accusations are leveled against the use of the Old Testament by New Testament authors that the painstaking work of Patrick Fairbairn and his monumental scholarship be once again taken into consideration.  I am sure that those who read his volumes will find themselves amply rewarded.” (Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, Mentor, 2002, 87).  Sadly, it is evident that Nicole’s plea has not been headed.

However, this week I’m posting on his views on the free offer as his works on the Pastoral Epistles and Ezekiel touch on two verses related to the free offer debate:

[God] who wills/desires all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Tim 2:4

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? says the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezek 18:23 & 33:11

Fairbairn understands these verses to speak of the desire of God for the salvation of all who hear the gospel.  On 1 Tim 2:4 Fairbairn comments, “And the whole character of the Gospel of Christ, with its universal Call to repent, its indiscriminate offers of pardon to the penitent, and urgent entreaties to lay hold of the hope set before them, is framed on the very purpose to give expression to that will;[1] for, surely, in pressing such things on men’s acceptance, yea, and holding them disobedient to His holy will, and liable to aggravated condemnation, if they should refuse to accept, God cannot intend to mock them with a mere show and appearance of some great reality being brought near to them.  No; there is the manifestation of a benevolent desire that they should not die in sin, but should come to inherit salvation (as at Ezek. xxxiii. 11) … This, necessarily, is implied; and it is the part of the church … to give practical effect to this message of goodwill from Heaven to men, and to do it in the spirit of tenderness and affection which itself breathes.” (The Pastoral Epistles, 114). 

[1] Fairbairn defines will here as revealed will i.e. not with any “implied purpose or intent”.

Now Fairbairn is aware that given God elects some to salvation and not others, and that God does not even send the gospel to some “grave questions are ready to arise as to whether  … God can be sincere in seeking through His church the salvation of all.”  In framing a response to this he notes that these things touch on “the deep things of God” and that “it is impossible for us, with the materials we now posses, to answer satisfactorily to the speculative reason.”  However, “Knowing who and what He is with whom in such things we have to do, we should rest assured that His procedure will be in truth and uprightness; and the mysteries which meanwhile appear to hang around it will be solved … when the proper time for doing so shall have arrived.” (Ibid, 115).  As I read him, he goes on to limit “all” in v6 to be speaking of “not the preserved of Israel alone, nor a few scattered members besides of other nations, but also the fullness of the Gentiles” (Ibid, 117) i.e. all refers to Jews + Gentiles not Jews only.

Given his reference to Ezekiel 33:11 above Fairbairn’s understanding of this text is clear but I’ll quote it for completeness: “You [unbelieving Israel] think of me as if I were a heartless being, indifferent to the calamities that befall my children [outward covenant people], and even delighting to inflict chastisement on them for sins they have not committed.  So far from this, I have no pleasure in the destruction of those who by their own transgressions have deserved it, but would rather that they turn from their ways and live.  Thus he presents himself as a God of holy love, - love yearning over the lost condition of wayward children, and earnestly desiring their return to peace and safety…” (Ezekiel, 207).

In these extracts Fairbairn is simply expressing standard Free Church of Scotland doctrine.  [I hope Fairbairn's misguided (in my view) support for Moody & Sanky and union with the United Presbyterians will not devalue what he has to say on this subject.]

Now in offering Fairbairn’s understanding of 1 Tim 2:4 I am not asserting that it is the only viable reformed view of that text (or even necessarilly mine).  Whilst Charles Hodge and many others take the same view as Fairbairn, a large group who have held firmly to the free offer have understood “all men” in this text as limited in application to the elect.  There is no “consent of the Reformed fathers” on how texts like 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3:16 are to be understood. (Although there probably is on Ezek 18:32!)  Exegesis of these text as relates to the meaning of “world” or “all” is not a case of “reformed” or “not reformed” but, rather, is a debate between confessional reformed believers who all affirm the well meant offer.

How much accommodation is too much?

In certain evangelical (and now Reformed) circles there has been a sea change in the way Scripture is viewed.  No longer do stout defences of plenary verbal inspiration and inerrancy run off the presses.  Instead we are confronted with “the messiness of the Old Testament”, “the synoptic problem” and the need to “advance beyond the old liberal/orthodox impasse” etc.  In other words, the new doctrine of Scripture allows for the Bible to be shot through with historical errors and for certain portions to be ”myth”.  Ultimately where this takes us is that, for example, the account of creation in Genesis has as much relevance to actual events asThe Silmarillion. 

