A. A. Hodge (1823-1886), principal at Princeton Seminary in the good old days, objects to the Amyraldian view of the atonement and lumps it with other “novelties” such as the double (or dual) reference atonement which should be discarded by consistent Calvinists.

“Their own system [Amyraldism] was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe — a condition foreknown to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number . . . This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance . . . It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of confessed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption, etc. The language of Amyraldus, the ‘Marrow Men,’ Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth.  All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has . . . been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement.  If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.” (The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pp. 374-375)

I introduced John Kennedy of Dingwall in the previous post.  Here is an excerpt from his Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869,  pp. 100 - 116, wherein he argues against the dual reference view of the atonement.

Subscribers of the Confession of Faith, who advocate the double reference of the atonement, profess to believe that Christ died in a sense for the elect, in which He died for none besides - that He died because He was their surety - that their sins alone were imputed to Him - that it is His relation to the elect which accounts for His death - that for them alone redemption was purchased - and that to none besides shall redemption be applied. How can they then consistently hold that Christ died for all?  There are two ways in which a reconciliation of the two references may be attempted:

[1] It may be said that the call of the gospel must involve the salvability of those to whom it is addressed. This is traced to the death of Christ as an atonement of infinite value; and on that ground and to that effect it may be insisted that Christ died for all. But how can this consist with this other doctrine, which they profess to believe - that no one is salvable without atonement. No atonement can make my salvation possible if it did not satisfy divine justice for my sins. How can the possibility of my salvation be before the mind of God, unless He sees my sins atoned for in the death of Christ? How could they be atoned for unless they were imputed to Him ? And how could they be imputed to Him unless He was my surety? Thus, and thus alone, could He make possible the salvation of any. If it be objected, that unless the salvation of all who are called is possible there is no hope for them, it is enough to reply, that just as surely as salvation is not possible without atonement, neither is it so without faith ; and that instead of tracing the possibility of a universal salvation to a universal reference of the atonement, the wise and the right thing would be, to insist on the ability of Christ to save all who come to Him; on the certainty of salvation through faith ; and on the impossibility of salvation without it. But this universal reference, of which so much is made, is after all no reference of the atonement. There is no atonement that does not imply satisfaction to divine justice. There was no satisfaction of justice that did not avail to the purchase of redemption. Is there a universal reference of such an atonement to all?  If not, of what atonement?  And if of another, how can it avail to make salvation possible?  To say that the atonement, being of infinite value, is sufficient for all, is beside the mark, for the question is as to the divine intention. To say, that, if the atonement was of infinite value, it was intended to be so, is to rhapsodize considerably: for, surely, the value of the atonement does not flow from the intention of God the Father, but from the dignity of God the Son, who offered it. 

[2] It may be said, that there are many mercies, of which all partake, which they owe to the death of Christ, and that, to this effect, He may be said to have died for all; - that He died to procure some good for all, as well as to procure all good for some. It is quite true, that, because of the purpose of God bearing on the elect, many mercies are bestowed on others; and that it is the death of Christ which has secured the honorable fulfillment of that purpose.  But this is the only connection between the good, given to all, and the death of Christ. It is merely an accident of the process by which all good is conveyed to some. Christ hath “power over all flesh,” but this was given to Him “that He might give eternal life to as many as the Father gave Him.”  This power He hath in reward of His death, but He hath it for the salvation of His chosen.  He died to procure all good for them; and if, in the exercise of His Sovereign power, He showers some good on all, He does it with a view to the preservation of our race, and to its development in successive generations, till He shall have gathered His chosen out of it.

The doctrine of the double reference is an oil and water mixture; - it is opposed to Scripture; - no one who has subscribed the Confession of Faith can consistently hold it; - it adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism; - it endangers the doctrine of the atonement; - and it is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied.

[1] Those who hold it are in a transition state, and occupy no fixed dogmatic ground.  Sometimes they seem staunch Calvinists, and at other times utter Arminians. They try to move on the boundary line between the two systems, and would fain keep a foot on either side.  But the fence is too high to admit of this.  They therefore display their agility in leaps from side to side. But this is very fatiguing work; and must soon be given up.  They will find that they must walk on either side.  As it was an Arminian bias that moved them to these gambols, the most probable finale is, that they shall utterly abandon the Calvinistic side. 

