I’m going to give Hugh the week off by tossing in an entry for this week. The same rules apply… Interacting with ideas expressed is more valuable than the guess itself. And, of course, no Googling.
Therefore, that for ministers in this present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other to deny the doctrine of special redemption.
Update 8/10:
Well, Dan pretty much nailed this week’s quote within hours of its posting. The quote is from article 33 of the The Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.) from 1878. Article 26 contains this gem: “We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.”
This confession is a classic example of the error known as hyper-Calvinism. Like many other errors, hyper-Calvinism arises when one doctrine is emphasized to the exclusion of others. These folks were very concerned with preserving for God all of the credit and glory in bringing about salvation. That’s a good thing! However, they do not seem to be equally concerned with upholding other areas of God’s revealed will. Particularly, they deny that the call of the gospel goes out to all men (Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28-29; Isa. 45:22; 55:1-7) and that all men are responsible to respond to it (Acts 17:30). The more we emphasize any one doctrine, the greater to need to check ourselves to make sure that we have not gone out of balance into error.
Phil Johnson has an excellent primer on hyper-Calvinism. If you found yourself affirming this week’s quote, I plead with you to read the entire article. Here is a portion of it….
A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
- Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
- Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
- Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
- Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
- Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.
Many modern hyper-Calvinists salve themselves by thinking their view cannot really be hyper-Calvinism because, after all, they believe in proclaiming the gospel to all. However, the “gospel” they proclaim is a truncated soteriology with an undue emphasis on God’s decree as it pertains to the reprobate. One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, “The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not.” Thus the good news about Christ’s death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist “gospel” often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.
Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist “evangelism” is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever.
The hyper-Calvinist position at this point amounts to a repudiation of the very gist of 2 Corinthians 5:20: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” The whole thrust of the gospel, properly presented, is to convey an offer (in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal) of divine peace and mercy to all who come under its hearing. The apostle’s language is even stronger, suggesting the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God—or rather he stands “in Christ’s stead,” pleading thus with the sinner. Hyper-Calvinism in essence denies the concept of human responsibility, and so it must eliminate any such pleading, resulting in a skewed presentation of the gospel.
By the way, the term hyper-Calvinism is thrown about quite a bit these today, especially since there has been a renaissance of sorts in reformed thinking within the Church. but as Johnson’s article points out, hyper-Calvinism is a very particular error. The term is often incorrectly applied to merely enthusiastic Calvinists.
Wow, you give Hugh a break and give us a toughy! I will say it was eminent Baptist Theologian John Gill. Although there are those who say John Gill has been misrepresented, he was no doubt staunch in his belief that the Gospel is “all of God.” Regardless of whether it was Gill or just those who quoted him who used these types of statements to push the idea that a person cannot do anything to receive God’s grace in salvation, it was Gill who is credited with promoting the idea that Christians are to not present the Gospel.
The idea went something like this, God has determined some for salvation and He will make it happen; therefore, I don’t need to present the Gospel (ala “Hyper-Calvinism”). To do otherwise would be to not believe in the Sovereign of the universe. It’s tragic, even robust theology that is one bubble off will create a hideous belief like hyper-calvnism.
Well, I googled “doctrine of special redemption” as I had never heard that term before and wanted to be sure I wasn’t confusing it for something else.
Don’t! This quote is the top return.
So in hopes of finding an easy definition to post to help everyone, it turns out not to be that simple. Dan, or whoever, is it just another way of saying “limited atonement” or is it something different?
To clarify… This is more of a “who all” said it. It was not an individual, but a group. Still, a more interesting question is… Is it right or wrong and why?
Charles Finney …just kidding. 😉
If this opinion were true, the only people to whom we should preach the Gospel are those who are already converted.
A “group,” eh? Interesting. I hope it’s not a group I belong to!
I read this quote in different ways.
Is it saying only ministers should not do this (implying that the congregation should individually) or that no one should ever tell people to repent? I’m still not sure.
“This present day” is a frustrating thing to read; as if there was a time that it was appropriate. I can’t help but think this group is saying that somehow our call to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth has gotten a little out of hand and that we are sinning if we do. By preaching Christ and repentance in our time, we are denying that it is God who saves? Does that sound a little satanic to anyone?
