The Gospel Offer - Conditional or Unconditional?
by
This article is
taken from a publication called Sinner Saved
and samples are made available from
THE HUNTINGTONIANPRESS, 72a Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton,
UK, SO30 4EB
The January/February 2003 issue of the Salisbury Messenger, magazine of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury carries a report of the sixth Salisbury Conference held on Saturday 5th October 2002. The speakers at that conference were Rev Malcolm Watts, minister of Emmanuel Church and Rev John J Murray, minister in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). The first paper was given by Mr Watts on the subject of The Ordinance of Preaching, the remaining two on The Whole Counsel of God and The Unconditional Freeness of the Gospel Offer were delivered by Rev John J Murray. At the outset let me say that I was not present at the conference, my remarks, therefore, are restricted to the report that appears in the magazine written by Mr Derek Richardson. How faithful a report of the conference is presented I do not know but I have to assume that it is a true and faithful record. No doubt anyone wishing to check that the report is faithful will obtain the recordings and listen to them themselves. For my part, I accept that the report is a true one of the papers delivered. In his first lecture on The Whole Counsel of God Mr Murray makes the comment that "what has to be offered in the Gospel was not the possibility of salvation but salvation itself in fact, Christ has to be offered in all the glory of his Person and in the perfection of his finished work." True! but do Mr Murray and other "Free Offer" preachers really believe this to be the case? If a preacher believes in and preaches the universal and free offer of the Gospel he is really stating that he only believes that salvation is possible and that the final decision must be made by the one to whom the offer is addressed. In that case, Christ has made salvation possible, God has a sincere desire to save sinners, Christ is offered indiscriminately to sinners as being willing to save all and sundry but in the end it depends upon the sinner co-operating with the Holy Spirit. Such a view of salvation this writer rejects. I trust that Mr Murray does not hold to such a view, but that is the outcome of preaching a free and universal offer of the gospel. In reading the report of Mr Murray's first paper I considered that there was an important omission. If there was consideration given to the whole counsel of God in the work of the preaching of the Gospel, consideration must also be given to the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the work of the Spirit that is necessary to make the Gospel of effect in the hearts of sinners. It is he who applies the law of God. It is he who brings the sinner to see his standing as a guilty, lost, condemned sinner before a holy God. It is he who reveals all the fulness of Christ in the Gospel. It is he who reveals the preciousness of Christ. When the broken-hearted sinner sees such a revelation he neither desires nor requires such "free offers"; he neither requires nor desires any "universal offers", he is made willing in the day of his power (Ps 110:3). Mr Murray's second lecture addressed the question of The Unconditional Freeness of the Gospel Offer. He was lecturing on this subject "in view of the reappearance of hypercalvinism in both England and Scotland." It is an old tactic to heap encomiums upon an enemy. Abuse your opponent with titles! Create a monster and you have half won the battle! Mr Murray asserts that those who deny the universal and free offer of the gospel are hypercalvinists. Hypercalvinism, he later asserts did not appear until the early 18th century. He maintains that the free offer of the gospel "has been accepted in all the mainstream Reformed churches ever since the Reformation. The free offer of the Gospel is enshrined in all the Reformed
Confessions of faith. Calvin and the Puritans held to it, as did also the Scottish Reformed Churches down the centuries." But is this the case? He brought no evidence to substantiate this assertion. Is it not the case, and has it not been the case down the centuries of church history that there has only been a need to enshrine in confessions of faith a certain doctrine when error has arisen against that particular doctrine? There was little doctrinal statement concerning the Person of Christ until the Arians arose with their pernicious teaching which denigrated the Deity and eternal Sonship of Christ. Athanasius then arose and formulated his creed which spake clearly of the Lord Jesus Christ and his being the eternal Son, eternally begotten. Very little was systematised concerning the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone until the 16th century when Luther arose. The findings of the Synod of Dort and its rejection of errors was not needed until Jacob Arminius propounded his errors. The same principle applies with the doctrine of the nature of the offer of the Gospel. There was no need to make confessional and doctrinal statements concerning the free offer of the Gospel until Andrew Fuller arose with his semi-Arminianism and published his Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation. But what is a "hypercalvinist"? "Hyper" literally means "to go beyond." The minister of Emmanuel church is a hypercalvinist as are all other Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists. Calvin held to the principle of infant baptism. Reformed Baptists do not. They go beyond the teaching of Calvin therefore they are hypercalvinists! The same line of argument can be used in the realm of church government. Calvin was a Presbyterian. All those who go beyond Calvin's teaching and espouse either Independency or Episcopacy are hypercalvinists.