This, you would think, would be an uncomfortable position to be in.  Apparently not.  For Scripture is still “the Word of God” and all this historical inaccuracy and “myth” is ok because that is how God wanted Scripture to be.  And, actually, Reformed doctrine has always pointed in this direction by speaking of the “accommodated” nature of revelation.  In Scripture, then, God has accommodated himself to man by revealing himself in ways that are “messy” i.e. incorporating human myths in the Bible.  To speak of errors in the Bible and myths is therefore standard Reformed doctrine - it is simply applying the doctrine of accommodated revelation faithfully.

The trouble for this new view is that Reformed theologians have reflected on the “accommodated” nature of revelation and defined tightly what this means and what it does not mean.  A classic example is the outstanding Scottish Biblical theologian Patrick Fairbairn (1805-74).  Fairbairn has a chapter in his Opening Scripture: A Hermeneutical Manual Introducing the Exegetical Study of the New Testament (Rept. Alabama: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2005) entitled “Of False and True Accommodation; or the Influence that should be allowed to Prevailing Modes of Thought in fashioning the views and utterances of the Sacred Writers”.  I’d like to offer some reflections on his chapter to highlight how Reformed theology has understood the “accommodation” of Scripture.

A history lesson

Fairbairn begins by defining what he is seeking to discuss “In what relations did the sacred writers stand to the spirit of their age - to its prevailing modes of thought and popular beliefs.  Were they in any material respect modified by these?  Or did they pursue an altogether independent course - never bending in aught under the prevailing current, if this at all deviated from the exact and natural line of things?  Or, if they did to some extent accommodate themselves to this, how far might we expect accommodation to go?” (89).

Following from this we get a history lesson.  It is always encouraging to see exegetical theologians who are historically self aware.  Fairbairn discusses briefly the views of the early Church on “accommodation” before noting “It was reserved for modern times to apply the principle of accommodation to the teachings of Scripture in a full and proper sense, and to represent Christ himself and the apostles as pandering to mistaken views and narrow prejudices of their time.” (90).  Fairbairn highlights Wetstein’s work on New Testament interpretation (1724) as articulating a full doctrine of accommodation in arguing that the authors of Scripture should be read “as not always expressing their own opinion … but occasionally also expressing themselves according to the sentiment of others, or the sometimes ambiguous, sometimes erroneous, opinions of the multitude.” (90-1).  Thus some portions of Scripture are simply speaking ex vulgari opinione and not divine truth.  Fairbairn traces the historical outworking of this view of accommodation: “The door was thus fairly open for exegetical licence… By degrees everything was reduced to a subjective standard; and if in anything an interpreter found statements recorded, or doctrines taught, which did not accord with his notions of the truth of things, the explanation was at hand, that such things had found a place in Scripture merely on a principle of accommodation; the people were capable of appreciating nothing higher, or the writers themselves as yet understood no better.  And so … the proper teaching of the Gospel came to be reduced to the scanty form of a Sadducean creed.  The doctrines of the Trinity, of the Divine Sonship of Messiah, of the atonement, of the personality of the Spirit, of a corporeal resurrection and a final judgement, have all been swept away … as merely a mode of speech suited to the time of its appearance.” (91-2).

Steady on I wouldn’t go that far

Fairbairn then moves from what had been historically “the practical result of the accommodation theory” to consider those who stop short of totally evacuating revelation of any meaning.  So, for example, those who apply accommodation to “historical” and “chronological” errors in the Bible and also to “exegetical errors, or false interpretations of several passages of the Old Testament, which were erroneously supposed to contain what the words did not really indicate” which could be explained away by the New Testament authors accommodating themselves to a “Rabbinical style” (92-3).  Fairbairn rejects even this truncated view of accommodation, arguing “We hold it, therefore, to be contrary to any right views of the mission of Christ and his apostles, to suppose, that they in such a sense accommodated themselves to the modes of thought and contemplation around them, as to admit error into their instructions - whether in respect to the interpretation of Scripture, or in respect to forms of opinion and articles of belief.” (94).

But there is some room for accommodation

While rejecting any accommodation with respect to the “matter” of Scripture, Fairbairn is content to allow us to speak of accommodation as regards the “form” of Scripture.  Fairbairn defines this kind of accommodation as “falling in with prevalent modes of thought or forms of conception, so as, not to lend countenance to error, but to serve for the better apprehension of the truth.”