I don’t know anything about the “new creative power of the Holy Ghost”. I’d google it but I don’t want to risk seeing this quote. Again, I’d ask, ”What do you mean by that?” Ah, I’m ignorant about it today, but I shall soon find out!
This quote could very well be a logical sounding excuse to enlarge a church and “tickle some ears”.
This is a difficult one. Read one way, it could be the thoughts of a hyper-Calvinist as Dan suggests. However, read another way, it could be a reaction to ‘easy believism’ or ‘decisional regeneration’. Difficult to tell without the context. Eric’s clue that it’s not necessarily an individual makes me think it may be from a confession of faith of some kind?
I think the unique point of the quote is contained in the plural words “persons” and “congregation”.
Typically a Calvinist would justify the effectiveness of specific witnessing as God’s using individuals to accomplish his predestined will.
In a congregational setting though, an “alter call” is given to a large group, as the writer says “indiscriminately”, which would imply that everyone that heard the message would have the natural ability to respond.
That’s the way it sounds to me anyway.
guiroo, nobody actually answered your question as far as I can tell. So, yes, “special redemption” is another term for limited atonement.
And I don’t know any hyper-Calvinists, so I truly have no idea who could have said this.
I’ve updated the original post with the origin of the quote and a bit of analysis.
Thank you Eric and thank you Hugh, for filling part of my summer with a challenge of the mind. I am now ready to venture back into homeschooling a little bit wiser, I think.
I’ve enjoyed agreeing and disagreeing with people or persons I’ve never heard of. You would think with so many younger children, I’d be tired of doing that. However, it was a refreshing break.
Congratulations Dan for getting this one!
Jeffrey Wrote…
So, yes, “special redemption” is another term for limited atonement.
So then as believers we are considered “limited and special” in God’s eyes? 🙂
Jeffrey, thx!
CA, the words “limited” and “special” describe the atonement, not God’s thoughts/affections toward us based on who we are or anything we’ve done.
I would push back a little against Johnson’s statement that the whole thrust of the Gospel is to ‘convey an offer’. The Gospel is not presented in scripture as an ‘offer’ but a command (Acts 17:30). Everyone, everywhere is commanded to repent and believe, however, only those to whom the Spirit gives life will do so.
Larry, given that adjustment, would you agree with Johnson that the attitude that Paul displays is consistent with the idea that “the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God.”?
Eric, yes, in the main. It’s that word ‘begs’ that throws me a little. I believe the scriptures clearly teach we should take the Gospel to the whole world, without exception, and that preaching the Gospel involves urging people to repent and believe. Peter did this at Pentecost and Paul did it with the Philippian jailer.
However, I don’t want to go down a road that says the more ‘earnest’ the preacher’s plea is or the longer the ‘invitation’ goes on the greater the chance that some will be converted. In my opinion that comes dangerously close to Finney’s belief that revival is produced simply by the right use of the constituted means, in other words it’s dependent not as much on the preaching of the Word and the activity of the Holy Spirit as upon how much the preacher begs and cries or how many verses of ‘Just as I Am’ we sing after the sermon.
I don’t think that’s where you’re going by the way, I just say that to explain my hesitancy in giving an unqualified ‘yes’ answer to your question.
Larry, I agree. I also don’t like characterizations of the gospel that make God out to be the beggar–where God is wringing His hands and hoping someone will accept His offer of salvation. I think your reminder that repentance is commanded is a good antidote to that. My point (as I think Johnson’s is) is that Paul’s passion and burden for the lost was not diminished one bit by his doctrinal commitment to God’s sovereignty. I think of Romans 9:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in particular….
May we emulate Paul’s passion for the gospel and concern for the lost as he emulated the heart of our Savior.
So do hyper-calvs say that events like Pentacost, Mars Hill, etc. were a Disciple/Apostle thing?
I haven’t met any to ask but I would ask how they felt about their own salvation. It seems like someone would have shared the Gospel with them — do they view that person as denying doctrine etc?