The use of such a term as used in this lecture, however, is to heap abuse upon those who do not agree with the universal and free offer of the Gospel. Create an "Aunt Sally" and then proceed to use your theological missiles to knock her from off her podium. But just as the coconut was more often than not immovably fixed by the fairground owner, so we are fixed, not by cement, but by the Word of God. Mr Murray proceeds to "suggest that light would only be given as we held to Scripture language." Agreed! But does Mr Murray follow his own advice? Regrettably he does not! In the report given, there are 12 references to Scripture, including a further 8 references that are compounded together. In contrast to this importance (sic) placed upon Scripture there are another 11 references to other ministers of the Gospel, Reformed Confessions of Faith, the Puritans &c. There is an amazing comment made by Mr Murray to the effect that "the Scriptures place the basis and gracious invitations of the Gospel, not in any subjective preparation of the heart." Does Mr Murray follow his own advice of appealing to Scripture to prove this assertion? Indeed he does not! The only proof that he brings forward to justify his statement that "... the Scriptures place ..." &c is a quotation from Samuel Rutherford that "Reprobates have as fair a warrant to believe in Christ as the elect have." Mr Murray should have stuck to his own advice to follow the Scriptures! But if he had, he would not have found the word "offer" in the Scriptures in the context of the offer of the Gospel. The word "offer" appears 213 time in the Bible. But it nearly always appears in the context of making sacrifice literally of an animal or of thanksgiving. The only exceptions to this are Luke 6:29 where we are told to offer the other cheek, the Greek meaning "to hold out toward someone, present, offer;" and Luke 11:12 where the Lord asks if a father would offer a scorpion to his child, the original Greek meaning "to give, put into one's hand." Nowhere does the word "offer" appear in the context of preaching the Gospel. He then warns of applying logic. "To limit the message to such truths as we can see to be consistent with each other is to exercise a liberty to which we have no right. We also have to beware of applying logic in order to reconcile a definite atonement with the offer of Christ to all men indiscriminately." This is precisely the same kind of argument used by Pentecostals and their ilk to justify their doctrine of speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "Forget logic, forget that you cannot speak a foreign language, just speak out" &c. But the Bible is a logical book. The greatest logician of all, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was the apostle Paul. Read his epistles; they are masterful works of logic. He speaks of forensic justification in his Epistle to the Romans It is a piece of logic. Further, Paul tells us that we have been given a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). To refuse to use logic and reason is to go against Paul's instructions to Timothy. In the abandonment of logic Mr Murray tells us that we are to stand in awe of God. Quoting Romans 11:33 and 9:20 he tells us that we "simply have to stand back amazed." Whilst I agree that we do stand back amazed at the love and goodness of our God, the texts of Scripture he quotes are nothing to do with the offer of the Gospel but are taken completely out of their context. In Romans 11 Paul has been writing of God's people. "Hath God cast away his people? God forbid" (v. 1). He speaks of the grafting in of the wild olive branch. "And so all Israel shall be saved" (v. 26). "The gifts and calling
of God," he says, "are without repentance" (v. 29). Salvation, he says, is a gift. It is a calling, not an offer. Therefore Paul concludes in verse 33 by saying "O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out." There is nothing of an unconditional freeness of the Gospel offer here either in this verse or indeed the whole chapter.
Again, we consider the other verse quoted by Mr Murray, Romans 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" We find nothing in the context that speaks of a free and unconditional offer of the Gospel. The context is that of the doctrine of election. "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (v. 13). If Esau was in a congregation today would Mr Murray hold out the Gospel offer to him and state that the Lord had a sincere desire to save him? Would he use Rutherford's words as being applicable to Esau, "Reprobates have as fair a warrant to believe in Christ as the elect have"? No! there is no comfort from these verses of Scripture to justify the abandonment of logic when it comes to the preaching and offering of the Gospel. Mr Murray tells us that ministers of the Gospel "have to plead for an individual response to the Gospel." He based this comment upon 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."
