Amyraldianism, Marrow Theology and Free Offer of the Gospel

I think it was the Princeton theologian, A. A. Hodge, who said that the free offer of the gospel was the point where the opponents of Calvinism have rightly focused their main attack. 

The reason for this is obvious. The distinctive of Reformed theology is particularism. Reformed theology teaches that God chooses some people for salvation, not everyone (unconditional election), that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect and not everyone (limited atonement/particular redemption), and that God irresistibly or effectually calls only some by his grace to receive saving faith.

The problem with this particularism, true to Scripture though it is, is that it would seem to be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that, at a minimum, the gospel call is to be made to all indiscriminately—elect and non-elect alike, and that there would seem to be some sense in which God wishes or desires everyone to heed the gospel invitiation and be saved.

This apparent tension has been addressed in numerous ways by theologians.

The Arminians address it by denying the Reformed truths of unconditional election, particular redemption and irresistible grace and thereby fall outside the sphere of Reformed theology. Since they maintain a sincere gospel offer to all, they conclude that there is no sovereign decree choosing some for salvation and not others, that Christ's death was an attempted atonement for everyone, and that God's grace tries to draw all the salvation. The definining element between the saved and the lost therefore becomes the human free will, the choice to believe or not.

At the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinism, addresses the tension by denying that the free offer of the gospel is for all, elect and non-elect alike. Instead, in one way or another, the Hyper-Calvinist restricts the gospel offer to the elect only.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are the most extreme ways of meeting the apparent tension between Reformed theology's particularism of salvation for the elect alone and a free offer of the gospel for everyone. In a sense, both are rationalistic solutions to the apparent inconsistency of insising that both are true. They solve the "problem" by denying one side or the other in the tension.

Within the broad sweep of Reformed theology, there have been other attempts to explain or handle this tension. Two are of special interest, and in this author's view, one is deeply problematic, while the other is in harmony with the Reformed confessions.

Amyraldianism 

Amyraldianism is a deformed type of Reformed theology, named after a French theologian, Moise Amyraut, who taught at Saumur in the 17th century. Sometimes misleadingly called "Four Point Calvinism," Amyraldianism attempts to "soften" Reformed orthodoxy in the doctrines of unconditional election and especially particular redemption. 

First, as regards the doctirne of God's decree, Amyraldians suggest that there is a twofold aspect to the decree, whereby God first decreed hypothetically to save everyone without exception on the condition of faith in Christ, then recognising this would actually save none, God decreed to save the elect unconditionally or absolutely.

Second, Amyraldians hold to an unlimited atonement (i.e. that Christ's death was intended to make a universal provision for the salvation of all (in accord with the first decree) and it is only the application of salvation that is for the elect. 

Obviously, this view is at odds with orthodox Reformed theology, although it does hold to a form of uncondtional electon by adding a former conditional decree to save all and making the atonement universal. 

Amyraldianism is a kind of unstable half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism and contrary to the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort, which know nothing of a hypothetical decree to save all and teach that Christ's death was intended only to save the elect.

The seeming rationale behind Amyraldianism is to make a genuine free offer of salvation possible to all because the atonement is viewed as made by Christ for all without exception. But as we will see, it is perfectly possible to hold to particular redemption and make a full and free offer of the gospel to sinners, as the Marrow Men demonstrated in Scotland in the 18th century.

Marrow Theology 

The famous Marrow Controversy in the Church of Scotland of the early 18th century touches on some of the same issues in theology. Named after a Purtian book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645) by Edward Fisher, it split theological opinion in the Scottish Presbyterian church. From my perspective, I would tend to side with the Marrow Men and against their opponents. 

They were right to oppose the legalism and preparationism found in the Church of Scotland of the day. They were right to insist on the distinction between law and gospel. And they were right to preach the free offer of the gospel to all sinners. They did so while remaining orthodox, five point Calvinists.

