Richard Gilpin (1625–1700) on Common Grace

"But then the sinning wilfully or falling away there mentioned, is only that of total apostasy; when men that have embraced the gospel, and by it have met with such impressions of power and delight upon their hearts, which we usually call common grace, do notwithstanding reject that gospel as false and fabulous, and so rise up against it with scorn and utmost contempt, as Julian the apostate did." Richard Gilpin, Dæmonologia Sacra; Or, A Treatise of Satan's Temptations, ed. Alexander Ballock Grosart (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1867), 301.

Biographical Info:
DNB

Stephen Denison (d. 1649) on the Son's Sufficient Redemption

"Secondly, destruction must needs be of a mans selfe, and not of God, because God hath sent a sufficient redemption by the means of his owne Son; and hath commanded it to be preached to every creature: yea he hath commanded us to believe in Christ, whom he hath sent, 1 John. 3:23. And therefore if when a pardon is offered, we wilfully refuse it, then our destruction is of ourselves."

Stephen Denison, The New Creature (London: Printed by Richard Field, dwelling in the great Woodstreete, 1619), 78.

[Note: I am not posting this as conclusive proof that Denison believed that Christ redeemed all men, but only to show that he grounds the gospel command and offer upon Christ's "sufficient redemption." Notice also that he says the gospel is a command *and* an offer, and that we are to preach "it" to every creature; that is, a sufficient redemption. According to Denison, men do not perish for want of a sufficient redemption, but for refusing it.]

Maurice Roberts on The Free Offer of the Gospel and Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

"The Free Offer may be defined like this:

It is the invitation given by God to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do so believe they will at once receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life."

Maurice Roberts, "The Free Offer of the Gospel," Banner of Truth 503-504 (August-September 2005), 39.

"Implied in the concept of this Free Offer are the following ideas. The Offer made is for all who hear it, whether they be elect or not. The Offer is not to be restricted or modified by the preacher in his presentation. The Offer is an expression of love and grace on God's part towards sinful, unbelieving men. The Offer is sincere on God's part, and it is genuinely and well meant. The Offer is addressed to sinners as they are and requires of them repentance and faith." Ibid., 39.

Roberts deals with two obejections to the Free Offer. The first he calls 'English Hyper-Calvinism,' which involves the denial of 'duty-faith.' Here is the second:

"(2) God gives no 'well-meant' offer to any but to the elect. This view might be termed 'Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism', as it is associated with the Dutch American theologian of the twentieth century, Herman Hoeksema, the founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America. The argument is this: God has elected some sinners to eternal life and reprobated others; God makes no promise or offer in the gospel to any except the elect.

Implied in this view are the following points: God in no sense loves the non-elect. There is no grace of any kind, either Saving Grace or Common Grace, given or offered to any except elect persons. It would be insincere of God to offer Saving Grace to those whom he has eternally reprobated – and this is a thing impossible. God cannot be said to desire or to wish anything which he has not decreed to happen, since this would be tantamount to frustrating God's will. It is not proper for a preacher to 'offer' Christ promisciously to a mixed audience of Christians and non-Christians. We may not teach that it is possible for God to will according to his precept what he does not will in his eternal decree." Ibid., 40.

"2. Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

The starting-point of this view is that God's will is one, not manifold. If he has eternally elected only some to eternal life it is wrong to suppose that he gives a well-meant offer of salvation to any but the elect only.

We would respond to this view as follows. The fact is that the Bible does speak of God as wanting and wishing all sinners to be saved. See the texts: Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 18:23, 30–32; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9. This is as certainly a matter of divine revelation as is his eternal election. Both are stated as revealed facts in scripture.

The way to interpret scripture is not to stress one truth to the detriment of another but to hold both truths at the same time. So we affirm both God's eternal election and his well-meant offer to all sinners who hear the gospel. We are obliged to do this because this is how God himself reveals his will to us. Put simply, it is this: God has fixed the number of the elect from eternity past; yet God desires every sinner who hears his gospel to receive it and to be eternally blessed in Christ." Ibid., 42.

