The History of the Free Offer Chapter 9 Later Dutch Thinkers
|
If it
is true, as we noticed in our last chapter, that Dutch theologians from the Synod of Dort
to the end of the eighteenth century did not hold to the present day idea of the offer,
the question arises how this notion became such an accepted part of Reformed theology.
There were several factors that must be considered.
One
element in this change in Dutch thought is undoubtedly that in the period following Dort,
the Dutch Churches entered a time of doctrinal and spiritual decline. While in the 17th
and first part of the 18th centuries, there were still many solidly Reformed theologians,
the decline began almost at once and increased in severity as the decades rolled by. We
cannot go into the reasons for this doctrinal decline, nor is it necessary for our
purposes; but the fact remains that with this doctrinal and spiritual decline, the great
truths of Dort, which emphasized so strongly God's sovereign grace in the work of
salvation, were forgotten and denied. This opened the door to many different kinds of
heresies, also those that denied the sovereignty of grace. And the door was open also for
the idea of the well-meant offer.
In the
second place, and in close connection with this idea, were the inroads of Amyrauldianism.
In an earlier
chapter we spent some time describing this heresy that arose in France soon after the
Synod of Dort and which affected the thinking of English and continental thought.
Amyrauldianism taught a hypothetical universalism, denied the sovereignty of God in
election and reprobation and taught an early form of the free offer. These ideas came also
into the Netherlands. While it was more than obvious that such errors would find their way
across the border of France into its Dutch neighbor, the rise of the influence of
Amyrauldianism was hurried by the persecution of the Hugenots in France. During increasing
pressure on the Hugenots, which came to a head with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
many fled France to find refuge in other countries. While most of the Hugenots themselves
were staunchly Calvinistic, many who fled were not, and these carried with them into other
lands various heresies among which was to be found the heresy of Amyrauldianism. Kromminga
writes concerning this:
Before the revocation of the Edict
of Nantes various heterodox opinions had made their appearance among the Reformed churches
of France. At Saumur, professor Moses Amyraud had taught a double decree of
predestination, an anterior decree determining that Christ should make atonement for
sinners and that sinners should be called to salvation, and a further particular decree of
the election of some and the preterition of others. In 1649 he was cleared by synodical
judgment. Another Saumur professor, Claude Pajon, when minister at Orleans later, saw his
name connected with reduced estimates of man's depravity and God's redeeming grace, and
these views various French Synods condemned in 1677
as pelagianizing. A third Saumur professor, Josue de la Place, had taught mediate instead
of immediate imputation of Adam's guilt, against which view both Rivet and Maresius had
raised their voices, and which view the French Synod of Charenton had condemned in 1645.
When the repression of the Reformed faith in France prompted the Netherlands to throw open
its borders to the Hugenot refugees, the danger arose of the importation of these
erroneous views….
In the period of severe persecution which befell the Hugenot Church after the revocation of Nantes, the purity of teaching did not improve among the persecuted . …
These tendencies which were at work among the Hugenot refugees soon made their appearance also in the Netherlands and affected the course of scientific theology so that it began to lose its Reformed character . …96
As Kromminga points out, various Synods both in France and in the
Lowlands warned against these errors. The Walloon Synod, e.g., warned, among other
things, against
the view that God's grace to sinners consists only in the preaching of the Gospel and not
in the irresistible operation of the Spirit in the heart. I.e., grace was not in the
external call only, a grace which came then to all who hear, but was to be found in the
internal operations of the Spirit, and in the external call only in connection with the
internal work of Christ's Spirit. The former idea led to a conception that salvation was
dependent upon the will of man.
Nevertheless,
certain Dutch theologians, influenced by Amyrauldianism, began to teach these views. H.
Venema and Vitringa, e.g., taught that there was a two-fold decree of election, one general and
conditional, the other particular and unconditional. This kind of teaching opened the door
for the well-meant offer.