However, the Marrow theology did introduce what A. A. Hodge termed some 'novelties' into Reformed theology and these are not beyond criticism. In particular, the Marrow theology can be said to have introduced a kind of twofold reference in the atonement, making it both a general gift to all humanity as well as particular gift to save only the elect. Such confusion is not helpful and could be seen as watering down the particularism of Dort and the Westminster Confession. 

The Marrow approach to the free offer in Fisher's book, later endorsed by the likes of Thomas Boston and the Erskine brothers, can be summarised in two well-known phrases in the Marrow that I would focus on in this regard. Fisher wrote:

The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Marrow Men and Fisher used John 3:16 to support this view. Most Reformed theologians prior to this viewed the love of God in John 3:16 has God's saving love, lavished only on God's elect. The Marrow Men instead saw the love God is said to have for the world as being less than the saving, electing love that leads to the savlation of all the elect. The Marrow Men saw instead that the love of John 3:16 was genuinely for all sinners, and the giving of Christ was as God's appointed Saviour for mankind, offered to all who believe. 

A similar view, that the love of God for the world in John 3:16 extends to everyone, would appear to be the majority view among contemporary Reformed theologians. 

The old view, of the likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin that the 'world' in John 3:16 means Gentiles and Jews—everyone without distinction rather than everyone without exception, and with some kind of reference to the elect of all nations—now appears to be the minority view among Calvinists. 

Along similar lines is the second famous (or infamous) quotation from the Marrow:

Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him.

The Marrow Men believed in particular redemption, that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect. Yet alongside this, they accepted the rather strange language (not found in Scripture) that Christ is dead for all sinners who hear the gospel. So Christ did not die for all, but Christ is dead for all, by which they meant that not only was the message of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2) was to be preached to all sinners in the free offer, but that God has a non-saving kind of love in the realm of salvation for al sinners without exception.

As with the "deed of gift and grant" language, it seems clear—at least in Boston's reading of the Marrow that the phrase means no more than that when the gospel offer is preached, the question is not whether a person is elect so that they know if the atonement was made for them, but rather that they know they are a sinner and that if they come to faith in Christ they will be saved no matter what they have done. That's what was meant by "Christ is dead" for sinners.

The trouble is that the Marrow theology comes perilously close to a kind of Amyralianism of its own. In other words, in teaching that there is in the gift of Christ for the world a divine intent (albeit a non-efficacious intent) not merely to save elect sinners, but to save all sinners.

In is excellent work on The Atonement, A. A. Hodge was critical of these aspects of the Marrow Men's theology. He found fault in what he calls a "double reference" in the Marrow doctrine of the atonement. Some of the language used in the Fisher's book can only be called misleading at best and simply in error at worst. Here I'm thinking of a phrase used that "Christ has taken upon himself the sins of all men". As a Calvinist, I do not believe that is true. While it is true that the atonement was of infinite value and sufficient to atone for all the sins of all humanity, it is also true, as the Westminster Confessions teaches that "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (WCF 3.6).

Hodge was also critical of some of the terminology used. Although accepting that Thomas Boston and the other leading Marrow Men stayed within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Hodge was also clear that some of the Marrow language was not helpful or felicitous.

He wrote: "All their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making a special head of that 'giving love' which makes an actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision for its application, and which never intended the salvation of its objects?"

Quite.

He continues: "What real idea is signalized by the verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gospel to all, and the "Deed of Gift" of Christ upon which it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a 'Deed of Gift or Grant' which actually conveys nothing, and which was eternally intended to convey nothing?"

Indeed, we cannot disagree with Hodge here, nor when he maintains that God's "giving love" is "that highest and most wonderful form of love which 'spared not his own Son' [Romans 8:32] and not merely a kind of general benevolence towards the whole of humanity, even those destined not to be saved.

Hodge calls consistent Calvinists to reject any kind of double reference in the atonement, a general atonement for all on condition of faith, and a particular atonement for the elect. He recommends rejecting such "novelties" including these elements of the Marrow language.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The final question then is what is the correct approach in Reformed theology, to warrant the full and free offer of the the gospel to all sinners? If it does not proceed from Amyralianism's hypothetical universalism nor from Marrow theology's universal deed of gift and grant of Christ to all?

