A blogger by the name TurretinFan published an article concerning James White and the “free offer of the Gospel.” Here is the link to that article:
http://http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white-is-not-hyper-calvinist.html
According to the article by TF, James White understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel." Now, assuming that James White does understand and affirm the “free offer of the Gospel,” let me present the reader with a simple syllogism.
[A Simple Syllogism]
(1)
Anyone who understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel" is not a Calvinist
(2)
James White understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel"
(3)
Thus, James White is not a Calvinist
If you are shocked by this simple syllogism, then you should continue reading.
The main thesis of the "free offer of the Gospel" (FOG for short)is that the omnipotent God of the Bible actually desires the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel preached. The main thesis of FOG contradicts the explicit teaching of the Bible. The book of Job states clearly:
"But He [God] is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13).
Let's take a look at the teaching of Job 23:13 in simple syllogistic form.
[First syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) The salvation of the elect is something God desires
(3) The salvation of the elect is something God accomplishes
The above syllogism is basic Calvinism, that is, basic Christianity. It represents the clear teaching known as the Absolute Predestination of God. However, if we replace premise (2) of the first syllogism with the main thesis of FOG, then the resulting second syllogism is no longer Calvinism.
Consider the following:
[Second Syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) God is One who desires the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel (FOG)
(3) Thus, the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel is something God accomplishes
Nowhere in the Bible do we ever read about God saving the reprobate. By definition, the reprobates are not saved. Furthermore, by definition, election is God's desire to save some people. The Canons of Dordt, 1st Head, Article 7, states this clearly.
Let's take a look at a third syllogism. This syllogism will correctly teach the Biblical position concerning those reprobates who hear the Gospel preached.
[Third Syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) God is one who does NOT desire the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel
(3) Thus, the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel is something God does NOT accomplish
The third syllogism is the basic teaching of Scripture. Judas and Esau, for example, were certainly exposed to the Gospel, but neither were saved, for God did not desire their salvation (Romans 9:9-22).
FOG is simply one part of the "Three Points of Common Grace" (TPCG). The teachings known as TPCG was advanced by Louis Berkhof, Neo-orthodox theologian Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse, and Greg Bahnsen. By the end of the 20th century, Calvinist theologians such as Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, Gordon H. Clark, and John W. Robbins had comprehensively refuted the heretical teachings of TPCG, but Calvinism was not well received in the 20th century, and it looks like it will not be embraced widely in the 21st century either.
Not surprisingly, TPCG has led to the teaching of Justification By Faith And Works by men such as Norman Shepherd (Shepherd was caught teaching Justificaton By Faith And Works at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia). Neo-orthodox theologian Cornelius Van Til and his disciple Greg Bahnsen ardently defended Norman Shepherd's teaching of Justification By Faith And Works in public, so why should we really be surprised that almost all of the Federal Vision proponents, who advance Justification By Faith And Works (among other heresies) are devout followers of Cornelius Van Til? Proponents of Federal Vision almost all hold to the heretical nonsense of The Three Points Of Common Grace (TPCG), and this is not insignificant.
Herman Hoeksema pointed out long ago that FOG was merely a smokescreen for that old heretical doctrine of human free-will. The unBiblical teaching of free-will necessarily contradicts Justification By Faith Alone. When individuals adopt teachings like FOG, then it will not be long before they openly come to contradict Sola Fide.
The "free offer of the Gospel" (FOG) openly attacks the doctrine of God by teaching that God omnipotent actually fails to accomplish His desire to save those reprobates who hear the Gospel. According to FOG, some of God's desires are frustrated. According to FOG, God is a failure when it comes to saving some people. As if that was not enough, since God is immutable, then God must eternally desire the salvation of those reprobates--even after they have been cast into the lake of fire! The "free offer of the Gospel," simply put, is blasphemy.
Finally, Hyper-Calvinism is not the denial of the "free offer of the Gospel."
Hyper-Calvinism is the mistaken notion that if God commands a person to believe the Gospel, then that command implies that God desires that person to be saved--thus the command to believe the Gospel does not apply to reprobates. This is a logical fallacy. "Ought" does not imply "Can."
When God commands a reprobate to believe the Gospel, then that command makes the reprobate responsible, not capable. Human responsibility is based upon God's sovereignty and knowledge of God's law (Romans 1:32).
Like Hyper-Calvinism, the "free offer of the Gospel" teaches that if God commands a reprobate to believe the Gospel, then that command implies that God desires the salvation of that reprobate. Again, it is a logical fallacy to draw a deduction from a command. The proponents of FOG, like actual hyper-Calvinists, are poorly versed in logic, but then many of them pride themselves on being irrational.
Additional reading on the heresies of "The Free Offer of the Gospel" and the "Three Points Of Common Grace":
1) Danhof, Henry, and Hoeksema, Herman, Sin And Grace, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 2003
2) Engelsma, David J., Hyper-Calvinism And The Call Of The Gospel, Reformed Free Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1994.
3) Engelsma, David J., Common Grace Revisited: A Response To Richard J. Mouw's He Shines In All That's Fair, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 2003.
4) Hanko, Herman, and Hoeksema, Herman, Ready To Give An Answer: A Catechism Of Reformed Distinctives, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 1997.
5) Hoeksema, Herman, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Trinity, Hobbs, New Mexico, 1995.
http://http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white-is-not-hyper-calvinist.html
According to the article by TF, James White understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel." Now, assuming that James White does understand and affirm the “free offer of the Gospel,” let me present the reader with a simple syllogism.