Yes, that is true but to whom is the pleading addressed? We have again to look at the context. Was that pleading to be addressed to all the citizens of Corinth? Look at the verse! He identifies certain people. He speaks of "you." Who are these? They are "the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in Achaia" (2 Cor. 1:1). They are they who are "in Christ, ... a new creature" (2 Cor 5:17). It is these whom Paul is exhorting to be reconciled with God. Those whom the Holy Spirit has convinced and convicted of their sin and rebellion against a holy God. These and these alone are the ones to whom Paul addresses himself "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (v. 20).
After writing the above, I consulted Dr John Gill's Exposition of the Old and New Testament. Dr Gill comments upon this verse as follows:
Since God has made reconciliation by Christ, and the ministry of
it is committed to us, we are ambassadors for him: we come with full powers
from him, not to propose terms of
peace, to treat men about it, to offer it to
them, but to publish and proclaim it as made by him: we personate him,
and God who made it by him. ...
Personating him as if he were present before you: be ye reconciled to God: you, who are new creatures for whom
Christ has died, and peace is made;
you, the members of the church at Corinth, who upon a profession of faith have been taken into such a relation: be ye
reconciled to all the dispensations of
divine Providence towards you; let your wills
bow, and be resigned to his, since he is the God of peace to you: and as
you are reconciled by Christ as Priest,
be reconciled to him as your King, and
as your God; to all his ordinances and appointments; to all the orders
and laws of his house: conform in all
things to his will and pleasure, which we,
as ambassadors, in his name and stead, have made known unto you. Ye ought
to be all obedience to him, and never dispute any thing he says or
orders.
Mr Murray then contradicts the Scriptures. "What is the Scriptural evidence," he asks, "for the preaching of the free offer of the Gospel?" He sees this as being in the Lord's commission to preach the Gospel to all creatures as in Luke 24:47 and Matthew 28:19. But here we have no mention of offers. The Lord commissioned his disciple to preach. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 28:19). Here the disciples are to teach the nations. There is no offer here. My two daughters are both teachers. They do not go before their respective classes and offer them the subject, they teach the syllabus that is set down. The pupils are required to learn, there is no take it or leave it of instruction with them. In a similar manner the disciples were instructed to go out into the world and teach the nations concerning the Gospel of Christ, that is, they were instructed to
make disciples of all nations. They were not instructed to offer anything. They made disciples of the nations by preaching the Gospel in the power of the Holy Ghost, and by his application of the Gospel to the hearts of those who heard.
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). Again, here the disciples are instructed that they are to preach. There is no mention made of offering the Gospel. They are to declare the Gospel. They are to make known the Gospel of Christ. They are to proclaim as heralds the Gospel of God's grace. The king's herald to a people in rebellion against him does not offer the terms of peace, he declares the terms. Those who receive those terms submit to his rule. They who refuse perish in their rebellion. The disciples were commissioned as heralds. Here in these two verses there is most certainly no free and universal offer. The Scriptural evidence for the preaching of the so called free offer of the Gospel is not to be found here! I agree with Mr Murray that "God is sending his Gospel to every creature under heaven" but it is not with the purpose implied by him, namely, that there is a free offer in the Gospel and a sincere desire on the Lord's part that all should be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and his grace. No! The purpose of that sending is that the preaching of the Gospel will result in the calling out of God's elect and be a witness against the reprobate. Paul writes concerning this, "To the one [i.e. "them that perish" (2 Cor 2:15)]we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other [i.e. "them that are saved" (2 Cor 2:15)] the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? (2 Cor. 2:16). Robert Haldane in his Exposition of Romans writes:
The Gospel is the fan in Christ's hand, who by means of it, will
thoroughly purge his floor, separating
those who are his sheep from the rest of the
world lying in the wicked one.
He has therefore commanded it to be preached to all men; and by it those will be discovered for [whom] his
atonement was made, and whom God has
chosen from the foundation of the world, and
predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto
himself.
Mr Murray tells us that there is "a universal call to obedience. Sinners are not just called but commanded to obey the Gospel." He cites as Scripture proof the following texts: Acts 17:30; Isa 45:22; Jno 6:29 & 1 Jno 3:23. The first of these is Acts 17:30. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" Paul is at Athens on Mars Hill. He has upbraided the Athenians for their superstition (v. 22). He has declared the nature of God as being almighty and condemned their idolatry (v. 29) then after the condemnation of idolatry Paul states that God "winked" or overlooked the ignorance of man "but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (v. 30). The repentance called for by Paul is the repentance of idolatry and atheism. There is no longer a wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile. God "hath made of one blood all nations of men" (v. 26). The Gospel has appeared before all nations therefore God "commandeth all men" that is, all nations not just the Jewish nation "to repent" (v. 30).