The answer is that the free offer depends not on a universal atonement in one sense or the other, but on the sufficiency of the atonement, on the suitability of the atonement perfectly adapted for all sinners, on God's command and invitation expressed in the gospel offer, and in the promise made to all hearers of the gospel that if they believe in Jesus Christ they will be saved. To this we can safely add the comfort and encouragement that it is God's revealed will that he does not delight in the death of sinners, but rather desires that they would turn to him and live.

None of these require us to abandon or blur the teaching that on the cross Christ died to save his people from their sins and thereby save the world and that in doing so he fully achieved his intended aims, as John 3:17 plainly states: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (ESV). 

  

Election and Those Who Call on the Name of the Lord

In Romans 10:9-11, Paul writes these words: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' The verse quoted in verse 11 is Isaiah 28:16. Then in verse 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Some people see a contradiction between the Paul of chapter 10 and the Paul of the preceding chapter 9, which focuses on the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In fact, there is no contradiction. None. It is simultaneously true and non-contradictory to say as Paul does in Romans 9:15-16 (quoting from Exodus 33:19), "He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" and then to state that everyone who wants to be saved and calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Unfortunately, some people seem to have this idea that there are people out there who want to be saved, who want to believe in Jesus, who want to love God, and the big bad Calvinist view of predestination somehow stops them. As if they were knocking at the door of heaven and they get turned away because they are not on the guest list drawn up before they were born.

Such a view is a caricature of the Reformed faith and an outright lie from the pit of hell.

According to this view, the group of the elect and the group of those who would like to be saved are like this diagram:

In this view the two circles represent the elect chosen for salvation (the blue circle) and sinners who want to be saved (the red circle). Notice that the two circles overlap, but there is a section of the red circle outside the circle of election. According to this false view, there are some people who want to be saved, want to believe in Christ and want to love God, but are prevented by God from being saved.

This view is utterly wrong. The truth is that outside the circle of election there is no one who wants to be saved, wants to follow Christ or loves God. Or to put it another way, there is no part of the circle of those who want to be saved outside the circle of the elect. The two groups are entirely coextensive. The true picture is found in this diagram:

Hopefully, once this truth is grasped, one of the lies told against Calvinism can be buried. There has never been anyone who called on the name of the Lord for rescue who was not rescued. There has never been anyone who believed in Jesus Christ who was not saved. There is no one who wants heaven—the reality of heaven and a covenant life with the triune God—but is not elect. Rather, the opposite is true, which is why the doctrine of election is a doctrine of comfort and help for believers and has been (and still is) considered by many to be a great spur for evangelism and mission. 

If you wish you were elect so you could be saved, this is surest sign that you are one of the elect. Never forget that, brothers and sisters.

John 3:16 and the Free Offer of the Gospel

This piece is an extract from my book, The World of John 3:16, which explains why a Calvinist interpretation of the John 3:16 is fully consistent with the a sincere and free offer of salvation in the gospel to all sinners.

One of the main arguments against a Calvinist interpretation of the Bible in general and of John 3:16 in particular, is the claim by many that only if God loves everyone without exception (with the saving love of John 3:16) and only if Christ died to save everyone, can it be possible for us to make a free offer of salvation to all sinners without exception. This is the stark claim of Arminianism: Calvinists have no gospel to preach except to elect sinners.

It is a claim that is totally refuted not only by the actual views of Calvinists over against the straw men set up by Arminians, but by the plain historical evidence that Calvinist preachers have been at the forefront of evangelistic ministries and missions from the time of the Reformation onwards. We need look no further than the Reformers themselves—who had a Calvinistic view of salvation to a man—yet who took the gospel to the four corners of Europe and changed the world by their preaching. This is not to mention others such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd Jones and countless others since. It is simply not the case that Calvinist theology leads to truncated or hampered gospel preaching.