One example of this kind of accommodation is speaking of God having eyes and hands.  Such forms of speech are fitted to teach us truth but are accommodated to our weakness rather than expressive of a literal reality. (95-7).  Another example of accommodation is the expression and modes of speech Scripture uses which may not appear at first sight compatible with our usage.  Fairbairn gives an example of this in the genealogies where “X begot Y” does not necessarily indicate a father son relationship.  He also applies this principle to Stephen’s statements in Acts 7:15-6.  Realising that certain forms of expression were incorporated into Scripture in a manner consistent with their historical usage at the time can help us understand passages which might at first sight appear contradictory to us today.

But we must be careful for it is “to be borne in mind … that the accommodation has respect merely to the form and manner in which statements are made, not to the substance of the truth therein communicated; - its whole object is to render the truth mode distinctly comprehensible, or to give it greater force and prominence to the mind.” (102).

Summary

Accommodation in Reformed theology relates to the “form” of revelation only and not the “content”.  The “problems” and “messiness” of Scripture have themselves long ago received adequate answers e.g. many of the points that modern Evangelicals bring up as “problems” in the Bible receive discussion in Matthew Poole’s 17th C commentary on the Bible.  What is called for is a robust articulation of the old doctrine of infallibility and inerrency in modern and accessible ways and not recasting of old doctrine.

Nine Marks of Gospel Preaching - Durham Style

Erroll Hulse has an interesting and helpful article “Spurgeon and his Gospel Invitations” in A Marvelous Ministry: How the All-round Ministry of Charles Haddon Spurgeon Speaks to us Today (Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria, 1993).  In this article he enumerates ten key features of Spurgeon’s gospel preaching.  I’ve omitted one of these points leaving nine and I’ll now proceed to highlight how they are also applicable to James Durham.