The second reference Mr Murray gives is Isaiah 45:22, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Rather than this being a direct command, the context requires us to note that this verse is part of a comparison being made by Isaiah of God being the living God who has all power as opposed to the gods of men's vain imaginations. "They have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray to a god that cannot save" (Isa 45:20). It is a futile thing, says Isaiah, to pray to stocks and stones that are unable to save. Isaiah then personates the Lord. "There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me" (v. 21). Therefore he says, if you would be saved "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth" (v. 22). There is no command to repent and believe the Gospel here in this verse, there is a comparison of the source of salvation. Is salvation to be found in vain idolatry or in the living God? Look not to wooden images or any other thing, look only to Christ, the eternal and only begotten Son of God for it is there that salvation is to be found. The third text Mr Murray cites is John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." I fail to see how this verse of Scripture can be interpreted to mean that there is a command of God to believe. This is a statement of Christ to those who questioned him after they had eaten the loaves and fishes and had been filled by him. It is not a statement that all must believe in him, it is the word of the Lord Jesus that all those who believe in him are doing the work of God. We have to remember, however, that only they, that is, the elect of God are those who are awakened by the Holy Spirit and made able to undertake that work. It is God's work in them (Isa. 26:12). Paul similarly
writes to the Philippians, "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12,13).
The final text is 1 John 3:23, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." To whom is the commandment addressed? "That we should believe..." And who are they? John's "little children" (1 Jno 2:1), a title given by John to the recipients of this epistle no less than nine times. This is not "a universal call to obedience" as Mr Murray asserts, it is an affectionate address to the Lord's people, John's little children, those who believe in Christ Jesus. There is, says Mr Murray "the universal offer and invitation of the Gospel." In this his third point he confuses and conflates the call of God to Israel with a general and universal call of the Gospel. He cites Isaiah 25:6, "And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a
feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." Note who it is that is making the feast for "all people." It is "the LORD," that is, the covenant God of Israel. Whenever the word "LORD" is used in capital letters in the Authorised Version of the Scriptures it is a reference to the Covenant God of Israel. The feast that is prepared is therefore for all the people who are in covenant relationship with the Covenant God of Israel. The "all people" are simply the church and none other. Again, Mr Murray is guilty of wresting the Scriptures from their context. The "all people" in this verse are the same as in verse 7 which speaks of the revelation of Christ in the
Gospel. Verse 8 again speaks of the same people but uses the phrase "all faces" "The Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces." But whose faces? Only those who savingly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, there is no "universal offer and free invitation" here. From the New Testament Mr Murray brings forth Luke 14:23, "And the lord
said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." He fails to mention verse 21, "So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." This verse clearly speaks of those to whom the invitation is addressed "the poor, the maimed, the halt and the blind." Nor is the invitation re-addressed to those originally invited. Those originally invited were not to be addressed, "compel them," but only those who were poor and maimed &c. Is this really a "universal offer and invitation of the Gospel?" Whilst Mr Murray may think so, I would contend that the clear meaning is that the invitation addressed by the Lord in the parable is a particular invitation addressed to particular cases. A W Pink in his Interpretation of the Scriptures draws his readers' attention to this parable as recorded in Matthew's Gospel. He notes that the plural "servants" is used. This he says, denotes Apostles, preachers &c. Here in Luke's Gospel the singular "servant" is used. This he says denotes the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He alone it is that is able to "compel" the poor, the maimed and the blind. The Gospel promise is addressed to those who are aware of their spiritual poverty, those who are aware that they are spiritually maimed, those who are aware that they are spiritually halt and unable of their own selves to walk in the ways of God. It is addressed to those who are aware that they are spiritually blind and that they are in darkness unless the Light of the world enlightens them. Christ says, "...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. 9:13). We come now to the crux of the matter. Is there an inward ability within man to see his spiritual darkness, to see his spiritual poverty, to see his spiritual thirst? Mr Murray says there is! "All men," he says, "were thirsty by nature." Mr Murray has quoted Isa 55:1, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." He has dismissed the fact that this verse applies only to certain cases i.e. those who are spiritually thirsty. He has now said that all men are thirsty by nature. Indeed they are! But that thirst is a thirst for sin. It is a thirst for ungodliness. It is a thirst for uncleanness. It is a thirst for all the sins that are listed by the apostle Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But there is no thirst after God. There is no thirst after the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul tells us that the natural man delights in sin. "They which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:32). He goes on to say, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:11-18). I do not see here a description of any that are thirsting for God. I only see here a description of those whose hearts "are deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer.