On the contrary, the interpretation of John 3:16 offered by Calvinists as a whole, and as we have outlined, strongly supports evangelistic efforts and the free offer of the gospel because of what it affirms about God and also because of what it actually teaches about Christ’s atonement and the free offer.

The starting point for a discussion of John 3:16 and the free offer of the gospel lies in the interpretation of ‘world’ or kosmos that we have advocated, that kosmos refers to the elect world of believers. This electing and redeeming love that God the Father has for a world he has chosen to save is the impetus for all our evangelistic efforts. Because God has chosen a multitude of people for salvation from every nation, class, race and language, we can be certain that our work, in preaching the gospel to sinners, in spreading God’s word all over the world, and in drawing people to Christ by our love and care, is never in vain. God’s word will always accomplish God’s purposes for it. The prophet Isaiah says this very clearly:

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.[1]

Preaching the gospel will lead to the salvation of the world, because we know that Christ’s mission to save the world will be completely effective and successful.

No one except a Calvinist can truly agree with that. Every other position regards those who are saved as a mere subset of the totality of the world loved and which God would like to save but cannot manage to save. The Calvinist alone can appeal to sinners to be reconciled to God with boldness and confidence that God’s word will not fail and not one of those people for whom Christ died will be lost. Quite simply, that makes for powerful evangelistic preaching. It is the fuel that inspires us to go out into the world to save sinners.

The fact that we identify the world of John 3:16 with the elect may explain the zeal with which a Calvinist can preach the gospel, but the gospel he can preach to sinners also relies on the definition of ‘world’ that we have advocated.

Since ‘world’ is such a general term, we can offer Christ to every sinner without exception. As we noted at the beginning of our discussions, though the saving purpose of God is toward his elect only, Calvinists do not deny that there is also a design in the atonement to bring salvation to everyone who hears the gospel on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ. These twin intentions, to save the elect and to make a genuine offer of salvation to the non-elect are not in conflict. In fact, they are in total harmony.

We can preach this gospel to everyone in the human race, no matter where they come from in the world and no matter what they have done in their life. It is precisely because God loves ‘sinners from all the nations’ that it is good news for any sinner from any nation. All need the Saviour and all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ will have that need met. Christ is the crucified Saviour for any sinner who wants him. The Calvinist can and does say to anyone and everyone ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.’ (Acts 16:31).

The fact that the gospel offer is genuine to the non-elect serves a grim purpose of leaving them without excuse and ultimately increasing their guilt.

This is exactly the evangelistic line that no less a Calvinist than John Calvin himself took concerning John 3:16. Calvin writes:

He has used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is the significance of the term ‘world’ which He has used before. For though there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed entry into life. Moreover, let us remember that although life is promised generally to all who believe in Christ, faith is not common to all. Christ is open to all and displayed to all, but God opens the eyes only of the elect that they may seek Him by faith.[2]

There is a tendency to misrepresent what the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement (or particular redemption) actually teaches. It is not the case that Calvinists simply state Christ died for the elect and no others without any qualification or explanation. On the contrary, although we Calvinists maintain that Christ died intending to save only the elect, we also maintain—in line with the Bible although perhaps not with mere human logic—that Christ did indeed die in some sense for the non-elect also.

In Reformed theology, it has long been recognised that although the saving benefits of Christ’s atoning work are intended by God for the elect only, there is a sense in which certain benefits also accrue to the non-elect because Christ died. No less a Reformed theologian than Charles Hodge states: ‘There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect only.’[3] 

We wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

This understanding is spelt out clearly by another Reformed theologian, R. B. Kuiper:

The Reformed faith also insists that in other important respects [the atonement] is universal. It can be shown without the slightest difficulty that certain benefits of the atonement, other than the salvation of individuals, are universal. That being the case, it follows of necessity that God designed that this should be so...Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died only for the elect must be rated a careless one. To be sure, if by ‘for’ be meant in the place of, the statement is accurate enough, for those in whose stead Christ suffered the penalty of sin will not themselves have to suffer that penalty, and therefore their salvation from that penalty is assured. If, however, by ‘for’ be meant in behalf of, it is inaccurate, to say the least. Certain benefits of the atonement accrue to men generally, including the non-elect.[4]

Although we agree with Hodge and Kuiper, we are clear that the way in which John 3:16 speaks of God’s love and Christ’s death, it is not referring to these non-saving benefits that flow to every human being. But that does not mean we reject that such benefits do accrue to all of humanity without exception.