[2] It is opposed to Scripture.  As seen in Bible light, the death of Christ is indissolubly connected with (a) the covenant love of God, of which it was the gift that it might be the channel; (b) with imputed sin as its procuring cause; and (c) with redemption as its infallible result.  To insist on a reference of the death of Christ to any who were not loved by God, whose sins were not imputed to, and atoned for by Christ, and who shall not be saved, is therefore utterly opposed to Scripture.  The way to conceal the manifest unscripturalness of this position is, to raise the dust of a double reference around it, by saying that it is not in the same sense Christ died for the elect, as for others. The special reference is not denied; it is so plainly taught in Scripture.  But where in Scripture is the other?  A reference to 1 John ii. 2 has been given as an answer to this question.  But if there is a passage more conclusive than any other against the doctrine of a double reference it is that very one.  It plainly teaches that in the self-same sense in which Christ is the propitiation for the sins of those whose cause He pleads as Advocate, He is so “for the sins of the whole world” - of all to whom His atonement refers.  In all those passages, which seem to some to teach the doctrine of a universal reference of the death of Christ, it is seen connected either with love, or suretyship, or redemption, and if with either, it cannot possibly be a death for all.  Calvinistic Universalists are challenged to produce a passage from the Word of God which seems to support their view, not containing in itself, or in its context, one of these limitations.

[3] No subscriber of the Confession can both  intelligently and honestly maintain the doctrine of the double reference of the atonement. It is not in the Confession; it is inconsistent with several of its statements; and a view of the question as to the reference of the atonement was present to the minds of the Westminster divines, utterly incompatible with any such doctrine.

The doctrine of the double reference is not in the Confession of Faith. The only attempts made to find it there have resulted in utter failure. All that can be said by its advocates is, that there is one sentence in the Confession, with which it is not inconsistent.  That sentence is, “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the Eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father.”  All that can be maintained is, that the new doctrine does not contradict that statement, because it indicates no reference at all, and connects no result with the satisfaction of justice.  But why did Christ require to satisfy the justice of the Father?  Was it not because sin was charged to His account?  And why was He thus chargeable, but because He was “the Just for the unjust?”  The idea of Christ satisfying justice, except as the Surety of His people, and to the effect of purchasing redemption for them, is utterly opposed to the whole teaching of the Confession, and cannot therefore be in the passage quoted. And why are these words dissevered from what follows?  Are not the obedience and sacrifice of Christ declared to avail, not merely for satisfaction, but for purchasing, “not only reconciliation, but an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him?” His work, finished on the cross, had all this efficacy in it for behoof of those for whom He died.  To maintain that it availed to a certain extent for all, and to the full extent for some, is a doctrine utterly unwarranted by the passage referred to. If Christ died, He died with that whole design; and to that full effect He died for them, for whom He died at all.

But the doctrine of the double reference is utterly opposed to some statements of the Confession of Faith. The doctrine of the Confession is, that Christ is “the Mediator and Surety” in order to redeem, call, justify, sanctify, and glorify a people whom the Father gave Him from all eternity ; that in order ” that He might discharge ” that office ; “he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; …. was crucified and died;” that “Christ by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all who are justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf.” In all these passages, the mediation of Christ, in its design, in the reference of its fundamental act, and in its gracious results, is restricted to the elect. What Westminster divine would say, Christ died for “the rest of mankind” whom “God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice?”

There was a view of the question before the minds of the Westminster divines utterly incompatible with the doctrine of the double reference. The statements in the Confession, bearing on the atonement, were adapted to the state of the question of the extent of the atonement, as discussed between Calvinists and the French Universalists. Both parties held, that Christ redeemed all for whom He died, and neither therefore could hold the double reference. The difference between them is indicated in the words, ” To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually communicate the same.” The difference between the views of the French Universalists and the doctrine of the double reference is, that according to the former, Christ died for all indiscriminately, and did by His death redeem them; while according to the latter, election determined a special reference of the atonement to the elect, in order to their redemption, but not excluding a reference to all, in order to something not very easily defined.