1. “There was no restriction in his invitations”
   The marriage must be proclaimed through the world by the preached gospel; the contract must be opened up and read, and sinners’ consent called for.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 52
   It is not one or two, or some few who are called; not the great only, nor the small only, nor the holy only, nor the profane only, but you all are bidden; the call comes to all and every one of you in particular, poor and rich, high and low, holy and profane. “Ho (proclaims the Lord, as it were, with an “Oh, yes!” in Isaiah 55:1), everyone that thirsts, come; and he that hath no money, let him come.” “Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely” Revelation 22:17. Our blessed Lord Jesus … In His name we invite all of you, and make offer of Jesus Christ to be your Husband …
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 60
   We make this offer to all of you, to you who are atheists, to you who are graceless, to you who are ignorant, to you who are hypocrites, to you who are lazy and lukewarm, to the civil and to the profane. We pray, we beseech, we beg you all to come to the wedding … We will not, we dare not say, that all of you will get Christ for a Husband; but we do most really offer Him to you all, and it shall be your own fault if you lack Him and go without Him.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 60
2. “There was great love in his invitations”
   O beloved hearers, all this is to let you see that our Lord is in earnest and very willing to espouse you; and indeed, it shall not be His fault if it is not a bargain.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 50
   The greatest complaint, weight and grief of an honest minister of the gospel, is this, that his message is not taken off his hand, that Christ is not received, believed in, and rested on…
   Christ Crucified, 73
   Why will God have Christ in the offer of the gospel brought so near to the hearers of it … Because it serves to commend the grace and love of God in Christ Jesus.  When the invitation is so broad that it is to all, it speaks of the royalty of the feast, upon which ground (2 Cor 6:1) it is called grace, the offer is so large and wide.
   Christ Crucified, 83
3. “There was the reality of death and hell in his invitations”
   Consider that death and life are now in your option, in your hand as it were; choose or refuse.  I speak not, nor plead here for free-will, but of your willing electing of that which you have offered to you … You may have life by receiving Christ, who is laid to your door, and if you refuse him, death will follow it.
   Christ Crucified, 85
4. “There was a personal appeal in his invitations”
   You see then what you are called to.  It is to open to Christ, to come to him, to marry him, to roll yourselves on him, to commit yourselves to him, to give him credit etc.  And is there any of these unreasonable or prejudicial to you?  And if they be very reasonable and advantageous (as indeed they are), we would exhort you to come to him, to receive him, to apprehend him, to flee to him, to take hold of him, to marry him etc.  Believe on him, and by believing on him, be united to him, and get a right to him, and to all his purchase; give him the credit of saving your souls.  This we call for from you …
   Christ Crucified, 99
5. “There was urgency in his invitations”
   You must not delay to come and close the bargain; you must not put it off till tomorrow, nay, not an hour. All things are ready. Just now, now is the accepted time: here stands the blessed Bridegroom … We dare not be answerable to our Master, nor can we be answerable to our trust and commission, if we shuffle by or thrust out any of you if ye do not thrust out yourselves … let me beseech and beg you to come to the wedding.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 66-7
   We cannot allow you an hour’s time to advise … close with Him presently, or you may never have the like opportunity … The King is on His throne … His servants invite in His name. Come, therefore; come without further lingering …
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 68
6. “There was the offer of immediate justification in his invitations”
   All who come may expect a very good and heartsome welcome. None need to fear that they shall not be made welcome … The Lord will not look down on such as come; nay, He is waiting to welcome them, and to meet them, as it were, midway, as we see in the parable of the prodigal (Luke 15).
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 56
   Faith is … seeing Christ has satisfied justice for sinners, and his satisfaction is offered in the gospel to all that will receive it, even to all the hearers of the gospel; that sinners, in the sight and sense of their lost condition, would flee unto him, receive and rest upon him, and his satisfaction, for pardon of sin, and making of their peace with God.
   Christ Crucified, 123
7. “There was urgent persuasiveness in his invitations”
   Do not only make an offer of marriage, but request, entreat, persuade, pray and beg, yea command and compel …
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 56
   Seeing Christ comes near you in this gospel … I entreat you, while he is near, receive him, call upon him while he is near … open to him, take him in, give him welcome … O receive this gospel, give him room; while he is content to sup with you, take him in, make sure your union with him.  This is the end why this report is made, and Christ is laid before you, even that you may lay yourselves over on him.
   Christ Crucified, 84
8. “There was a spirit of joy in the invitations”
   They who come may expect a very hearty welcome; therefore they are invited once and again.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 45
   The discovery of Christ Jesus, and the making him known, is the greatest news, the gladdest tidings, and the most excellent report, that ever came, or can come to a people … These are the good tidings, that Jesus Christ is come, and that he is Saviour by office.
   Christ Crucified, 73
9. “There was a sense of God himself in the invitations”
   God the Father, and the King’s Son the Bridegroom, are not only content and willing, but very desirous to have sinners come to the marriage. They would fain (to speak with reverence) have poor souls espoused to Christ.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 44
   [In the gospel offer] the Father and the Son are most heartily willing; therefore they expostulate when this marriage is refused, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you, but you would not!” (Matthew 23:37). “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou, even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace!” (Luke 19:42). All these sad complaints, that Israel would not hearken to His voice, and His people would have none of Him (Psalm 81:11), that He came to His own, and His own received Him not (John 1:11), and that they will not come to Him that they might have life (John 5:40), make out His willingness abundantly and undeniably.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 55
   What is our commission today? This is it … the King … speaks to you by us, and we speak to you in His name, and tell you that our blessed Lord Jesus is wooing you. We declare, publish and proclaim it.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 58
   Our Lord Jesus is not far to seek. He is here waiting to close the bargain with you. This is our errand, to proclaim these glad tidings to you … Is not the Father ready? He has given His consent. Is not the Bridegroom ready, when He has done so much … The feast is ready, the garments are ready … The contract is ready … He is ready to accept you if you will accept Him. Our blessed Lord Jesus says that He is content to marry you … there is in effect nothing wanting but your consent, and let that not be wanting, I beseech you.
   Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 59

I would submit that these nine marks are common to all those who preach “Christ and him crucified” in a manner truly faithful to Scripture.

Are You “Prepared” For This?

The rise and development of preparationism is an interesting subject.  Key in studying this, of course, is an accurate definition of what preparationism is and what it is not.  I take the following as the key point of genuine preparationism:

1. The gospel offer is restricted to the “thirsty” or to those who have a “sense of sin” i.e. “sensible sinners”.
2. The sinner must therefore be prepared before accepting the gospel offer by finding within himself an appropriate degree of conviction of sin.
3. Consequently, the warrant to accept the offer of the gospel is placed within the sinner, for the gospel is only offered to sinners that are qualified or prepared.