“While you were ‘unconverted’, how were you ‘addressed … to repent and believe’?”
If you are interested in the reason why this article was written then you ought read the commentary written by one of the Gospel Standard writers at the link below:
http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=343
“Whatever our worthy predecessors intended by the terms of this Article, they certainly did not mean to minimize the sin of unbelief. The purpose was to rebut the flesh-pleasing error taught by the Arminian that man in his natural state (that is, dead in trespasses and sins) is possessed of some latent power to exercise savingly the spiritual acts of faith and repentance.”
To respond to Guiroo,
The question is not quite as simple as you may expect. Let us not forget that there are a number of types of repentance and faith. There is natural repentance, legal repentance, national repentance, external repentance, hypocritical repentance and finally evangelical repentance. There is also historical faith, temporary faith and saving faith.
Now only the latter (evangelical repentance and saving faith) is given to the elect by God.
All broke the law in Adam and so all are under the obligation to repent of it. Yet are all duty bound to repent evangelically when that is a gift from God particular to the elect?
Also, no-one denies that all who hear the gospel are duty bound to believe it but all that would mean is all are bound to believe that they were sinners and that Christ died for sinners. One could not say that God placed all men under the duty to believe that Christ for them for that would mean they were duty-bound to believe a lie (as per limited atonement).
Further, the reprobate are under the duty to give thanks to God for his death simply because of the temporal benefits they obtain from it. But again, that is not saving faith nor evangelical repentance.
It is somewhat complicated but I hope the above helps 🙂
Richard,
After reading that article, I’m not persuaded. I don’t see why anyone would even try to defend and nuance the clear statement that “[we] reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.”
In Luke 24:46-47, Jesus says “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
In Acts 2:37-39, we have this… “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ 38 And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'”
In Luke 5:31-32, we have “And Jesus answered them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.'”
So, the only people we have to preach to are the unregenerate. The defense you linked to seems to set up a straw-man that we expect the natural man to repent (savingly–the only kind of repentance we are concerned with) of his own power. This is not the case. We hold that God must change the heart. But this is God’s business. It is our job to preach and persuade.
You said this… “One could not say that God placed all men under the duty to believe that Christ for them for that would mean they were duty-bound to believe a lie (as per limited atonement).” My response is that the gospel does not ask that one believe that Christ died for him. It demands that one repent of his rebellion to God and place his trust (faith) in Christ.
I hope that helps you understand my problem with the articles cited better.
Thanks for your response. I wonder if you are a fan of the Puritans? I certainly am. Richard Sibbes, William Perkins and William Ames, Thomas Shepard, John Owen and others all taught the following which is summarised by J I Packer in his “Puritan Evangelism”:
“From these principles the Puritans deduced their characteristic conception of the practice of evangelism. Since God enlightens, convicts, humbles and converts through the the Word, the task of His messengers is to communicate that word, preaching and applying law and gospel. Preachers are to declare God’s mind as set forth in the texts they expound, to show the way of salvation, to exhort the unconverted to learn the law, to meditate on the Word, to humble themselves, to pray that God will show them their sins, and enable them to come to Christ. They are to hold Christ forth as a perfect Saviour from sin to all who Heartily desire to be saved from sin, and to invite such (the weary and burdened souls whom Christ Himself invites, Mt. 11:28) to come to the Saviour who waits to receive them. But they are not to…demand immediate repentance and faith of all and sundry. They are sent to tell all men that they must repent and believe to be saved, but it is no part of the word and message of God if they go further and tell all the unconverted that they ought to “decide for for Christ” (to use a common modern phrase) on the spot. God never sent any preacher to tell a congregation that they were under obligation to receive Christ at the close of the meeting. For in fact only those prepared by the Spirit can believe; and it is only such whom God summons to believe. There is a common confusion here. The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment…and it is God’s prerogative, not the evangelist’s, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe. For the latter to try and do so, by appealing to sinners to begin believing here and now, is for man to take to himself the sovereign right of the Holy Ghost. It is an act of presumption, however creditable the evangelist’s motive’s may be. Hereby he goes beyond his commission as God’s messenger; and hereby he risks doing incalculable damage to the souls of men. If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God’s name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will will come forward and accept directions and “go through the motions” and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. So a crop of false conversions will result from making such appeals, in the nature of the case. Bullying for “decisions” thus in fact impedes and thwarts the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is “false conversions,” hypocrisy and hardening. “For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to “decide for Christ” at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.”