[4] It adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism. It must have been originally invented by some weak Calvinist, who thought that the Arminian had an advantage which he lacked, in plying sinners with the gospel call. The suasion of universal grace seemed, in his view, to give the other an immense practical power. He therefore stole from him as much as would place him on an equal footing, in the practical use of doctrine. He remained, ex professo, a Calvinist, that he might keep hold of his creed, and became, de facto, an Arminian, that he might get hold of his hearers. And there are preachers not a few, who seem to think that, though their speculations must be conformed to the system of Calvinism, as the only scientific arrangement of “the things of God,” they must be Arminians when they deal with the consciences of sinners. The consequence is, that so far as a practical presentation of doctrine is concerned, they are Arminians if they are anything. To tell men that Christ died for all, and that this is the basis on which the call to all is founded, is to quit hold of all that is distinctive in Calvinism in order to command the sympathies of a heart unrenewed.  By such a form of doctrine many teach more than they intend. Its phrases suggest to many minds the idea of universal grace, and encourage them in a Christless hope. Any protest against universal grace which may be mingled with such utterances can be easily separated. The two elements are so incongruous that they will not combine ; and in the hands of unconverted men it is not difficult to tell which shall be removed.

[5] It endangers the whole doctrine of the atonement. It is impossible to account satisfactorily for the death of Christ, except by ascribing it to His bearing imputed sin, with a view to His making atonement for it. It is impossible to account for His being “made sin,” but by His substitution for a guilty people. But if men believe that Christ died for many whose sin He did not bear, whose surety He was not, and whose redemption he did not purchase, they are adrift on a current which may carry them down to Socinianism. An Arminian, with his single universal reference, may in a vague indefinite form hold by the doctrine of substitution, as he thinks of Christ as the representative of mankind, and may have some steadfast idea of atonement for sin in his mind. But believers in a double reference can have no clear view, and no firm hold of the doctrine of substitution at all. They are more in danger therefore of moving towards Socinianism than even the undisguised Arminian. Generations may pass before that tendency is fully developed in ecclesiastical formulas, but the dangerous tendency is there, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.

[6] It is quite unavailing for the purpose to  which it is applied. It, doubtless, sprung out of a desire to find a basis for the offer of Christ to all. To search for it, in a universal reference of the atonement, indicated a suspicion that the Calvinistic system did not afford it. What helpless ignorance such a suspicion indicates!  How sad it is to hear men, sworn to Calvinism, declare that without this theft from the Arminian stores they could not preach the gospel at all!  Do they believe that “Christ is all in all;” that God’s testimony regarding Him is true; and that they are commanded to preach “the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ” to every creature?  If so, what can they desiderate in order that they may say to every sinner to whom they preach “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”  This is the Scripture version of the gospel call; and I can never hesitate to proclaim it till I conclude that Christ is unworthy of being trusted, and God unworthy of being believed.  The idea of the call being the offer of a gift has driven the scriptural form of it out of the minds of many men altogether.  This other was the form it alone assumed in the thinking and teaching of “the Marrow-men.”  To their successors it suggested more than these fathers meant. They began to regard it as necessarily an expression of love to the individual to whom it is addressed. They desiderated some sort of interest of all in Christ before the call is accepted, in order to justify its being given.  Extending the idea of the Marrow-men’s “deed of gift and grant,” they reached at last the universal reference of the atonement, while still stretching a long arm to keep a weak hold of the Calvinism of the Confession.  They hesitate not to say that without the universal reference they could not preach the gospel at all - in other words, that this is the only basis they find for the call of the gospel.  And what do they find there on which to base the offer?  A reference that avails for no definite end; that secures no redemption; and that leaves those whom it connects with the death of Christ to perish in their sins. This and no more they find; and on this they base the offer of the gospel!  Verily, if men cannot preach the gospel without this, it is difficult to see how this can help them.  There is some carnal sense in the Arminian view, but this lacks even that. If Christ died to redeem all men, there seems something like a basis for a call to believe in Him to the saving of the soul.  But this reference, outside of that which election is held to have defined, and which connects the chosen exclusively with redemption, is a palpably unsatisfactory thing.  Does it even avail to secure an offer of salvation to all?  No one can say it does, when millions have perished, and there are millions still on earth, who never heard the gospel. To what effect then does it avail?  To secure the extension to all of God’s providential goodness. And on what avails only to that extent the offer of salvation is based! What to me, an immortal and sinful soul, on the brink of Eternity, is a message telling me that “bread which perisheth” was procured for me by the death of Christ! It is salvation I require - it is for that I agonize. I care not for vague references. Give me a living Savior, to whom I may commit my soul; give me a “sure word of prophecy” regarding Him ; give me a divine command to believe in His name. Then and thus, and only then and thus, can my wearied soul find aught to lean on; and I shall count it both my privilege and my duty, to yield my homage to divine authority, my faith to divine testimony, and my trust to a divine Redeemer.