My point in raising the issue of preparationism is to note how alien it is to Durham’s system of theology.  He explicitly denies this:

Grace does not stand precisely on forepreparations (where souls honestly and sincerely come), such as saying that you have not been so and so humbled, and have not such and such previous qualifications as you would have. Nay, in some way it excludes these, as offering to bring money and some price, which would quite spoil the market of free grace; nay yet, I say further, if it were possible that a soul could come without sense of sin, grace would embrace it…
Unsearchable Riches of Christ (rept.; Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002),156-7

There are some important elements here but the key point is that free and sovereign grace excludes the idea of “forepreparations”.  It is those without money who are invited to come and preparationism inverts this by demanding that a certain warrant must be produced by a sinner before they can come to Christ.  In another place Durham notes:

There is this prejudice in some that they think none can go and warrantably take hold of God’s covenant till they are so humbled, that they cannot go with convictions or challenges till they get some more deep heart work or are in a better and more tender frame … This in particular is one great prejudice that the devil labours deeply to possess the minds of awakened sinners with, to make them think that it is presumption for them … to come to Christ and by faith to close with Him unless they be so and so qualified.
Ibid, 225-6

We see here Durham’s pastoral application of his anti-preparationism.  Sinners somehow feel that they have to produce a certain amount of conviction of sin before they can come to Christ but this is nothing more than a “great prejudice that the devil labours deeply” to drive into the minds of sinners.  It is therefore to be utterly rejected.

Now in saying all this I’m not denying the place of the law and of conviction of sin - indeed I would argue that the poverty of much modern evangelical (and dare I say Reformed) spirituality and theology is due to a lack of conviction of sin and consciousness of God’s holiness.  Again, I am not denying that it is only the sick who will seek a doctor.  (It is because people like Durham emphasised this truth that they are sometimes falsely called preparationists.)  But I am arguing that in no way is this a preparation for salvation in the sense of providing a warrant for us to come to Christ - all men have sufficient warrant to come by virtue of the free offer of the gospel (God’s hearty invitation, to use the phraseology of the Sum of Saving Knowledge).

This is the first time I’ve posted on Durham in ages - maybe this is the James Durham thesis after all

John Dick on what it means to be “Confessional”

What does it mean to be a Professor in a Seminary/College that subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith?  What does it mean to be a Presbyter in a Church which subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith?  John Dick explains:

He who holds the office that I have undertaken [Professor of Theology], must deliver a particular system [of doctrine], because it is the system of the church which has appointed him, and because he believes it to be true.  He must say also, that if you will be ministers of that church, you must adopt her creed, because she allows no other to be taught to the people.  But further than that he has no right to proceed … He calls upon you to inquire for yourselves, with earnest prayer for divine illumination, and to embrace the truth wherever you may find it.
John Dick, Lectures on Theology (4 vols.; repr., Stoke on Trent: Tentmaker, 2004) 1:15.

Now let’s unpack what he is saying:

• Firstly, in a setting where professors subscribe to the Westminster Standards they “must” deliver the doctrine contained in them.  It is a sacred duty - no wiggle room allowed.
• Secondly, someone should only be a professor in such an institution if “he believes it [the Westminster Standards] to be true”.  As soon as that ceases to be the case a professor can no longer fulfil his duty honourably.  W.G.T Shedd is very helpful at this point, “There may be honest heresy but not honest dishonesty. A heretic who acknowledges that he is such, is a better man than he who pretends to be orthodox while subscribing to a creed which he dislikes, and which he saps under pretence of improving it and adapting it to the times. The honest heretic leaves the Church with which he no longer agrees; but the insincere subscriber remains within it in order to carry out his plan of demoralization.” (Shedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, 152).  [NB: I'm not equating disagreement with any element of the WCoF as heresy!]
• Thirdly, candidates for the ministry need to understand the duty of pastors in denominations which subscribe to confessions.  To be a pastor in a confessional denomination you must be prepared to “accept her creed” as the truth of Scripture and you must be able to teach congregations doctrine consistent with the confessional standards.
• Fourthly, confessionalism does not ride roughshod over people’s consciences.  If, after being instructed about the doctrinal position of a church, you come to disagree with it, then, fine (albeit sad).  Scripture must be followed.  The entry to ministry in a confessional church is closed but that is better than going against conscience.