You say that “the gospel does not ask that one believe that Christ died for him”. To which I reply, that however is not the issue as such. The issue is whether this subjective element is an part of saving faith. Is not placing ones trust in Christ saying “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20)
As preachers we are to apply the law to the unawakened sinner but the gospel balm to the awakened sinner.
The following sermons will illustrate what I mean and I am sure you will enjoy them:
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/176.htm
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/138.htm
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/139.htm
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/102.htm
Richard,
Thanks for addressing my question. I think you addressed more of my questions in your last response.
So are you saying that the Gospel should be preached to the “unconverted” but should not include a call to action (to use a marketing term) and that we must only respond to individuals when they ask “what must we do?” (Acts 2:32)
P.S. You won’t find many Finney fans here for sure. 🙂
The gospel should indeed be preached to all regardless of their converted state (or lack thereof), of that there is no doubt and so we will agree on that completely.
Now concerning exhortations; Toplady writes in his sermon GOOD NEWS FROM HEAVEN “It would be frivolous to call them to the waters who do not thirst. It would be ridiculous mockery, should we invite the dead to sit down at table, and lay a plate and knife and fork before them, and ask them why they will not eat? The plain fact is, they cannot eat nor drink. They must be made alive ere they can have so much as an appetite to either.” (http://www.pbministries.org/articles/Toplady/good_news.htm)
To lay down a rule as to what a preacher should preach is in one sense wrong what we should do is lay out some principles. We know that in our congregations there will be a number of people:
1. godly Christians yearning to see more of Christ the chiefest of ten thousand.
2. Christians who are in the depths who have sinned recently and who are morning their stumble.
3. Christians who are very immature and do not see the sinfulness of sin as deeply as they ought.
4. Professors of faith who are hypocritical
5. the unregenerate who have pangs of guilt whom the Spirit of God has been preparing.
6. the unregenerate.
I am sure there are more but this will serve my interest now. In preaching the minister must preach the law, remind people of the covenant of works that they are under/have been freed from; preach the depth of sin; the grace of God in Christ; the fulness of Christ to receive all who mourn their sin and flee to him for refuge; preach the fragrace of Christ.
All have broken the law and all are under its curse, they are duty-bound to repent and those hardened by sin and unregenerate ought be reminded of their duty and yet the way of peaching this is not to say “you are duty bound to repent so repent now! Come on repent…I am waiting!!” but rather to impress upon that person of the need for repentance, that Christ is coming and that they are unable to spiritually repent for they are so dead in their sins they are unable to do that which is good. They are wholly dependent upon God…they crucified Christ etc…when they ask us individually what they must do we turn them from their works to faith in the all sufficient one who is more than able to save them and delights in repentance.
The whole “duty faith” and “duty repentance” debate somewht missess the subtelty of the Biblical picture.
It is not that we only respond to them when they ask, but rather our response and message varies depending upon what they ask. Of course we cannot know the state of a person’s heart so we preach to all but the message is directed towards different people in applications.
e.g. If preaching on Matthew 11:28 I would say in summary:
What? “COME unto me”
Why? “I will give you REST”
Who? “ye who labour and are HEAVY LADEN”
Here is a gracious invitation, are you heavy laden? do your sins weary you? to you labour to free yourself from the curse of the law? then this invitation is for you! Trust in Christ, take his yoke and you will be free indeed.