Yet
another factor was the influence of wrong covenant conceptions. Earlier, in the last
article, we noticed that the history of the free offer in the Netherlands was closely
connected with the history of the doctrine of the covenant. Throughout the history of the
Reformed faith in the Netherlands the covenant had almost always been defined in terms of
an agreement between God and man. The agreement, with its mutual stipulations, conditions
and promises, was in effect at such a time as man accepted the provisions of the covenant
and made them his own. Because the promise of the covenant was signified and
sealed already in baptism, and because all the infants of believers were baptized, this
promise was made to all the children who were baptized, whether elect or reprobate. The
reprobate children as well as the elect had the promise of God made to them that God would
be their God. While this promise did not actually become effective in their lives until
such a time as they accepted the provisions of the covenant, nevertheless there was some
sense in which they
all had a claim on the promise and some sense in which God actually made this promise to
them.
It is
not difficult to see how this is closely associated with the idea of the well-meant offer.
After all, the same promise signified and sealed in baptism is also proclaimed in the
preaching. If the promise is, in some sense of the word, made to all the children who are
baptized, then that same promise when it is proclaimed in the preaching comes to all who
hear the gospel. That promise, because it proclaims that God will be the God of those who
hear, quite naturally fits in very well with the idea that the gospel is an offer, i.e.,
that it expresses God's desire and intention to save all those who hear. In other words, a
general and conditional promise of the covenant is fundamentally the same thing as a
well-meant offer made to all, but given only upon condition of faith.
This is
not to say, of course, that all who held to the idea of the covenant as an agreement (for
this was the commonly accepted view) held also to the well-meant offer. There were many
exceptions as we shall see. But the fact is, and this is the point we are making, that
such a view of the covenant allowed room for and influenced the development of the
well-meant offer in Dutch thinking.
Finally,
an important factor in the rise of this idea in Dutch thinking was the so-called "Nadere
This
later is important, for Puritanism found its way also into the Netherlands and was
particularly attractive to those within the Church who were concerned with the spiritual
decline of their Churches. Not only did this Puritanism come into the Netherlands by means
of ministers from England, such as A. Comrie, and by means of ministers
from the Netherlands who visited or studied in England only to return to their own land,
but the writings of Puritans were translated into the Dutch and read avidly by those who
saw in Puritanism a cure for spiritual lethargy and worldly-mindedness. The writings of
many Puritans were translated, but particularly popular were the writings of such men as
Ironsides, the Erskine brothers and Philpot. The Puritan conception of preaching, which we
discussed in an
earlier chapter was very appealing because of its emphasis on the subjective life of the
child of God. But insofar as especially those who were followers of the Marrow men also
taught the well-meant offer, this idea entered also into Dutch thinking.
All
these things brought about what is called the Nadere Reformatie. So much was this
true that some could write: "It is clear that it (the Nadere Reformatie)
agreed greatly with English—Scottish Puritanism; we can call the Nadere
Reformatie, Dutch Puritanism."97
In this
movement the first emphasis was on piety along the lines of Calvin as he discussed it in
his Institutes Bk. IV. It was, in this respect, analogous to the "Second
Reformation" in Scotland. But gradually it developed into a certain Anabaptism and
mysticism and began to emphasize a "definite content and style of life: the practice
of Godliness." With this practice came a kind of legalism which spoke more often of
the "do's and don’ts" of the Christian life than of the "liberty
wherewith Christ has made us free." The mystical piety and devotion which these
people practiced was first of all within the established church, but gradually separated
from the Church, first with the establishment of conventicles, and then by absolute
separation, as in the case of De Labadie, Schortinghuis and Lampe. "One no longer
speaks properly of Nadere Reformatie where the original purpose is abandoned, but
of pietism in the sense that piety becomes in large measure an end in itself, by which
experimental enjoyment takes the place of prophetic witness and struggle."
This Nadere
Reformatie received new life in the 19th century in the Reveil and the
Separation of 1834, commonly called the Afscheiding.
Because,
therefore, this Nadere Reformatie was influenced in part by English and Scottish
Puritanism, also by that segment of Puritanism that was under the influence of the Marrow
Men, the idea of the free offer was gradually introduced into Dutch thinking.
These
then are the factors that introduced into Dutch thinking the whole conception of the
well-meant offer and
which made it a part of Dutch theology.
The Afscheiding
of 1834, under the leadership of such men as De Cock, Van Raalte, Scholte, Brummelkamp and
Van Velzen, was a true Reformation of the Church of Christ in the Netherlands. The State
or Established Church (Hervormde Kerk) had become so corrupt that it was becoming
increasingly impossible for the people of God to survive spiritually within it. When the
Churches of the Secession were established, God was preserving His Church and maintaining
His cause in the Netherlands.
But it
is important for us to remember that the Afscheiding was predominantly a movement
among the common folk in the Netherlands; and, as such, it was a movement which attracted
to it those who were the spiritual heirs of the Nadere Reformation i.e., those
who were the deeply pious and religious among the Dutch, but who had been, in many
instances, influenced also by unhealthy mysticism.
While
we cannot enter into the details of this Separation, we ought, at least briefly, to notice
the development of the idea of the well-meant offer among these men and their successors.
There are two or three elements that are worthy of our notice. In the first place, it is
rather striking that on the specific question of the well-meant offer there was no
unanimity of opinion among the leaders of the Afscheiding. We can probably go so
far as
to say that there were really two wings among these leaders, one of which was soundly
Reformed according to the solid traditions of Dort, and the other wing which was less
Reformed and more susceptible to error. The well-meant offer was an issue which separated
these two wings. Algra tells us that in the controversy among the men of the Afscheiding
over the preparation of ministers, Brummelkamp was suspicioned because "the offer of
salvation was too broad
in his preaching. 98 This
idea of the well-meant offer prevailed among some in the Afscheiding and the view
was never officially condemned by these Churches. The result was that the view was
commonly taught among certain segments, but came over also into this country when the
people of the Afscheiding immigrated.
In the
second place, the question of the offer was closely bound up with the question of the
ground for the baptism of infants. Because the covenant was defined in terms of an
agreement in which only adults could enter, the question arose: What constitutes the
ground for infant baptism? The answer that was given was: A general promise of God made to
all the children who are baptized, but which promise is also conditional. Hence, although
all children possess this promise, they possess it only objectively, and it does not
become subjectively their own until such a time as they fulfill the condition of faith.
This view that prevailed in the Afscheiding quite naturally
led to the whole idea of the offer.
In the
third place, and in keeping with all these ideas, the people of the Afscheiding held
also to such views as infralapsarianism, mediate regeneration and temporal justification.
These views were quite in keeping with
their views on the promise of the covenant and the preaching of the gospel.
Quite
different was the second movement of reform in the Dutch State Church; the movement under
the leadership of Dr. Abraham Kuyper and called the Doleantie. While this movement, thanks in part to the gifted
leadership of Kuyper, was much more organized church politically than the Afscheiding,
it was also much more doctrinally articulate. Kuyper was a theologian of great ability
and left an indelible stamp upon the Church. But his doctrinal position was quite
different from that of the Afscheiding in some important points. While the Afscheiding
was infralapsarian, Kuyper was supralapsarian; while the Afscheiding held to
mediate regeneration, Kuyper maintained immediate regeneration; while the Afscheiding believed
in temporal justification, Kuyper maintained eternal justification; and while the Afscheiding
held that the basis for infant baptism was a general and conditional promise, Kuyper
maintained that the promise of the covenant was always particular, i.e., only for the
elect, and absolutely unconditional.
But
it is particularly our interest to examine Kuyper's views on the question of common grace
and the free offer
of the gospel.99 In his early ministry Kuyper was a
modernist, for he had been trained in Seminaries of the State Church which were thoroughly
modern in their teachings. But while minister of the church in Beesd, his first charge, he
was converted and became a strong and ardent defender of the Reformed faith and of the
doctrines of sovereign and particular grace.100 He defended the truths of sovereign election
and reprobation, particular atonement, irresistible and particular grace. He repudiates a
Christ for all, a grace for all in the preaching, a desire or intention of God to save
all, and a double decree or two-fold will of God (so essential for the well-meant offer).
Later
in his life, however, Kuyper began to teach “common
grace" and in fact wrote a three-volume work on this subject under the title, Gemeene
Gratie. It is not altogether clear why Kuyper changed his mind on this matter of
common grace. Perhaps, as some say, Kuyper's modernistic education once more came through
in his teachings in later life. It is probably at least partly correct, however, that his Gemeene
Gratie was written at the time when he was prime minister of Netherlands and
developed this idea of common grace to justify his coalition with the Roman
Catholics, a coalition necessary to give his Anti-Revolutionary Party a majority in the
Lower House.
However
all this may be, even though Kuyper taught a certain common grace in his later years, his
views of common grace were quite different from those views of common grace so closely
associated with the well-meant offer. In fact, there are two Dutch expressions for these
two different kinds of common grace: algemeene genade or general grace was used
to denote that grace which was a part of the well-meant offer; and gemeene gratie,
the common grace of which Kuyper spoke. The differences between these two are briefly:
while algemeene genade or general grace is given to all including those within
the Church, is somehow connected with the atoning sacrifice of Christ and is a kind of
blurring of the doctrine of election,
gemeene gratie is given outside the Church, outside election, independent of the
cross, and only to the wicked world. Gemeene gratie was a grace that was evident in all the good gifts which God
gives to us, was manifested especially in the restraint of sin in the wicked world so that
men are rarely as bad as they would be without it, and resulted in a "natural"
good which the unregenerate were able to perform and from which the people of God could
benefit.
Because
of this definition of grace, Kuyper was a bitter opponent of the well-meant offer. He
insisted on distinguishing sharply between the grace which was common, and particular and
saving grace; and therefore insisted that gemeene gratie operates outside the
Church and is in no way connected to the preaching of the gospel. There is no grace for
all in the preaching. Nor does God in any way, through the preaching, give expression to a
love for all, a compassion for all, a desire to save all, a divine intention to bring all
who hear the gospel to Christ. And this position he maintained all his life. Kuyper would
turn over in his grave if he could know how his name is quoted today in support of the
free offer.
We do
not, of course, agree with Kuyper's views on gemeene gratie; but the fact is that
Kuyper cannot be appealed to in support of the well-meant offer, and his teachings on
particular and sovereign grace remained his chief emphasis through all his life.
It is
strange, therefore, that in the name of Dr. A. Kuyper the Christian Reformed Church
adopted a certain view of common grace and of the free offer.
But in
order to understand how this came about, we must backtrack in time a bit and consider
briefly the views on the free offer that were held among the people of the Afscheiding
who immigrated to this country.
The
immigration to this country began shortly after the Afscheiding, and some of
these earliest settlers, under the leadership of Van Raalte, settled in the area that is
now known as Holland, Michigan. While, soon after their arrival, and at the urging of Van
Raalte, these settlers joined the Reformed Church of America, they soon became
disillusioned with the RCA and separated to form their own Church, which became known as
the Christian Reformed Church.
While
these settlers were, on the whole, pious and Godly saints, they were strongly under the
influence of the thinking that prevailed among the leaders of the Afscheiding,
and insofar as the well-meant offer was taught among some, it was taught also in the early
colonies. This is not to say that the sermons which were preached were not often soundly
Reformed and that the truths of sovereign
In the
early 1900s a series of sermons by Dr. C. Bouma was published under the title Genade
Geneest. In a sermon on Luke 19:41,
42, we find the following statements made (the translation is ours):
Jesus wept. And in His weeping He is also the Priest, Who still reaches out His hands to those who are sinking away in order yet to save them. …
In
that manner Jesus is the great High priest, Who not only weeps, but His weeping is also a
prayer. He spreads out His arms to the apostate city and prays. Even as a mother extends
her arms to her son when he leaves to go into the world and toward the abyss, whether
perchance he may still rush into the safety of mother's arms.
How great and wide is His mercy!
"If thou hadst known this day." Already repeatedly Jesus had preached peace at
the former feasts. Now it is the last time; soon He will die. Now it is the eleventh hour;
soon Jerusalem will be destroyed. But even still at the eleventh hour Jesus stands there,
praying for conversion, for the apostate Jerusalem. Even yet at the eleventh hour He
stands at the closed door of the heart of the sinner. Frequently refused, He still stands
there. Frequently insulted and mocked, He still calls! O, if in this day you would
recognize that which pertains to your peace!
How great is His compassion. It
reaches out even to Jerusalem . . . . You
also, even you. Many have already come to the fountain of life; you come also, Jerusalem.
Many around the sinner already drank of those waters, maybe a pious father or a
God-fearing mother. Christ does not want any one to go lost. (italics ours.) He
therefore stands at the door of the strongly barred heart calling: "You come also,
why should you perish?"
In
another book of sermons, Van De Onzen, published in 1910, Rev. J. Keizer has a
sermon on Eph.
5:2. After speaking of the love of Christ for His own, he concludes with a word of
application:
Many walk no longer with us; they
have turned their backs to God's covenant and words, even their heel, their neck,
"the cold shoulder." Their end is the ways of death; as children of the kingdom
they will perish. Return still, ye who are so averse; the Lord will still accept you; He
still waits to be gracious to you.
It is
clear therefore, that these immigrants were subject to Arminian preaching in some
instances; that they were, while generally pious folk, under the influence of Dutch
Puritanism, and that, though the Reformed faith was preserved among them in many respects,
they were also somewhat doctrinally weak.
It is
clear from further developments that common grace and the free offer of the gospel were
held among many. Some maintained that common grace was closely connected with
"general revelation." This common grace conveyed to all men, apart from the
gospel, a certain knowledge of God whereby all had some understanding of the truth, though
imperfectly. While the idea itself is certainly in keeping with what Paul teaches in Rom. 1:18
ff., that this "general revelation" was grace was a serious error. Because it
was grace, this "general revelation" created in man a certain yearning for God
and desire to know Him more perfectly. It not only enabled man to develop in science,
philosophy, jurisprudence, etc., but also was preparatory for the gospel and served as a
point of contact in gospel preaching. Thus Bavinck writes: 101
The
Christian, who sees everything in the light of the Word of God, is anything but narrow in
his view. He is generous in heart and mind…. He cannot let go his belief that
the revelation of God in Christ, to which he owes his life and salvation, has a special
character. This belief does not exclude him from the world, but rather puts him in
position to trace out the revelation of God in nature and history, and puts the means at
his disposal by which he can recognize the true and the good and the beautiful and
separate them from the false and sinful alloys of men.
So it is that he makes a
distinction between a general and a special revelation of God. In the
general revelation God makes use of the usual run of phenomena and the usual course of
events; in the special revelation He often employs unusual means, appearance, prophecy,
and miracle to make Himself known to man. The contents of the first kind are especially
the attributes of power, wisdom, and goodness; those of the second kind are especially
God's holiness and righteousness, compassion and grace. The first is directed to all men
and, by means of common grace, serves to restrain the eruption of sin; the second comes to
all those who live under the Gospel and has as its glory, by special grace, the
forgiveness of sins and the renewal of life.
But, however essentially the two
are to be distinguished, they are also intimately connected with each other. . . Grace
is the content of both revelations, common in the first, special in the second, but in
such a way that the one is indispensable for the other.
It is common grace that makes special grace possible, prepares the way for it, and later supports it; and special grace, in its turn, leads common grace up to its own level and puts it into its service. Both revelations, finally, have as their purpose the preservation of the human race, the first by sustaining it, and the second by redeeming it, and both in this way serve the end of glorifying all of God's excellences.102
Masselink
goes so far as to say that this "general revelation" is brought about by a
general and universal operation of the Spirit in the hearts of all men.103
And this in turn stands connected
with the free offer of the gospel: The basis for this general offer of the Gospel is the
general external and internal revelation of the Holy Spirit which comes to all men .
. .. This
general revelation witnesses within the souls of the ungodly as well as the godly. This
general revelation is the basis for mission work. The reason why God comes with a
well-meant offer of salvation to both the elect and non-elect is correctly set forth by
Prof. Berkhof in his "Dogmatics." He mentions the following four facts under the
significance of the external calling:
(1) In it God maintains His claim
upon the sinner.
(2) It is the Divinely appointed
means to bring sinners to conversion.
(3) It
is a revelation of God's love to sinners.
(4) It adds greatly to the
responsibility of those who hear it. 104
But if,
so it was taught, there is a common grace shown to all men through "general
revelation," there is also a common grace in the preaching of the gospel. That is,
the gospel is itself objectively grace to those who hear. It in itself is evidence of
God's favor to all who hear.
It is evidence of God's favor to all that He even gives the gospel to all. But this idea
of an objective grace shown in the gospel was even sometimes interpreted as a subjective
grace as well, for it is impossible to separate the objective and subjective elements of
grace.
Thus,
objectively the gospel expresses God's desire and willingness to save all who hear and
thus manifests His grace; but subjectively He also bestows a grace through the preaching
to all so that all are enabled to accept or reject the proffered grace.105 And all of this led in turn among
some to a view of general or universal atonement, a Christ pro omnibus.
However,
after the Doleantie, the reformation in the Netherlands under Dr. A.
Kuyper, many immigrants who came to this country were followers of Kuyper. Because in 1892
the Churches under the leadership of Dr. Kuyper and the Churches of the Afscheiding
merged into what is now known as the Gereformeerde Kerken: the immigrants from
the Doleantie Churches generally joined with the Christian Reformed Church.
In
some respects the influence of the followers of Kuyper was good, for Kuyper had emphasized
strongly the truths of sovereign grace. The followers of Kuyper were much more doctrinally
sound and aware, and able to defend and define doctrine with more clarity and precision.
But along with the Kuyperians who came to this country came also Kuyper's views on common
grace. These views were strongly represented in a segment in Calvin College and Seminary
and found a mouthpiece in the magazine, "Religion and Culture." All of this
involved considerable struggle within the Christian Reformed Church as the views of the Afscheiding
and those of Kuyper clashed.
This
controversy was carried over also into the doctrine of the covenant, something that ought
not to surprise us. The Kuyperian influence represented the view of a particular and
unconditional promise of the covenant, although Kuyper had also made presumptive
regeneration the ground for infant baptism. The Afscheiding tradition, on the
other hand, held to a general and conditional promise of the covenant made to all who are
baptized whether elect or reprobate children. Under the influence of W. Heyns, the latter
won out and the way was prepared for the acceptance of the free offer of the gospel. All
this came to a head in the controversy of 1924. But because the controversy of 1924
centered in a dispute over the free offer of the gospel, and because this controversy is
the occasion for the beginning of the Protestant Reformed Churches, of which I am a
member, we shall treat this in a separate chapter.
Return to Table of Contents
Go to Chapter Ten
Foot-Notes
96 D. H. Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Tradition, Win. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1943; pp.
48, 49.
97
Christelijke Encyclopedie, in loc. For the
information and quotes that follow we are indebted to this work.
98
Algra, Het Wonder van de Negentiende
Eeuw, J. H. Kok, Kampen, 1965
99
We do
not intend to go into this question in detail; a careful analysis of Kuyper's position on
this question can be found in D. Engelsma's book: "Hyper-Calvinism and the Call
of the Gospel," which book contains also many valuable quotes from Kuyper's
writings and can be obtained from the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Similar
material can be found in H. Hoeksema's book, "God's
100
One can find these ideas throughout Kuyper's writings,
including his major work on theology, Dictaten Dogmatiek, but the
teachings of Kuyper on sovereign and particular grace are beautifully set forth in his
book, Dat de Genade Particulier Is, i.e., "That Grace is
Particular."
101 It is interesting to note in this connection that Herman Bavinck was a child of
the Afscheiding and retained this influence all his life. He wrote in the latter
part of the 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries.
102 Herman Bavinck, Our
Reasonable Faith, Eerdmans, 1956, pp.37, 38.
103
William Masselink, General Revelation and Common Grace. Eerdmans, 1953,
p. 84. It
is true that Masselink wrote after 1924 when the official decisions on common grace were
made in the Christian Reformed Church. But he reflected thinking that goes back to the
years prior to 1924 as he himself says.
105
Cf. e.g.,
William Heyns, Manual of Reformed Doctrine..
Eerdmans, 1926, especially pp. 195-201. Heyns was also a child of the Afscheiding
who taught in Calvin College and Seminary before and after 1924 and had a great influence
on subsequent thinking in the Christian Reformed Church.