This all seems fairly straightforward to me and yet, as anyone who reads church history knows, terribly difficult to put into practice!

I know none of the above is related to the free offer but I am doing a case study of the meaning of a confessional document so posting on the implications of confessions for church life is related to my studies.  I’ll try and write something on the free offer in the course of next week - I nearly posted something on the Marrowmen and “preparationism” but got stuck halfway through.  I hope to get unstuck soon.

PS I wouldn’t necessarily say John Dick perfectly lived out the sentiments above.

Johannes Wollebius on the Free Offer

Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629) is one of the most significant of the Continental Reformed theologians yet is relatively unknown in Reformed circles today.  This is a shame as he has many helpful things to say on the free offer of the gospel - but fear not for they are summarised below!

Wollebius begins his discussion of the free offer or “common call” of the gospel by noting that this is “common to the elect and reprobate” and that there is an effectual call that is “only to the elect” (133).  He notes that the common call is an “invitation to the state of grace” (133).  This is one reason why I cannot understand the claim that by “offer” 16th & 17thC theologians meant “present” or “exhibit”.  No, no, and again no.  “Invitation” (often coupled with “gracious”) was what they meant by offer, or to express it differently by offer they meant offer.  R. Scott Clark drives a coach and horses through the argument that “offer” meant “exhibit” or “present” in his fine article ”Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple (ed. David VanDrunen; New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004).

Wollebius emphasises the Trinitarian nature of the common gospel call, stating “The efficient cause of this vocation [calling] is the whole blessed Trinity: but particularly Christ the Lord; who as in the days of his ministration here on earth did immediately call sinners, so he doth now by the means of his ministers”.  (133) Scripture references given are Matt 22:2-3, Mark 1:14-15 & 2 Cor 5:20.  Important here is the fact that the call made by ministers is really Christ’s call, and in turn the call of the Trinity.  It is not the minister’s offer only, he is but an ambassador; in reality it is a Divine offer.

Wollebius proceeds to define what he means by the gospel call, identifying two elements:

• “the proffer of the benefit of redemption” (134)
• “the precept of accepting it” (134)

This is a helpful way of considering things.  First, the benefit of redemption is “proffered” i.e. offered for acceptance or rejection.  Second, there is a command to accept.  The splitting out of these elements concisely illustrates that the gospel call was viewed as more than just a command by Wollebius - he also distinctly viewed it as an offer, citing 2 Cor 5:20.

Given that ultimately the justice of God will be glorified in the condemnation of the disobedient reprobate who reject the offer, can we speak of a sincere or well meant offer to the reprobate?  According to Wollebius we can :-)  He argues that “as for the reprobate, although they are not called with any purpose in God to save them, yet they are called seriously, and salvation is seriously promised to them on condition they will believe.”  A few elements to note here.  First, the gospel offer to the reprobate is sincere, they are not “mocked” by it.  Second, the reprobate receive a promise from God.  Third, this promise is conditional.  A few people take issue with the language of conditions but, as long as we aren’t using it in a neonomian sense, it is simply standard Reformed theology.  So, God’s promise to all in the gospel is sincere and therefore those who reject it are justly, as decreed by God, condemned for their unbelief, to the praise of his justice.

All quotes from the chapter “Of the common vocation to the state of grace” in John Wollebius The Abridgment of Christian Divinity (trans. Alexander Ross; London: Printed by T. Mab and A. Coles, For John Saywell, 1650), 133-135.

“The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards With Reference to the Theology of Herman Hoeksema”

This is the title of a helpful article by David Silversides in Reformed Theological Journal 9 (1993), 62-84.  Here are some thoughts and quotations I’ve gleaned from the article.

Now, justification is a real favour applied to us in time, just as sanctification in the new birth: ‘and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified’ (1 Cor. 6:11). Then were they sometime not washed.
Samuel Rutherford, Trial & Triumph of Faith, 1845, 91.
p66

The Scots theologians of the mid 17th C seem to me to be quite opposed to any notion of eternal justification.  Things were not quite so uniform on this in England e.g. Thomas Goodwin.