Does this mean nothing to you? Then look into the law of God, see your filthiness for you are but a wretched person, vile in the sight of God…
But I had better stop. I hope I have answered your question 🙂
Richard,
I disagree with Toplady’s conclusion (exhortations are frivolous) because it assumes only dead people are invited to the table. Yet you acknowledge there is a people group described as “the unregenerate whom the Spirit has been preparing”. How do you know the difference between the two? Why cancel the whole invitation because you invite a dead person? (Now no one is gonna come to any more of MY parties. 😉 )
I think we agree that the reminder of the duty to repent is not to be cheapened, forced or manipulated. I would offer that “Come unto me” is an example of the principle of an exhortation/call to action. (Assuming the words are synonyms.)
It also sounds like you are specifying that the first two points of Calvinism must be present in the Gospel message.
What biblical Gospel presentation examples can you offer that follow this model? (Peter goes on to say, “Repent and be baptized” in Acts 2.)
P.S. Do you classify yourself as a hyper-calvinist?
I am not saying that there is no call or invitation but rather that the call and invitation is made particularly to the prepared sinner, those who hunger and thirst.
Do you believe that we ought not preach total depravity?
Hi Richard — when you say the gospel call “is made particularly to the prepared sinner,” I’m not sure what you mean by “particularly.”
Do you mean that:
A) We ought to exercise restraint in preaching the gospel and decide for ourselves which are the “prepared sinners” who should be called to repent and believe, or
B) Preach “promiscuously” and expect that only the “prepared sinners” will respond (cf. the parable of the soils in Matthew 13)
Thanks for the stimulating discussion!
I do think it should be preached, though I’m not sure it’s a requirement. I’ve been pondering different ways to present the Gospel online and though I distain the approach that makes it seem like all a person has to do is “flip the belief in Jesus switch”, it seems confusing to say:
“…impress … the need for repentance, that Christ is coming and that they are unable to spiritually repent…”
If you are a hyper-cal, I’d be interested in an outlined example of preaching the Gospel and a “particular” invitation. (Think flow-chart.)
Not trying to label you, just haven’t met one before. 🙂
Hugh,
By particularly I mean that the goodnews is specifically for the prepared sinner. If I was in the pulpit of your church and I said “please can Hugh Williams” see me after the sermon…then the message has been preached to all but the message is only for you. So Christ’s “come unto me” is preached to all but is only for the awakened sinner.
Think of Isaiah 55:1 “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,” who is being invited here? The invitation is made known to all but it is only for the awakened sinner.
The reprobate that hears the gospel has the duty to believe all that is declared concerning Christ. The issue of saving faith is however a hard one. Why?
Westminster Larger Catechism:
Question 72: What is justifying faith?
Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
I am not sure how one can argue the above is a duty placed upon the reprobate. I am open to persuasion though!
Guiroo,
My point was that they are to have impressed upon them their complete dependence upon God.
No I do not consider myself to be a “hyper-Calvinist”. People may label me as such but that is their perogative.
You want some examples of preaching, well I suggest you read the following:
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/012.htm
http://www.truegospel.net/Philpot/099.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_43.htm
Enjoy 🙂
I’m afraid I’m still not clear on your point, Richard. Going back to my question in #27, is that (A) or (B)?
Your example has nothing to do with validity of an exhortation itself but with the intended audience – whether a specific individual or people group. (While you may get a disgreement from an Arminian, any Calvinist realizes that only God will provide the harvest as they indiscriminately spread the Gospel and exhort the masses to action — not knowing who God may choose to regenerate today.)
The quotes and doctrines in question on this post say that exhortations are not be given if lost people are present, period. So Christ’s own exhortation of “Come unto me” (turn to God) would be denied according to:
P.S. Dang, still don’t know a self-proclaimed hyper-cal. 😉
Actually I think you are misunderstanding their point Guiroo. The quote from their articles states “men in a state of nature”. That is the unprepared sinner. The point is that the “come unto me” is only for the prepared sinner not the unprepared which is bornout by the “ye that labour and are heavy laden”. As I pointed out before, the Puritan doctrine was that:
“Preachers are to declare God’s mind as set forth in the texts they expound, to show the way of salvation, to exhort the unconverted to learn the law, to meditate on the Word, to humble themselves, to pray that God will show them their sins, and enable them to come to Christ…The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from.” (J. I. Packer in “Puritan Evangelism”)
Hugh, I am closer to B than A. 🙂