The doctrine in question has been called "the free offer," "the well-meant offer," and "the sincere offer" of the gospel (see "Note" below). My position is that it makes God into a schizophrenic fool. It is unbiblical and irrational, and thus must be rejected and opposed.

Let me offer a brief statement and explanation here.

Because we do not know beforehand who are numbered among the elect and the non-elect, and because Scripture commands us to preach to every person, we must not try to determine for ourselves who are the elect and the non-elect, and then preach the gospel only to those whom we consider the elect. Rather, we must indiscriminately preach the gospel to all men.

On the other hand, it is wrong and sinful to preach the gospel as if there is a chance for even the non-elect to obtain faith and be saved, as if God is sincerely telling them that he desires their salvation and that they could be saved (Luke 10:21; John 6:65). We do not know the precise content of God's decree in election (as in who are the elect and who are the non-elect), and so we must not act as if we know. However, it does not follow that we should speak as if election is false when we preach the gospel.

Instead, in our message, we must make it clear that God seriously commands every person, whether elect or non-elect, to believe the gospel, thus making it every person's moral obligation to believe — those who do will be saved and those who do not will be damned. But we must not present this as a "sincere offer" of salvation from God to even the non-elect. Faith comes only as God's sovereign gift, and God has immutably decided to withhold this gift from the non-elect, but rather to actively harden them; therefore, to sincerely offer salvation to the non-elect as if God desires them to be saved and as if it is possible for them to be saved would be to lie to them in God's name. There is no real or sincere offer of salvation to the non-elect, but only a real and serious command that they can never obey, and one that God will enforce against them with hellfire.

Again, this does not prevent us from indiscriminately preaching the gospel to all men, since it is neither our right nor duty to pick out the elect and preach only to them or to pick out the non-elect and exclude them. The point is that we must not present the gospel as a sincere offer to all, as if God's "desire" can differ from his decree, as if God could or would decree against his "desire" (when Scripture teaches that he decrees what he desires — that is, his "good pleasure" — and what he desires, he decrees and makes certain), and as if it is possible for even the non-elect to be saved; rather, we must present the gospel as a serious command to all, as if it is required of all to believe (Acts 17:30), and as if God intends to summon the elect and harden the non-elect by the same preaching of the gospel (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

In other words, the content and the preaching of the gospel could be and should be completely consistent with the doctrines of election and reprobation, as well as all other related doctrines. For many, to affirm the "sincere offer" is merely an excuse to believe like a Calvinist, but preach like an Arminian.

(to be continued…)

Note:
These terms are not always used consistently or with precision, so that they represent a small range of meanings. It is also true that not all who deny the "sincere offer" believe exactly the same things. Therefore, those who affirm the "sincere offer" might find themselves agreeing with me on certain points while others who affirm the "sincere offer" might disagree with those same points. Likewise, not everything that I say about or against the "sincere offer" apply equally to everyone who affirms the teaching.

In addition, those who affirm the "sincere offer" are often inconsistent in their language. For example, one might be denouncing those who deny the "sincere offer," and then proceed to speak about the issue as concerning a "command," as if an offer and a command are the same thing, when they are not the same at all. Of course, such inconsistencies make a precise discussion on the topic more difficult, especially when my purpose is to give only a brief explanation.

Another reason for confusion is that those who affirm the "sincere offer" often make unwarranted assumptions about those who deny it. For example, some of those who affirm the "sincere offer" assume that those who deny it would necessarily oppose the preaching of the gospel indiscriminately to all men. But this is not true — those who deny the "sincere offer" might still indiscriminately preach the gospel to all men, but they do so for a different reason and based on a different understanding of the situation.

Thus the best way to profit from our brief discussion is to consider the actual beliefs that I am dealing with, whether in my affirmations or denials, and not necessarily how the term is used in a particular case or by a particular person. For example, you might be someone who affirms the "sincere offer," but you might find that I am not addressing exactly what you believe. In such instances, it is best to consider the very beliefs that I am addressing, instead of whether or not you would consider them as necessarily part of what someone who affirms the "sincere offer" must affirm.

Recommended:

Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)

David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
David Engelsma, Common Grace Revisited
Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof, Sin and Grace
(See www.rfpa.org)

David Engelsma, Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?

David Engelsma, He Shines in All That's Fair

Herman Hanko, Is the Denial of the "Well-meant Offer" of the Gospel "Hyper-Calvinism"?

Vincent Cheung, Comments on "Why I am not a Calvinist"

Vincent Cheung, The Doctrine of Hell

Posted in Theology, Ministry | Permanent Link