[A Simple Syllogism]
(1)
Anyone who understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel" is not a Calvinist
(2)
James White understands and affirms the "free offer of the Gospel"
(3)
Thus, James White is not a Calvinist
If you are shocked by this simple syllogism, then you should continue reading.
The main thesis of the "free offer of the Gospel" (FOG for short)is that the omnipotent God of the Bible actually desires the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel preached. The main thesis of FOG contradicts the explicit teaching of the Bible. The book of Job states clearly:
"But He [God] is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13).
Let's take a look at the teaching of Job 23:13 in simple syllogistic form.
[First syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) The salvation of the elect is something God desires
(3) The salvation of the elect is something God accomplishes
The above syllogism is basic Calvinism, that is, basic Christianity. It represents the clear teaching known as the Absolute Predestination of God. However, if we replace premise (2) of the first syllogism with the main thesis of FOG, then the resulting second syllogism is no longer Calvinism.
Consider the following:
[Second Syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) God is One who desires the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel (FOG)
(3) Thus, the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel is something God accomplishes
Nowhere in the Bible do we ever read about God saving the reprobate. By definition, the reprobates are not saved. Furthermore, by definition, election is God's desire to save some people. The Canons of Dordt, 1st Head, Article 7, states this clearly.
Let's take a look at a third syllogism. This syllogism will correctly teach the Biblical position concerning those reprobates who hear the Gospel preached.
[Third Syllogism]
(1) Anything God desires is something God accomplishes
(2) God is one who does NOT desire the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel
(3) Thus, the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel is something God does NOT accomplish
The third syllogism is the basic teaching of Scripture. Judas and Esau, for example, were certainly exposed to the Gospel, but neither were saved, for God did not desire their salvation (Romans 9:9-22).
FOG is simply one part of the "Three Points of Common Grace" (TPCG). The teachings known as TPCG was advanced by Louis Berkhof, Neo-orthodox theologian Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse, and Greg Bahnsen. By the end of the 20th century, Calvinist theologians such as Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, Gordon H. Clark, and John W. Robbins had comprehensively refuted the heretical teachings of TPCG, but Calvinism was not well received in the 20th century, and it looks like it will not be embraced widely in the 21st century either.
Not surprisingly, TPCG has led to the teaching of Justification By Faith And Works by men such as Norman Shepherd (Shepherd was caught teaching Justificaton By Faith And Works at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia). Neo-orthodox theologian Cornelius Van Til and his disciple Greg Bahnsen ardently defended Norman Shepherd's teaching of Justification By Faith And Works in public, so why should we really be surprised that almost all of the Federal Vision proponents, who advance Justification By Faith And Works (among other heresies) are devout followers of Cornelius Van Til? Proponents of Federal Vision almost all hold to the heretical nonsense of The Three Points Of Common Grace (TPCG), and this is not insignificant.
Herman Hoeksema pointed out long ago that FOG was merely a smokescreen for that old heretical doctrine of human free-will. The unBiblical teaching of free-will necessarily contradicts Justification By Faith Alone. When individuals adopt teachings like FOG, then it will not be long before they openly come to contradict Sola Fide.
The "free offer of the Gospel" (FOG) openly attacks the doctrine of God by teaching that God omnipotent actually fails to accomplish His desire to save those reprobates who hear the Gospel. According to FOG, some of God's desires are frustrated. According to FOG, God is a failure when it comes to saving some people. As if that was not enough, since God is immutable, then God must eternally desire the salvation of those reprobates--even after they have been cast into the lake of fire! The "free offer of the Gospel," simply put, is blasphemy.
Finally, Hyper-Calvinism is not the denial of the "free offer of the Gospel."
Hyper-Calvinism is the mistaken notion that if God commands a person to believe the Gospel, then that command implies that God desires that person to be saved--thus the command to believe the Gospel does not apply to reprobates. This is a logical fallacy. "Ought" does not imply "Can."
When God commands a reprobate to believe the Gospel, then that command makes the reprobate responsible, not capable. Human responsibility is based upon God's sovereignty and knowledge of God's law (Romans 1:32).
Like Hyper-Calvinism, the "free offer of the Gospel" teaches that if God commands a reprobate to believe the Gospel, then that command implies that God desires the salvation of that reprobate. Again, it is a logical fallacy to draw a deduction from a command. The proponents of FOG, like actual hyper-Calvinists, are poorly versed in logic, but then many of them pride themselves on being irrational.
Additional reading on the heresies of "The Free Offer of the Gospel" and the "Three Points Of Common Grace":
1) Danhof, Henry, and Hoeksema, Herman, Sin And Grace, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 2003
2) Engelsma, David J., Hyper-Calvinism And The Call Of The Gospel, Reformed Free Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1994.
3) Engelsma, David J., Common Grace Revisited: A Response To Richard J. Mouw's He Shines In All That's Fair, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 2003.
4) Hanko, Herman, and Hoeksema, Herman, Ready To Give An Answer: A Catechism Of Reformed Distinctives, Reformed Free Publishing, Grandville, Michigan, 1997.
5) Hoeksema, Herman, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Trinity, Hobbs, New Mexico, 1995.
Sola Fide,
Monty L. Collier, a.k.a. (Red Beetle)
Monty L. Collier, a.k.a. (Red Beetle)