At the end of this article, Roberts supplies the readers with several quotes from orthodox writers affirming God's desire to save all men, such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, William Greenhill, David Dickson, Thomas Halyburton and Patrick Fairbairn.

Iain Murray's Review of Silversides' Book on the Free Offer

The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed
David Silversides; Foreward: J. J. Murray Marpet Press, 16 Edward Street, Kilsyth, Scotland G65 9DL, 128 pp., £7.95.

This is a valuable addition to literature demonstrating that the gospel is good news for every hearer. It is more particularly oriented to answering the teaching of the Protestant Reformed Church of America (PRC) – encouraged in Britain through the British Reformed Fellowship – that the 'free offer' only means that the gospel is to be preached to all; it is no expression of love in God for all. So the preacher must not individualize the message to convey to his hearers the belief that the gospel is sent for their salvation; he must rather confine himself to generalities (not knowing who the elect are). The reasoning behind this belief is that God only has love for the elect and so the love revealed in the gospel can only have reference to them. Contrary to this position, Mr Silversides argues that 'The overtures of the gospel are an expression of God's love', and he sets out to prove that, in addition to saving love, there is a love in God for all men. We believe he succeeds and he does so without any of the rancour that has sometimes disfigured disagreement among Christians.

The orientation of the argument as a response to PRC writers makes this work of value chiefly to those who have been influenced by the supposition that the PRC teaching represents the purest Calvinism. It is to counter that idea that the author makes effective use of many Reformed authors from the Reformation and Puritan periods, showing that divine love is not to be confined to the elect alone. The scriptural case is foremost but, for those unconcerned with the historical, the book is somewhat specialist. It is not impossible that the other side may also produce 17th-century quotations which appear to contradict those here given. The fact is that it was not until the eighteenth century that hyper-Calvinism really became prominent, and earlier Reformed writers were more concerned with answering Arminianism.

In order to keep what he considers the main point clear, Mr Silversides does not argue that the free offer proves that God desires the salvation of all to whom the message comes. But can the divine love, that the author wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved? To side-line the question of desire will not, we think, blunt the hyper-Calvinist's claim that a free-offer, expressive of love to all, attributes two wills to God – fulfilled in the case of the elect and unfulfilled in the case of all others. But that charge needs to be met (as the author to some extent does) on other grounds. We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God's desire secondary. In the words of Professor John Murray, 'It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free-offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men' (Collected Writings, vol. 4, p. 113). Further on this point, see the chapter by John Piper on 'Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved' in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, T. Schreiner and Bruce Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). We hope and believe that David Silversides' thorough work will be of help to many on this important issue.

Iain H. Murray

From the "Book Reviews," in Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005), 22.

Notice carefully that Iain Murray, like Phil Johnson, appeals to Piper's article, but Murray explicitly does so to answer the issue of hyper-Calvinism on the primary subject of God's desire for the salvation of all men. Phil Johnson links to the same article in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, but wants to make the issue of God's universal saving desire "secondary" [in order to protect his friend James White from the charge], explicitly contrary to Murray. Moreover, Murray thinks God's universal love necessarily entails that God desires the highest good [i.e. salvation] of all in the revealed will, hence he says: "But can the divine love, that the author wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved?" This answers the Gillite position that God loves all in a temporal sense, but doesn't desire their highest good/salvation.

More Wonderful Paradoxes in Augustine

"But our very Life descended hither, and bore our death, and slew it, out of the abundance of His own life; and thundering He called loudly to us to return hence to Him into that secret place whence He came forth to us–first into the Virgin's womb, where the human creature was married to Him,–our mortal flesh, that it might not be for ever mortal,–and thence "as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a strong man to run a race." For He tarried not, but ran crying out by words, deeds, death, life, descent, ascension, crying aloud to us to return to Him. And He departed from our sight, that we might return to our heart, and there find Him. For He departed, and behold, He is here. He would not be long with us, yet left us not; for He departed thither, whence He never departed, because "the world was made by Him."