17:9). There are those who seek after God. The Psalmist describes them. "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?" (Ps. 42:2; cf. Ps. 63:1 & 143:6). Those who are thirsty are not they who are thirsty by nature, but have been made so by the work of the Holy Spirit within their hearts. Then Mr Murray says quite openly, "There is certainly no qualification in Rev. 22:17." Lest my reader misunderstand what Mr Murray said, let me repeat, "There is certainly no qualification in Rev. 22:17." Now, what does Rev. 22:17 say? "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever
will, let him take the water of life freely." The qualification here is "let him heareth ... let him that is athirst come." That spiritual thirst is that which is given by God the Spirit under the sound of the Gospel of grace. Then there is another qualification, viz., "Whosoever will." The invitation is addressed not to "Whosoever" but "Whosoever will." David
defines who these characters are: "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth" (Ps 110:3). They are they who have been made recipients of Christ (Col. 1:27), by the power of God. The more I read of this article, the more I came to the opinion that they who hold to the so called free offer of the Gospel are thoroughly confused and cannot be truly Calvinistic. An example of th s confusion was given by Mr Murray. He quoted the late Prof. John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary: "If we fail to present this offer with freedom and spontaneity, with passion and urgency, then we are not only dishonouring Christ and his glory but we are choking those who are the candidates of saving faith" (emphasis added - JN). Do both Professor Murray and Mr Murray believe that the elect of God can be choked? Do they really believe that the sovereign purposes of God can be frustrated? For that is what Professor Murray is saying and, by implication, what Mr Murray believes. Do they not believe in the effectual call of God? They both profess to believe the doctrine of the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states:
Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered in the Gospel" (answer to question 31).
There is nothing here of "candidates of saving faith" being choked. What is it to be choked? Choking is the cutting off of air from the lungs by the introduction of a foreign body resulting in the death of the one being choked. Now, does Mr Murray really believe that the elect of God can be spiritually choked? I leave the reader to come to his own conclusion.
Further, our Lord Jesus did speak of some who were choked. In the parable of the sower the Lord spake of the seed. "And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it" (Lk 8:7). The Lord then identifies to the disciples who that represented. "And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection" (Lk 8:14). In other words it is they who are not among the called of God. They are they who make a profession of faith but when other cares arise, that profession is proven to have been an empty and false profession. God grant that our profession of Christ may not be such. The other reference in Scripture to creatures being choked is found in the cleansing of the Gadarene demoniac. My reader will recall that Legion was possessed of many devils and unclean spirits that were cast out by the Lord Jesus into the swine. We read, "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea" (Mk 5:13). Again, they were most certainly not the elect of God who were choked! It was the unclean animals who were choked, it was those possessed of unclean spirits who were choked not, as professor Murray states, " those who are the candidates of saving faith." ).
The fourth section of Mr Murray's address deals with God's sending "forth, with his Gospel many promises. ... These promises are most definite that all those who return to God as the prodigal will be received graciously." To which we say a hearty "Amen!" Mr Murray then proceeds to declare that it is "God's desire that all men should be saved." This, he says, is "the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the Gospel." To prove his case he brings his audience's attention to Ezekiel 33:11. Does this verse prove his argument? Alas, it does not! That verse says, "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" To whom is Ezekiel speaking? "Say unto them." Who are they? "I have set they a watchman unto the house of Israel" (v. 7). This passage of Scripture is addressed to a particular people and not indiscriminately. Likewise the actual verse mentioned by Mr Murray actually identifies the ones to whom the verse is addressed: "for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Particular not indiscriminate!