The views of Hodge and Kuiper are shared by the vast majority of Calvinist theologians whether in the Presbyterian or Continental Reformed traditions.

Evangelicals do not believe in a commercial type of atonement, but in penal substitutionary atonement. The difference between these two views is marked. In the first, to save a million people, Christ would have had to suffer on the cross twice as much as he would have to save half a million people; in the second view (the one we hold), Christ would have had to suffer on the cross exactly as much to save every human being as he would have to save one individual sinner.

Christ’s person is of infinite worth, and so the atonement rendered by his death is infinite in value. It could not be otherwise. The cross is sufficient to save every human being without exception in this or ten million other worlds. The difference between the authentic Calvinist view and the Arminian view of universal redemption lies not in the sufficiency of the atonement, but only in its intended application. The Arminians argue that the intent was to save all equally; the Calvinists argue that the intent of this infinite, sufficient-for-all atonement, was nevertheless to save only the elect while allowing the free offer of salvation to be made to everyone without exception.

Charles Hodge explains it well and is worth quoting at some length:

It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of plants and animals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.[5]

It does not follow from the assertion of [the atonement] having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel...It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them.[6]

Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance. These are universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design.[7]

Reformed orthodoxy strongly maintains that although Christ’s atoning work was only intended to save the elect and does only save the elect (and hence our understanding that God’s saving love is only for the elect), yet the atonement is sufficient and suitable for all and is freely offered to everyone without exception. As Hodge put it very well, just as for God to give light to Adam he decided to create a sun that gives light to billions in his extravagant provision, so in saving his people through the cross, he gave a Saviour who made an atonement sufficient to save this and a million other worlds entire, now in his extravagant saving grace.

A. A. Hodge in his excellent book The Atonement, outlines what the Calvinist doctrine of the atonement does and does not state regarding sufficiency, suitability and the capability of Christ’s atoning work being offerable to everyone without exception.

The question [of the extent of the atonement]...does not relate to the SUFFICIENCY of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to secure the salvation of all men. The Reformed Churches have uniformly taught that no man has ever yet perished, or ever will perish, for want of an atonement. All Calvinists agree in maintaining earnestly that Christ’s obedience and sufferings were of infinite intrinsic value in the eye of the law, and that there was no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever lived...We all heartily believe that after eighteen hundred years the stream of Atonement is found unexhausted alike in its volume and its virtues...It will be none the less true after eighteen millions of years.[8]

The question [of the extent of the atonement] does not relate to the APPLICABILITY of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to the exact legal relations and to the necessities in order to the salvation of every lost sinner in the world. Christ did and suffered precisely what the law demanded of each man personally and of every man indiscriminately, and it may be at any time applied to the redemption of one man as well as to another, as far as the satisfaction itself is concerned…The death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God’s saving any man he pleases. In this sense, if you please, Christ did make the salvation of all men indifferently possible, a parte Dei.[9]

The question [of the extent of the atonement] does not relate to the UNIVERSAL OFFER in perfect good faith of a saving interest in Christ’s work on the condition of faith. This is admitted by all. Since, then, the work of Christ is exactly adapted to the legal relations and need of each, and since it is abundantly sufficient for all, and since, in perfect good faith, it is offered to all men indiscriminately, it necessarily follows that whosoever believes on him, non-elect (if that were subjectively possible) just as truly as the elect, would find a perfect atonement and cordial welcome ready for him when he comes.[10]

