I had originally hoped this week to post some more Durham material, then I thought I would post some material on Robert Bolton but I haven’t managed to get either of these ideas into shape. So I’m going to post further material from J.I. Packer’s essay, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” How Shall they Hear, Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1959, p11-21 (See note 1).
If we do not preach about sin and God’s judgement on it, we cannot present Christ as a Saviour from sin and the wrath of God.
Packer is making a vital point here. Only against the scriptural teaching on sin does the glorious truth that a Saviour is offered to us have any meaning. Of course sin is not a popular word in our culture. Has the culture influenced the pulpit? Are sin and God’s judgement on sin preached in proportion with the weight given to them in scripture?
If the doctrines of total inability, unconditional election and effectual calling are true… Are we indeed entitled to make a ‘free offer’ of Christ to sinners at all?
Packer here highlights a potential dilemma. Is ‘Calvinism’ compatable with the free offer of the Gospel? How does he answer this dilemma? The answer is twofold.
It would be tragic if the current return to Reformed theology, instead of invigorating evangelism, as it should, had the effect of strangling it; but it seems clear that many today have ceased to preach evangelistically…
First Packer laments that some have taken the free offer to be incompatable with “Calvinism”. Packer regards this as tragic – so do I. Speaking of the 1950’s and the return to “Reformed theology” Packer noted that because of this “many… have ceased to preach evangelistically.” What a tragedy and what a misunderstanding of the implications of Reformed theology! And yet, is the situation in Reformed churches much different today? What proportion of Reformed churches habitually preach evangelistically?
In this situation, we return to the Puritans for further guidance.
Well this was a “Puritan and Reformed Study Conference” so his basic response is not primarily Scriptural but historical. What light does Packer glean from the Puritans?
The Puritans did not regard evangelistic sermons as a special class of sermons, having their own peculiar style and conventions; the Puritan position was, rather, that, since all Scripture bears witness to Christ, and all sermons should aim to expound and apply what is in the Bible, all proper sermons would of necessity declare Christ and so be to some extent evangelistic… The only difference was that some sermons aimed more narrowly and exclusively at converting sinners than did others.
I covered this last week. Packer’s basic point is that historically the Puritans (“Calvinists”) were passionate proponents of the free offer of the gospel – so it is a grand mistake to think that “Calvinism” and the free offer are incompatable.
Observe how much they [the Puritans] took the word ‘gospel’ to cover. It denoted to them the whole doctrine of the covenant of grace… Thus, to preach the gospel meant to them nothing less than declaring the entire economy of redemption, the saving work of all three members of the Trinity.
But we should not be mistaken. Puritan evangelistic preaching was not minimalistic. It could not be summed up by “God has a wonderful plan for your life if only you let him”. No, for the Puritans gospel preaching was preaching the full counsel of God.
The Puritan view was that preaching ‘gospel sermons’ meant teaching the whole Christian system – the character of God, the Trinity, the plan of salvation, the entire work of grace. To preach Christ, they held, involved preaching all this… In this way, they would say, preaching the gospel involves preaching the whole counsel of God. Nor should preaching the gospel be thought of as something confined to set evangelistic occasions, as if at other times we should preach something else. If one preaches the Bible biblically, one cannot help preaching the gospel all the time, and every sermon will be, as Bolton said, at least by implication evangelistic.
Basically for the Puritans any and every doctrine or text could and should be applied evangelistically. Indeed this is necessary to preach biblically. For according to Packer, if we preach biblically, “one cannot help preaching the gospel all the time, and every sermon will be… at least by implication evangelistic.”
They [the Puritans] stressed the condescension of Christ. He was never to them less than the Divine Son, and they measured His mercy by His majesty. They magnified the love of the cross by dwelling on the greatness of the glory which He left for it. They dwelt on the patience and forbearance expressed in His invitations to sinners as further revealing his kindness. And when they applied Rev. iii. 20 evangelistically (as on occasion they did), they took the words ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock’ as disclosing, not the impotence of his grace apart from man’s cooperation (the too-prevalent modern interpretation), but rather the grace of His omnipotence in freely offering Himself to needy souls.
This is a point that has struck me in reading Durham and his contempories. They dwell so much on the condescension of Christ in offering himself freely to sinners. Packer’s explanation of the Puritan view of Rev 3:20 is very helpful. My only caveat is that it was more than just “on occasion” they applied it evangelistically.
The persons invited and commanded to believe are sinners, as such. The Saviour is freely offered in the gospel to all who need Him. The question of the extent of the atonement does not therefore arise in evangelism, for what the gospel commands the unconverted man to believe is not that Christ died with the specific intention of securing his individual salvation, but that here and now the Christ who died for sinners offers Himself to this individual sinner, saying to him personally, ‘Come unto me… and I will give you rest’ (Mt. xi. 28). The whole warrant of faith – the ground, that is, on which believing becomes permissible and obligatory – is found in this invitation and command of the Father and the Son.
Returning to his original question about the compatability of “Calvinism” with the free offer Packer now touches on the extent of the atonement and the warrant of faith. His explanation is sound and helpful.
The truth is that to all the Puritans it was one of the wonders of free grace that the Lord Jesus Christ invites sinners, just as they are, in all their filthy rags, to receive Him and find life, and they never waxed more impassioned and powerful than when dilating on what John Owen, in his stately way, calls ‘the infinite condescension, grace and love of Christ, in His invitations of sinners to come unto him, that they may be saved.’ (John Owen, Works, 1:422).
May the Lord of the harvest be pleased to send forth many labourers into his harvest field who would be as impassioned and powerful in preaching the free offer of salvation as the Puritans were. The fields are ripe for harvest, but those who labour as Puritan preachers laboured, appear to be few.
When I quote from John Owen I don’t endorse his views on church government (independency). Similarly, when I quote Packer here I don’t endorse his position on Evangelicals & Catholics Together or his ecclesiological differences with Dr D. Martyn Lloyd Jones.