John Kennedy (1819-1884) of Dingwall, was a Scottish preacher and theologian. He was also a staunch defender of the Reformed Faith who was, as his friend Charles Spurgeon described him, true as steel and firm as a rock.

He was educated in the parish school of Killearnan, and in 1836 went to Aberdeen University. He graduated M.A. at King’s College in 1840, and in the same year entered the theological hall of the established church in Scotland. Kennedy was licensed by the established church in September 1843, but joined the free church and was inducted into a free church newly formed at Dingwall, Rosshire, February 1844. He was pastor of Dingwall Free Church from 1844 until his death in 1884 at the age of 65.

Kennedy was a stalwart opponent of the drift in Scottish Presbyterianism away from the Westminster Confession.  I found two significant works of Kennedy available online:  The first is Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel Part 1, with links to parts 2 thru 5.  This was published in 1874 in the wake of, and in response to, an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody.  The features of modern American revivalism brought to Scotland by Moody, and in Kennedy’s mind offensive to the biblical gospel, are traceable to the evangelistic practice of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).

The second work I would mention is Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869.  Within the broader context implied by the title, this treatise includes an impressive effort to resist erosion of the doctrine of the particular design in Christ’s atoning work.  Specifically, Kennedy takes on what he terms the “double reference” view of the atonement, which he sees as thoroughly defective.  This view may be traced to John Davenant (1576-1641), found in James Ussher (1581-1656), and continuing today in what might be called Low or Moderate Calvinism.  Some see it as middle ground between the French Hypothetical Universalism of Moise Amyraut (1596-1644) and the High Calvinist limited atonement views of John Owen and Francis Turretin.  Kennedy sees it as incompatible with the WCF and unbiblical at its core.

Other information on Kennedy and his writings may be found HERE.

This article is by John Cheeseman, Vicar of Holy Trinity Parish Church, Eastbourne.  It is a chapter from his Saving Grace (Banner of Truth, 2000).

It is my contention that there is a real and basic difference between the biblical gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the prevailing manmade substitute. To substantiate this claim, I must examine the modern gospel and compare it with Scripture, for our final authority must be Scripture alone, where we find many warnings against false gospels (for example Gal. 1:6—9, 1 Tim. 6:3, 20, 2 Tim. 1:13—14). If we are to be true to our duty to `Test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21), we must test all formulations of the gospel against the one true gospel revealed in the Word of God.

If the gospel commonly preached today is indeed found to be unscriptural, it follows that much of modern evangelicalism has gone astray on doctrines which are not just of secondary importance, but are at the heart of the Christian faith. This is not a welcome conclusion, but we must not avoid it for that reason. In the last few years the Lord has laid a desire for the revival of true, deep, vital and powerful Christianity on the hearts of many. It may well be that the recovery of the purity of the gospel will, by the grace of God, lead to a healing of the many ills and weaknesses of the evangelical churches and to a demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s power amongst us both in the growth in grace of believers and in the salvation of the lost.

I am convinced that much modern preaching which purports to be evangelical falls short of scriptural teaching and has little in common with the example of the Master Evangelist, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. How would much modern evangelistic preaching and writing answer the question of the rich young ruler, `What must I do to inherit life?’? The following answer is probably typical: `If I am to benefit from Christ’s death I must take three simple steps, of which the first two are preliminary, and the third so final that it will make me a Christian: I must believe that I am, in God’s sight, a sinner, that is, I must admit my need; I must believe that Christ died for me; I must come to him, and claim my personal share in what He did for everybody.’ Under the third and final step is explained how the willing sinner must `open the door of his heart to Christ’, the Christ who waits patiently outside the door until we open it to Him.