The condition of the Covenant is faith: holiness and sanctification are the condition of the covenanters … This do was the condition of the Covenant of Works. This believe is the condition of this Covenant …
Samuel Rutherford, ibid, 87
p70

The whole notion of “conditions” relating to the covenant of grace/gospel offer is something that is very interesting.  The Reformed divines (c.f. WLC Q&A 32) of the mid 17th C used the language of conditionality frequently but what they meant by “conditions” must be carefully understood.  I need to spend a fair amount of time expanding on this in the thesis which means a blog post on it will appear sometime.  Durham uses the language of “condition” everywhere but in one significant comment he says he doesn’t like the word very much!

God’s decree of election or His intention to save me, is not the proper object of my faith, but … Christ holdeth forth his rope to drowned and lost sinners, and layeth out an open market of rich treasures of heaven; do thou take it for granted, without any further dispute, as a principle, after to be made good, that Christ hath thoughts of grace and peace concerning thee, and do but now husband well the grace offered, lay hold on Christ, ay while he put thee away from Him, and if there be any question concerning God’s intention of saving thee, let Christ first move the doubt, but do not thou be the first mover.
S. Rutherford, A Sermon Preached to the Honourable House of Commons, 1643.
See also Trial p300.
p73-4

A good example of gospel preaching.

If the anti-common grace position were correct, then Christ as God in no sense loved the reprobate even while they were in this world. As a man ‘made under the law’ the command “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” applied to Christ. Only two options are open. The first is an heretical division of the person of Christ, by maintaining that Christ loved only the elect in His divine nature but loved all men in His human nature. Clearly this must be rejected. The alternative is to say that Christ, in both natures, loved the elect only and that our obligation to love all men is founded on our ignorance of who the elect are. This means that we are required to love those whom God does not. Moreover, Scripture bases our obligation to love all men not on our ignorance of God’s mind, but the knowledge of it that we should have and our duty to be patterned after Him (Matt. 5:23-48).
p75

Stark “either or” dilemmas are often double-edged swords but the above quote from Rev Silversides gets to the heart of a profound Christological problem for deniers of common love/grace.

… the Westminster Divines as a whole held to what became known as the doctrine of common grace in the sense that the Lord, in a variety of ways, displays his favour and lovingkindness even to the non-elect in this present life … The preaching of the Gospel and the overture of mercy which it includes is one part of that display of lovingkindness.
p78

A sound piece of historical analysis.  This is what the Standards teach.

He offereth in the Gospel, life to all … [this is] God’s moral complacency of grace, revealing an obligation that all are to believe if they would be saved; and upon their own peril be it, if they refuse Christ … Christ cometh once with good tidings to all, elect and reprobate.
Rutherford, Trial, 129ff
p78

Another good extract from Rutherford.

On another note my chapter “The Free Offer of the Gospel in the Westminster Confession” is now finished!  Hurray!  Required before the end of June - two chapters on James Durham.  This is the meat of my thesis and should be a pleasure to write.

Weekly Update 47 - John Brown of Haddington

One of the gems that I have come across in looking at previous interpretations of the Westminster Standards on the free offer of the gospel is John Brown of Haddington’s understanding of Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 31*:

Q: What is effectual calling?

A: Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.Brown makes a number of vital points in relation to the free offer of the gospel while expounding this section of the catechism: 

• He defines the offer of the gospel as Christ “holding forth himself as able and willing to save, and inviting sinners to receive salvation from him.”  Two vital things here.  First the gospel offer speaks of the willingness of Christ to save and second the gospel offer is an invitation (as opposed to being, say, a presentation of facts).
• He emphasizes the universal extent of the offer stating that Christ offers himself “to every one that hears the gospel, without exception”.
• He notes the offer is “earnest” and explains this as “all the divine persons do often, in the most engaging terms, and with the most powerful motives, beseech, intreat, and command us to embrace Christ”.  This is key.  The offer does not just come from the preacher but from God - fundamentally it is God’s offer.  Also note that Brown emphasises the well meant nature of the offer.
• Finally the offer of the gospel is our warrant to come to Christ for “Q. What warrant have we to embrace Christ in the gospel? A. … Christ’s offer offer of himself to us … [and the Father's] setting forth Christ as the great mean of salvation, which everyone of mankind hath a right and welcome to receive, John iii. 16.”

 Of course John Brown (Haddington) was heir to the Marrow tradition of Boston & the Erskines so we would expect him to be good on the free offer of the gospel - and he is! The Marrow tradition represents Scottish Calvinism in all its glory.

*All quotations from John Brown, An Essay, Toward an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of The Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Printed by Henry Frick for M’Carty & Davis, 1818), 142-3. 