Augustine, "The Confessions of St. Augustine," NPNF, 1st series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1:74.

Narrowly "Reformed"

Some Reformed Baptists have been complaining about Dr. Scott Clark's narrow use of the term "Reformed," such that 1689 LBCF advocates do not qualify as truly "Reformed." Some of the discussion initially began on Micah Burke's blog here, and James White commented here and then here. I tried to post my following comments on Burke's blog, but got this reply:

Lockheed said...
Sorry Ynottony, I don't welcome your comments here

Here is my attempted post that was not allowed:

Dr. Clark's narrow interpretation of the "Reformed" label is further revealed by the fact that he doesn't think that so called "hypothetical universalists" should be considered "Reformed" or "Calvinists." He can't think, for example, that John Davenant, Matthias Martinius, Carleton, Ward, Goad, Hall, Crocius and Alsted signed the Synod of Dort in good conscience, or that they were truly "Reformed," contrary to what Dr. Richard Muller has said. The same is true of some Westminster divines, such as Calamy, Seaman, Vines, Harris, Marshall, and Arrowsmith. Dr. Richard Muller acknowledges that these men taught forms of "hypothetical universalism." Muller also says that Musculus, Zanchi, Ursinus, Bullinger, Twisse, John Preston and James Ussher also taught a non-Amyraldian "hypothetical universalism," but Dr. Clark cannot agree and think these men truly "Reformed."

Note carefully that Muller says that Ursinus, of Heidelberg, taught a "hypothetical universalism," and Clark [the "Heidelblog" blogger] cannot agree with that, or think Ursinus himself was "Reformed" if Muller is right. Even Robert Godfrey, in his doctoral dissertation, says that Martinius' moderate statement at the Synod of Dort on the extent of Christ's death for all "was almost a direct quotation from Ursinus." Godfrey says, "Some of the strict Calvinists might well have taken considerable exception to this. But Martinius had a surprise waiting for them if they did, for though he did not cite the source of his thesis, Martinius' statement was almost a direct quotation from Ursinus." On page 200 of his thesis, Godfrey says that Martinius' Theses in fact showed that he "really was within the camp of orthodox Calvinism and that he definitely accepted the received distinction and at least in large part the received restriction on efficacy." Muller even grants that John Bunyan and Jacob Kimedoncius taught a "hypothetical universalism," so Dr. Clark has to view them out of bounds as well, as not true "Calvinists" or truly "Reformed."

My point here is not to argue what atonement view is correct, but just to demonstrate how radically different Dr. Clark's Reformed boundaries are on this issue as compared to Dr. Muller, and Dr. Godfrey. So, Clark's narrow interpretation of the label "Reformed" surfaces in other areas as well, not just on the subject of baptism.

That's all that I was attempting to post on Burke's blog. I might add, now, that James White is just as sectarian as Scott Clark is on the atonement, but not in the area of baptism when it comes to the "Reformed" label. White regularly hosts and approves Turretinfan as a blogger on historic Calvinism, and everything said about Clark above [on the atonement] applies to the anonymous and unaccountable Turretinfan as well. They cannot allow that any of these non-Amyraldian "hypothetical universalists" are truly "Reformed," and they must therefore disagree with the historiography of Dr. Muller and Dr. Godfrey. The concerns of the moderates at Dort about Reformed catholicity were quite valid. We're seeing the fruits of the predicted sectarianism today, especially manifested on the topic of the extent of the atonement.

[Update: Alot more discussion can be found here and here. Dr. Gonzales has an interesting reply here, and he rightly calls Clark's views "sectarian". Dr. Haykin has a response here. White's final thoughts are here.]