The accusation is made that those who deny the free offer of the Gospel have no love for souls. Quoting Iain Murray, Mr Murray said that "if a preacher doubted Christ's willingness and desire to save sinners then he could not be a true evangelist." Church history does not bear this statement out. There are many we could cite who during their ministries
denied the free offer. Mention is made elsewhere in this issue of Sinner Saved of Robert Hawker, dubbed by today's Calvinistic elite as a hypercalvinist. He was a true evangelist. He preached before the London Missionary Society. He wrote and published Gospel tracts and engaged in the distribution of them. Many churches were established in the North of England through the preaching of William Gadsby, some of which continue unto this day. Many who have been dubbed hypercalvinists have been so energetic in evangelistic endeavours that they put us all to shame. We, today, are
pygmies in comparison with the so called hypercalvinists of former generations. (Cf. High Calvinists in Action by Ian Shaw, Oxford University Press, 2002)
Mr Murray draws his lecture to a close with a classic piece of escapism. "An understanding of how the Gospel can be offered to sinners for whom Christ has not died is something that God has not chosen to explain at present." To make such a statement is to sidestep the issue. When the disciples were unable to understand the parables by which Jesus taught the multitudes Christ said to them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given (Matt 13:11). Mr Murray's own Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith to which he has given assent will not allow him to side- step the issue. That Confession of Faith says:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (Chapter 1, section 6) (Emphasis added - JN). It is not acceptable to say that "God has not chosen to explain at present. We have to walk by faith, not by sight, in this high mystery." There are mysteries in the Word of God, but the so-called free and universal offer is not one of them.
God has not commanded us to "offer the Gospel" to those for whom Christ has not died. The commission of Christ is "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15). The disciples made no free offers. Paul made no free offers. And neither should we. The so- called free and universal offer of the Gospel is a doctrine and practice invented by men and a doctrine that cannot be found in and justified from Scripture. Mr Murray's final word was that "forty years ago our land recovered the Reformed truth. We need now the Spirit to come down upon it, to light the fire on the altar of preaching, that men might find themselves once again in the presence of the living God - and tremble and fear and flee to Christ for eternal life." For a greater part of that forty years this writer has been a preacher of the Word of God. I have stood, not only in pulpits, but it has been my privilege to stand in the open air, preaching at horse racing tracks, cinema queues, city centres, &c. My experience is that I have often stood alone. Many of those who have "recovered the Reformed truth" are nowhere to be seen! They are quite happy to engage in intellectual debate
about that mongrel Calvinism they profess to believe, and this while a world perishes in their sins. God indeed grant that the Spirit of God will come down upon the preached (not offered) Word, that he will take of the things of Christ and apply them to the hearts of sinners, and that seeing their state they will in turn seek after God if happly they may find him.
This article was headed with the question "The Gospel Offer Conditional or Unconditional? I have sought to show that the Gospel offer is neither a free nor unconditional offer to all mankind. There will be those who no doubt will point to the statement already in the Westminster Shorter Catechism already quoted as question 31 on effectual calling, viz, "...Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel." While we must acknowledge that the Shorter Catechism does not carry the weight of Scripture, it is an important document. But again, is this really a systematising of the so- called free and unconditional offer of the Gospel? I think not! If we look at the wording of the answer to question 31 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism we will notice that it is describing those who are effectually called of God by the preaching of the Gospel.
"... Whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel." (Emphasis added - JN).
The compilers of the Shorter Catechism were writing about the election of grace, the church. "Christ," they wrote, is "freely offered to us" that is, the church, not the world; the elect, not the reprobate, "in the Gospel" for it is to them that the word is made effectual. I also think that it is significant that three major Puritan commentaries upon the Westminster
Shorter Catechism (Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and James Fisher) make no attempt to explain the phrase in the manner in which it has been espoused at the present time, that is as a universal and unconditional offer. It is also noticeable that Thomas Watson alters the wording of the answer to question 31: "...he causes us to embrace Christ freely, as he is offered to us in the Gospel." He still maintains that the Gospel offer is restricted to the church. Conditional or Unconditional? The Gospel offer is conditional. It is conditional upon the following: The preaching of the Gospel in all its fulness. The work of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the hearers. The experimental knowledge of that work.
Does this produce introspection? Does it produce a morbid sense of doubt? Of course not! The fruit of true Gospel preaching is the faith of God's elect in the hearts of that election of grace for "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17).