Weekly Update 46 - Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly

Again time is tight - the deadline for getting this chapter done is Tuesday night and things are looking, well, not so good at the moment but I’m sure I’ll get there in the end.  So instead of a proper post these are some of my notes on Chad B. Van Dixhoorn’s MTh thesis entitled “Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly: The Making of a Pulpit Theology” (MTh., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000).  Of course Dr Van Dixhoorn has gone on to bigger and better things since his MTh becoming the foremost expert on the Westminster Assembly and spearheading the first full printing of the Westminster Assembly Minutes, however his MTh still makes some interesting points.

… the men of the Westminster Assembly were heavily dependent on their theological predecessors.
p7

As any good theologian will be!  We must get out of the mindset (especially in purely exegetical circles) that the past 50 years  (if we go back that far!) of writings are all that matter for the theological task today.  That is a grand mistake.

From my reading it appears that Martin Luther, though frequently cited by the Westminster divines, is used more as a source for cleaver quotations than for his theological insights. There are, of course, exceptions to such broad generalisations; I only suggest this as a tendency.
p10

There is no denying that there are many “clever quotations” in Luther but there are better theologians (even though Luther got the main things spot on).

Calvin’s influence on the Assembly… is beyond doubt. “Mr Calvin” is frequently cited in the works of divines and was at times appealed to even in the midst of a sermon.
p25

Calvin against the Calvinists anyone

It is a well known fact that the Westminster Assembly produced consensus documents in part, at least, for political reasons. Over the summer of 1643 the English Parliament was loosing too many battles to the royalist forces and look north for help to the equally unhappy Presbyterian Scots. The majority of Scots Presbyterian lairds (but not all) agreed to help the parliamentarians so long as the English would sign a six point treaty entitled, “The Solemn League and Covenant”.
p49

Politics and religion in the 17th century - never far from one another!

The fact that almost all of them [Westminster Divines] came from the colleges from Oxford and Cambridge is also important. At Cambridge, William Perkins still loomed large; in both schools Calvin’s Institutes was a standard text.
p61

Again Calvin versus the Calvinists?

… the present line of inquiry seems to suggest that the Assembly’s stress on preaching may not only represent conformity to a respected theological heritage, but may also indicate a concern over the neglect of preaching by the Anglicans only recently removed from power and the sudden burst of heterodox preaching which flooded the country during the civil war.
p90

In interpreting any document context is key.  So although we can say the Westminster Confession’s emphasis on preaching is because of their biblical understanding it also has a polemic function against certain Anglicans and Seperatists.

… the body of the Directory’s practical instructions is Perkinsian in colour, elaborating the three part sermon structure of exegesis, doctrinal extraction, and application found in The Art of Prophesying. The conclusion of the Directory echoes many of Archbishop Usher’s nine exhortations to his ordinands.
p99

So we need to be well read in earlier Reformed theology to grasp where the Confession is coming from and what the major influences on it are.

The hope that preaching extends to the lost is a recurring theme in the Assembly’s writing.
p102

Happy days - Dr Van Dixhoorn’s thoughts tie with my own!  I must be on the right track after all.

It is the metaphor of ambassador that most seems to awe and grip the divines when they think about preaching and preachers.
p118

It also grips Durham.

“… a minister… standeth in God’s room, and in God’s name makes offer of salvation, 2 Corinthians 5:10.”
William Gouge, Hebrews, Kregel, 1980, chapter 2, section 23, vol. 1, 101.
p119

This is why I don’t understand the argument that the preacher only offers the gospel indiscriminately because he does not know who is elect or not.  Because it isn’t really the preacher doing the offering it is God’s offer - and he does know who is elect!

“…every sermon I come to hear, I must expect to be nearer heaven or nearer hell.”
Burroughs, Gospel Fear, SDG ed, 20
p132

A profound thought.  Do we go to hear sermons with that thought on our minds and hearts?

“When a Minister preacheth and applieth the promises of the Gospel, he doth not only declare and make known God’s mercy and goodness to poor sinners, but also is an especial means to move those sinners to believe and embrace reconciliation with God.”
William Gouge, Whole Armour, Works, 262
p143

A fitting note to end the post on.

PS I’m away on holiday this coming week from Wednesday until the following Monday so I may not get the chance to post again until Monday 24th.