Nor does the question relate to the design of Christ in dying as it stands related to all the benefits secured to mankind by his death. It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation, and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected...Hence all that happens to the human race other than that which is incidental to the instant damnation of Adam and Eve is part of the consequences of Christ’s satisfaction as the second Adam.[11]

The question does truly and only relate to the design of the Father and of the Son in respect to the persons for whose benefit the Atonement was made; that is, to whom in the making of it they intended it should be applied. We contend that the following heads absolutely exhaust every possible question as to what is called the extent of the Atonement: (a) Its essential nature, involving its exact adaption to the legal relations and necessities of each and every man indifferently; (b) its intrinsic sufficiency for all; (c) its honest and authoritative offer to all; (d) its actual application; (e) its intended application. We defy our opponents to show that this statement does not exhaust the case. The first three, all agree, are without any limit, thank God; the fourth, all agree, is limited to believers; the fifth all Calvinists must believe to be limited to the elect.[12]

It is interesting that no less a proponent of limited atonement than John Owen, often castigated by non-Calvinists as a Protestant scholastic and often horribly misrepresented as a man who put his rigid Calvinistic system over against Scripture, is happy to make the point that not only is the value and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement the truth, but being the truth it must also be the case that it was God’s purpose and intention that it should be so.

Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father to be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it for that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world.[13]

Owen was a far better exegete and biblical theologian than most of his opponents. His point is critical to the discussion. We must not think that because God intended to save the elect and only the elect that he does not then also have other intentions. Yes, those intentions do not mean that God intended to save everyone without exception; but it would seem to follow that God therefore has other intentions no less real in providing an atonement sufficient for all. We need not speculate much on what those intentions are. Suffice to say that when a non-elect person rejects Christ and the gospel offer, and in doing so rejects an atonement that was sufficient and able to save him, his guilt and wickedness are all the more magnified and clarified for all to see, rendering the final judgment all the more clearly right and just.   

It is important to realise that the free offer does not rely on forcing an Arminian interpretation of John 3:16 or any other verse for that matter. As A. A. Hodge explains in these excerpts the gospel can be preached to all because the atonement is sufficient for all, suitable for the needs of all and offered to all, just as the bronze snake in Numbers 21:4-9 was available to save anyone who looked upon it in faith. In the same way, Christ is available to any sinner who wants him and desires to be saved. As Revelation 22:17 (KJV) says, ‘Whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’

Our definition of the world in John 3:16 is fully consistent with this.

For both these reasons—the sense in which the atonement is sufficient for all, suitable for all and is offered to all and the all-inclusive sense of world indefinitely and generally—the understanding of kosmos put forward in this book is not only fully consistent but hugely supportive of the free offer of the gospel.

[1] Isaiah 55:10–11.

[2] John Calvin, The Gospel According to St John 1-10 (1553) (Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance & Thomas F. Torrance, Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh 1959): 74–75.

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III (1871-73) (Eerdmans): 546.

[4] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?: 78.

[5] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 544–545.

[6] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 545.

[7] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 558.

[8] A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (1867) (Evangelical Press, London 1974): 355–56.

[9] A. A. Hodge: 356–57.

[10] A. A. Hodge: 357–58.

[11] A. A. Hodge: 358–59.

[12] A. A. Hodge: 359–60.

[13] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: 183–84.

Hyper-Calvinism

Q. How do you define Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism?

A. A Hyper-Calvinist is anyone whose Calvinism is higher than my own, and an Arminian is anyone whose Calvinism is lower than my own.

Now of course that's a joke. But if you've spent any length of time discussing Reformed or evangelical theology, you'll probably know that it's a slightly uncomfortable joke because there are people out there debating theology in online forums who don't argue that much differently from this. So what is real Hyper-Calvinism and how do you differentiate it from Historic Calvinism? One of the best articles on the web dealing with this issue is Phil Johnson's A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism. Johnson points out that there is more than one kind of Hyper-Calvinism, and some are more extreme and more seriously in error than others. He mentions five definitions:

"A Hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. 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
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect."