Timothy Manlove (1633–1699) on Offers of Gospel-Grace

"An unregenerate State is a miserable State. How should it be otherwise? Can a Man harden himself against God and prosper? No, no: Such Persons are under the Wrath and Indignation of the Almighty, an Abomination to him; he is of purer Eyes than to behold them. His holy Law is armed with the most dreadful Curses, and the Threatnings against them. God shall would the Head of his Enemies; and the hairy Scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his Trespasses, Psal. 68.21. They are Slaves of Satan, led Captive by him at his Will, who employs them in treasuring up unto themselves Wrath against the Day of Wrath: Even the Offers of Gospel-Grace which are daily made to them, as they aggravate their Sin, will also make their Condemnation heavier. Thus that which was designed for their Good, becomes the savour of Death unto Death unto them. What shall I say? They are Heirs of Hell, condemned already in Point of Law; tho Judgment has not yet passed the final Sentence: They are not sure of being spared an hour longer. One would think this should make them ill at ease, till the Affairs of their Souls be in a better posture."

Timothy Manlove, Præparatio Evangelica: Or, A Plain and Practical Discourse Concerning the Soul's Preparation for a Blessed Eternity (London: Printed for Nevill Simmons, Bookseller in Sheffield, Yorkshire: And sold by George Coniers, at the Rink in Little Britain, 1698), 121.

According to Manlove, a Presbyterian, these unregenerate Heirs of Hell are daily receiving offers of Gospel-Grace which were designed for their good, and this is why it aggravates their sin and makes their condemnation heavier.

Biographical Info:
DNB

Brentnall on Calvin and the Free Offer

"The issue of God's sincerity in freely offering salvation to the reprobate and to sinners wholly unable of themselves to respond, Calvin handles with due reverence. Who are we mortals to question the sincerity of the thrice-holy God? While we should humbly submit our minds to the truth that 'God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who are perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety', we should restrain ourselves from all prying into the 'indissoluble bond' between God's secret and revealed will. It should satisfy us that God's secret election is revealed by the outward call of the gospel, he warns. He adds indignantly that 'it would be a shocking sacrilege to carry the enquiry further; for that man offers an aggravated insult to the Holy Spirit who refuses to assent to his simple testimony'.

The furthest Calvin is prepared to go is to conclude that by the gospel call, God intends 'to draw to himself the elect', and at the same time 'to take away all excuse from the reprobate'. Here, we believe, is the heart of the problem. Certain Calvnists, who want all the questions answered to the satisfaction of their logic-tidy minds, are simply not prepared to stop reasoning where God is silent, and submit their restless intellects to the revealed will of God."

John Brentnall, "Calvin and the Free Offer," The Banner of Truth 383-384 (August-September 1995), 30-31.

Thomas Lamb's (died c. 1672 or 1686) Crucial Agreement with Goodwin

"...yet I deny not, but grant with him [John Goodwin], that the denial of Christ's Death for the sins of all, doth detract from God's Philanthropy, and deny him to be a lover of men, and doth in very deed destroy the very foundation and ground-work of Christian faith."

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), 248.

Keep in mind that Benjamin Brook, in his Lives of the Puritans (vol. 3, p. 466) recently published in 1996 by Soli Deo Gloria, said that "it is extremely obvious, that, upon the disputed points, he [Lamb] was a strict Calvinist," and Brook references this treatise to sustain that point.

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Thomas Lamb (died c. 1672 or 1686) on Salvation Available in Christ for All

"...God commandeth no man to believe in Christ for salvation for whom there is no salvation in him; or that God on the contrary upon all occassions counseleth and chargeth men to take heed of uncertain, empty and vain dependencies, and from seeking help, peace and safety where they are not to be found."

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), 268.

It doesn't get plainer than this: If Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect, then God is commanding the rest to believe in Christ for salvation for whom there is no salvation in him. They are being counseled and charged by God [and us] to depend on something uncertain, empty and vain. They are being told to seek help, peace and safety where they are not to be found.

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB