Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on the FoG


Dear Sir,
Re: The Free Offer of the Gospel

The crux of the issue on the FoG rests upon its definition, which is whether or not God sincerely desires (acc. to His 'preceptive', i.e. revealed will) the salvation of all men without exception, especially of those who hear the preaching of the Gospel: the WHAT is to be preached rather than the HOW which is disputed by e.g. the Gospel Standard folks.

The refusal or reluctance to EXTEND (i.e. the 'how') the call or command of repentance and faith to all men indiscriminately for fear of compromising the doctrine of total depravity (vis-a-vis natural ability) is neither Scriptural nor Reformed. Calling upon a non-sensible (i.e. unregenerate) sinner to repent and exercise faith on the Lord Jesus Christ which is his duty does NOT imply ability.

That there is a distinction between the two calls (i.e. external and internal) is not a NECESSARY inference that the former imperative (or even a conditional clause, e.g. Gen 4:7) is indicative of a will of God to save the non-elect just like belief in the 'indelible character' of the baptismal rite does not imply belief in an 'internal sealing' (i.e. mark) on the soul which is the Romish teaching of the ex opere operato efficacy of sacramentally infused grace.

Historically, the majority of Reformed divines (incl. mainstream predestinarian theology in the Church of England, cf. Toplady's *Works*) have consistently denied a 'universal saving will' of God, positing instead, in consonance with the Augustinian tradition, a single (apropos of the decretive) will in God, thus interpreting passages such as 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as referring to the catholic Body of Christ viz. all men without DISTINCTION, i.e. from all kinds of background.

The preceptive will of God therefore, refers to the revelation of 'what men ought to do' mediated through e.g. preaching and by extension, the external calling (confer e.g. pg. 45, chapter V, 'A Display of Arminianism', vol. 10, Works of John Owen, and pg. 453-454, section XI, chap. XXV, vol. 2, Historical Theology, W. Cunningham). Consult also Calvin's Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God on page 118 and his Institutes (sec. 16-17, chap. XXIV, Bk. III); and ppg. 195-197, Bk. I on the impassiblity of God, in answer to Mr. W. F. Spanner (EC 7594).

The principles of traditional Reformed hermeneutics vis-a-vis the Will of God is enshrined in Articles 1 ('without passions'), 17 (note the two-fold distinction between the secret and revealed will) and 20 (Scripture does not contradict itself) of the 39 AoR. See also the WCF. sec 1 and 2, chap. II.

Classical Reformed theology has always been concerned to safeguard the unity, simplicity and immutability of God (viz. the purity and perfection of the essence of God, i.e. His absolute holy Sovereignty) which is (implicitly) ignored by modern mainstream Calvinism, and establish the 'judicial' basis (material and formal) of salvation. This is why historically the proponents of the FoG either held to universal (e.g. Richard Hooker, the Amyraldians etc.) or a double-reference atonement (e.g.the Marrow-men).

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home