I think that on their own strictly speaking holding to points 4 and 5 do not mean a person is automatically a Hyper-Calvinist. It is just about possible, from within Reformed orthodoxy, to argue that God does not show "grace" or "love" to the reprobate wicked, though this might indeed be deemed "Ultra High Calvinism" as Johnson puts it. One might almost call it "Stratospheric Calvinism".

Here in particular, we must be careful to distinguish between someone who objects to a word of terminology but accepts the content of what it stands for from someone who rejects both the terminology and the content. For example, there are people who would question the use of the terminology "common grace" for the good gifts that God gives to the reprobate and elect alike in this life, but would in no sense deny that God does give the reprobate these good gifts in his providence. They merely say that it is not properly called "grace" when the Bible itself seems to use "grace" only for God's attitude of saving favour in the realm of redemption.

Having said that, I think it is fair enough for Johnson to mention all five of these positions as tenets of Hyper-Calvinism. Having flirted with points 4 and 5 myself in the past, I believe that a person holding to points 4 and 5 is probably on a slippery slope towards the more serious forms of Hyper-Calvinism, because at that point, although no one would admit this, people have already abandoned deriving their doctrine solely from biblical texts and have already started to read biblical texts through an interpretative matrix of what can and what cannot be correct because of how problematic texts are deemed to contradict or be in conflict with other doctrines that are obviously biblically correct.

Rather than work through the issues as rigorously as we should, there is a tendency to re-interpret Scripture to fit with our system. We take a fairly easy path of accepting an unlikely but possible interpretation of a problematic text so that it more easily fits into our system. The harder course is to see if our system can withstand the most likely interpretation of all texts, rather than having to choose unlikely meanings to make them fit into something. The latter is akin to the child who uses scissors on a jigsaw-puzzle to make the pieces fit, irrespective of how it destroys the overall picture.

For the avoidance of any doubt, my beliefs measured against Johnson's "Five Points" would be as follows:

1. The gospel call certainly applies to all, without exception, who hear the gospel message. And it is a call that goes out not merely as a human call by the preacher, but as a divine call, issued by God himself through the preacher to everyone within the sound of the preacher's voice.

2. Because the gospel is a command and an invitation issued by God, it is the duty of everyone who receives that invitation and command to obey it. The doctrine of reprobation does not exclude anyone from obeying God's commands, including the gospel command.

3. In the free offer of the gospel, Christ himself and salvation in him are offered to sinners, not merely as a bare presentation of facts about Christ and his work, but with the assurance that Christ is abundantly able to save any sinner who comes to him and the promise that no one who comes to him for salvation will ever be turned away. Furthermore, the free offer of the gospel should also be made to sinners with the understanding that, in his revealed will (will of command), God expresses a sincere desire for everyone who hears the gospel to believe it and be saved through obeying his command and accepting his offer. This desire is not something that God chooses to bring to fulfilment in the case of the reprobate however, as that genuine desire is nonetheless tempered by another divine desire: the desire to manifest his glory in the justice shown to those sinners he chooses to reject and punish for their sins.

4. God gives innumerable good gifts to all people, both elect and reprobate alike. In the sense that such providential gifts are not deserved by anyone, it is feasible to term them "common grace". However, it could be argued that this is not an ideal term for this doctrine as the Scriptures do not tend to use the word "grace" in this way. Something like "providential goodness" may be more accurate.

5. God does not love everyone with the same kind of love, but he does love everyone with some kind of love. As far as electing, redeeming or saving love goes, he loves only the elect and hates the reprobate (Romans 9:13). However, the Scriptures also teach that God has a compassionate, benevolent, though non-saving love, for all his creatures including every human being. It is from this love that God's good gifts to all his creatures flow. Such a non-saving love in God to the wicked as creatures is not inconsistent with God's curse and wrath against the wicked considered as guilty sinners or even with God's hatred of them as reprobates. On the contrary, the rejection of God's love and goodness by the reprobate serve God's purposes by leaving them without excuse and liable to greater condemnation.