It is undeniable that such an answer, or something like it, is frequently presented today, and those who use this method probably justify it by claiming that it includes the central doctrines of the gospel — repentance, faith, conversion, substitutionary atonement, the sinfulness of man, and so on. If someone `takes the step’ but later questions the validity of his conversion, he is assured, `You took a simple step, you committed yourself to Jesus Christ, but then God performed a stupendous miracle. He gave you new life; you were born again.’ The concluding advice is often given: `Tell somebody today what you have done.’ This answer bears little resemblance to Jesus’ reply to the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17—22).

The following is a summary of some of the basic doctrines or presuppositions of this modern gospel:

Unregenerate men can repent and believe.

Christ died for the sins of every man individually.

Committing oneself to Christ, or deciding for Him, or coming to Him, is an act which the sinner can do as he wills at any time; that is, it is an act of free will.

Although God may be said to have taken the initiative in a general sense by sending Christ to die to make salvation possible, in any particular conversion it is the sinner who takes the initiative by coming to Christ, and it is God who responds.

Now let us compare these doctrines with the teaching of scripture:

The unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel, because it is foolishness to him; spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, and he lacks the requisite faculty, being spiritually dead in trespasses and sins (1 Cor. 1:18; 2:14, Eph. 2:1).

It follows that he must be born again (which is the sovereign act of God) before he can repent and believe. Faith in Christ is the gift of God. Thus salvation is wholly of the Lord; He takes the initiative (John 3:3—8, Phil. 1:6, 29, Jon. 2:9, 1 Pet. 1:2).

There is no gospel command in Scripture to believe that Christ died for your sins. No one can have legitimate assurance of this until he has been saved and can make his `calling and election sure’ by wholehearted trust and obedience. Rather, the gospel command is to repent and believe in Christ as the only Saviour, believing his promises and casting oneself on His mercy. We have already seen that Christ died for the elect (or, for those who believe) (John 10:11—16; 15:13—14, Rom. 5:6—11, Eph. 5:25—27, Heb. 9:15).

This modern gospel is presented with no hint that God is sovereign and active in drawing to Himself those whom He has chosen. In Scripture these truths are not hidden lest they should cause offence; they are declared and even emphasized, since God is glorified when man can boast of nothing in himself as the cause of salvation. `I contribute nothing to my salvation except the sin from which I need to be saved’ (Acts 13:48, Matt. 11:25—30, John 6:63—65; 15:16, Rom. 9:14—24).

It is implied that Christ’s death merely made salvation possible for all, the salvation becoming actual only on the condition of belief. But the Scriptures without exception speak of Christ’s death as actually effective in itself, because of its substitutionary nature, to redeem, reconcile, ransom and save to the uttermost (Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:13, 1 Thess. 5:9—10, Heb. 10:10, 1 Pet. 1:18—20, 1 John 4:10, Rev. 1:5).

Having examined this new gospel in its essentials and shown that it is not the true gospel of the Bible, I want to show that its subsidiary terms are equally erroneous. These are some examples of the sorts of points that are often made.

The benefits enjoyed by the Christian — joy, peace, fulfilment, meaning in life — are often made the ground of an appeal to the unsaved. This is, of course, a motive well-designed to lead the natural man to `make a decision’ for Christ, but it is misleading when divorced from the preaching of the wrath of God against sin, the need for a complete change of nature and the demand for true repentance, all of which are found in the New Testament gospel.

Jesus is represented as a loving but impotent figure, standing and knocking outside the door of our lives. There is only one door handle, on the inside, where the sinner alone can control it. The feeling excited is one of pity: `He has done so much for you; will you not now open the door to Him and allow Him to bless you with His salvation?’

This leads the hearer to feel that he has done God a favour by agreeing to believe! What could be more different from the spirit of the tax collector in the parable, who dared not approach God but stood afar off and cried in humility and repentance, `God be merciful to me a sinner’?

This is what the modern gospel says. Equally important is what it does not say. Jesus’ answer to the rich young ruler who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life was: `You know the commandments’ (Mark 10:19), thus pointing him to the holiness of God to show him his sinfulness. The failure to preach God’s law and the depth of man’s sinfulness and guilt is responsible for the evident lack of true conviction of sin in the souls of so many who profess conversion. Furthermore, it leads sinners to believe that there is no need of a change of nature which it is not within their power to effect. `To be incessantly telling a sinner to “come to Christ” is of little use, unless you tell him why he needs to come, and show him fully his sins’ (J. C. Ryle). The modern evangelist often seems to proceed as if unaware of texts like `Without holiness no one will see the Lord’ (Heb. 12:14).

Secondly, what the modern gospel does say about sin, repentance and faith is too often a weakened version of what Scripture says. There are probably very few who would not be willing to `admit their need’. But is `admitting one’s need’ the same thing as repentance? True repentance is much more than `saying sorry’. The word literally means `a change of mind’, a determination to turn away from all those things which we know to be wrong in our lives, and a willingness to go God’s way. Furthermore, is believing that Jesus Christ died for sinners all that is involved in faith? On this basis, the very devils are believers! Real saving faith in Christ is much more than an intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel. It means a personal trust and dependency on Christ as the one who paid the penalty for sinners on the cross. It is to be feared that many are taught to believe that they are saved when in fact they are still in their sins.  

Thirdly, is it wise to lay stress on how easy it is to become a Christian? It is true that the grace of God is free, yet Scripture exhorts us to strive to enter the kingdom, to lay hold of God while He may be found, to examine our souls, to seek the grace of God, to repent of and forsake our sinful ways. Did not Jesus say that the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life? Let it never be forgotten, however, that sinners cannot come to repentance and faith unless grace is given to them by God. One of the mischiefs of much modern evangelism is that it speaks as if conversions could be manufactured at man’s pleasure. Accordingly, as man is in full control, and as it is all `up to him’, this type of preaching seeks to bring it within the power of all to be born again, merely by sincerely echoing the evangelist’s closing prayer. Does this not resemble the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace conferred `ex opere operato‘, mechanically, by the works of man?

In this kind of preaching, there is a movement away from a heart transaction with God towards the performance of an outward act. This is the danger of an invitation to stand up or sign a decision card, or even to pray a suggested prayer of commitment. The problem is that men and women can go through a form of words and yet never truly repent of their sins or put their trust in Christ. But then, on the basis of having prayed such a prayer or come forward at the close of a meeting, the sinner is often told, `You did this, therefore Christ has come into your life. You are definitely a Christian, and if you doubt it, that is tantamount to doubting the very words of Christ Himself.’

This particular methodology can so easily give false assurance to sinners who have never truly come to Christ in repentance and faith. Moreover, it can have the serious effect of inoculating them against the true gospel. How sad it is when one hears folk say, `I’ve tried Christianity: I made a commitment to Christ, but it didn’t work.’ The reality is that such people never encountered the gospel of the New Testament in the first place. Instead they were presented with a manmade substitute which in truth does not work!

Surely we must encourage our hearers not to trust in any outward act, not even in saying a particular prayer, as a guarantee of eternal salvation. The emphasis must always be on the heart transaction with God. And so the questions that we must ask are these: `Have you truly repented of your sins? Are you trusting in Jesus as the One who alone can save sinners through His death on the cross?’ To all such the Lord says, `I will never cast you out. I will never turn you away.’

In making the above comments, I am not condemning the practice of encouraging interested enquirers to stay behind for counselling at the end of a meeting. But the danger is to confuse the act of staying behind with the reality of true conversion. That we must never do.

What then is our conclusion? There is today, as there has been in other periods of history, a gospel which looks plausibly like the biblical gospel but which differs from it in several vital respects. We must give no place to this but, like Paul, ensure that the truth of the gospel remains with us (Gal. 2:5).

God acts seriously in the calling of reprobates, although he does not intend their salvation

XIV. Although God does not intend the salvation of the reprobate by calling them, still he acts most seriously and sincerely; nor can any hypocrisy and deception be charged against him — neither with respect to God himself (because he seriously and most truly shows them the only and most certain way of salvation, seriously exhorts them to follow it and most sincerely promises salvation to all those who do follow it [to wit, believers and penitents]; nor does he only promise, but actually bestows it according to his promise); nor as to men because the offer of salvation is not made to them absolutely, but under a condition and thus it posits nothing unless the condition is fulfilled, which is wanting on the part of man. Hence we cordially embrace what is said on this subject by the fathers of the Synod of Dort: “As many as are called through the gospel are seriously called. For God shows seriously and most truly in his word, what is pleasing to him, to wit, that the called should come to him. He also seriously promises to all who come to him and believe rest to their souls and eternal life” (”Tertium et Quartum: De Hominis Corruptione et Conversione,” 8 Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:[302]).

XV. He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, if it is understood of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the will of decree and yet does not will it; or by the will of precept and yet does not will it). But if it refers to diverse wills, the reasoning does not equally hold good. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, there is no simulation or hypocrisy here (as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.

XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.

XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Luke 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.

From his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, topic XV, question II, paragraphs XIV-XVI and XXI, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing Company, 1992-97, vol. 2, pp. 507-09.

“When a distinction is made between God’s revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, will is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality. God inclines to excellency, which is harmony, but yet he may incline to suffer that which is unharmonious in itself, for the promotion of universal harmony, or for the promoting of the harmony that there is in the universality, and making it shine the brighter” (Misc., 527-28).

“There is no inconsistency or contrariety between the decretive and preceptive will of God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may hate the thing itself, and yet will that it should come to pass. Yea, I do not fear to assert that the thing itself may be contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be agreeable to his will that it should come to pass, because his will, in the one case, has not the same object with his will in the other case. To suppose God to have contrary wills towards the same object, is a contradiction; but it is not so, to suppose him to have contrary wills about different objects. The thing itself, and that the thing should come to pass, are different, as is evident; because it is possible that the one may be good and the other may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may be a good thing that an evil thing should come to pass; and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and proves so” (Misc., 542-43).

I’m back from a couple of weeks vacation, but I will likely not resume posting on a regular basis.  Any posting in the near future will be sporadic.

My interest in blogging has waned and other matters are more pressing right now.  I will leave the blog up in case earlier posts are of interest to visitors. 

 Jim

So says Christian Research Net: 

In 2006 Tony Jones of the Emergent Church, wrote a little book called Divine Intervention: Encountering God Through the Ancient Practice of Lectio Divina. Of course it was endorsed by his friend “author/networker” Brian McLaren – whom Jones lists among his “faith heroes.” McLaren says that Jones has provided “an important resource” for the “spiritual formation” of your youth.

In a new article by Ken Silva at Apprising Ministries you’ll clearly see that what they aren’t telling you is that this so-called spiritual formation is the counterfeit Christianity of contemplative spirituality which flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism. The grave spiritual danger is these so-called “ancient spiritual practices” are in reality doctrines of devils which came through seducing spirits and are the modern equivalent of sacrificing your youth through the spiritual fire of Molech.

In a recent interview in Biola Connections, Robert Saucy reminds us of the critical differences which remain between Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. According to Saucy, distinguished professor of systematic theology:

They [the differences] are the same as they were at the Reformation.

I think it’s good for Catholics and evangelicals to talk together, but not in terms of making statements to the extent that we have “common witness.”  It makes the two messages — Catholic and Protestant — look more similar than they are.

He goes on to say:

It’s really eye-opening to read the catechism that came out under John Paul II, especially its ecumenism. This catechism seems to suggest that every monotheist — including Jews and Muslims — worship the same God that Christians do. Pope Benedict even prayed toward Mecca recently. Of course, there are a lot of good things about that catechism, particularly regarding social issues. But when you get down to what the real gospel is, it suggests that people who worship Allah are actually worshipping the same God we do. I have problems with that.

Read the interview in Biola Connections HERE.

A Texas pastor, sued after exercising church discipline, has been handed a victory by the Texas Supreme Court.  The lawsuit was brought by a church member who refused to repent following a divorce and remarriage.

“According to the lawsuit, Peggy Penley was a member of Crossland Community Bible Church in Fort Worth when she had a relationship with another man and desired to divorce her husband. In accordance with the church’s disciplinary process, Crossland Community Pastor Buddy Westbrook eventually sent a letter to church members, informing them of Penley’s unrepentant attitude and disassociating the congregation from Penley. She sued the church, the elders, and Pastor Westbrook, claiming the pastor violated confidentiality statutes.”

Read the entire article from One News Now.

According to the attorney representing Crossland Community Bible Church, “This is a great victory for pastors all across Texas and all across the nation.” 

He goes on to say, “This is a very strong opinion saying that pastors who are engaging in Matthew 18 church disciplinary process are protected by the Constitution from lawsuits from people who don’t like how that goes down.”