The Distinction Between the Offer of Grace and the Covenant Promises (5)

Westminster

We were writing about the distinction between the offer of grace and the promises of the covenant. Many deem it foolish to speak of such a distinction. Without quarreling about the term “offer of grace,” we still wish to strongly plead for the preservation of the above-mentioned distinction. Nowhere have we read this distinction so soundly and clearly as in the passage of the well-known Westminster Confession. The Confession of Faith (not to be confused with the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms) was composed by the Synod of Westminster (1643-1647), and obtained great authority in England and the Netherlands, but especiallly in Scotland.

The passage we have in mind is found in Chapter 7, paragraph 3. The seventh chapter concerns God’s covenant with man. The theologians of Westminster speak about the Covenant of Grace in the third paragraph, and state that, in this covenant, God “freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” The distinction between the offer of grace and the promises of the covenant is clearly described here. It is also completely clear here, that according to the Synod of Westminster, the offering (Latin: “offerre”) concerns the sinner, while the promising (Latin: “promit-tere”) concerns the elect. Therefore, the maintaining of this distinction is thoroughly “Reformed.”

In the “conclusion” to the Canons of Dordt, our own Synod of Dordt declared that we should “judge of the faith of the Reformed churches, not from the calumnies which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the churches themselves…” This is indeed the King’s highway. For, however useful it may be to quote our Reformed theo logians (we also did that in the preceding articles), there is a real danger that quotations can be selected very subjectively. Others glean from the same theologians what suits them best, and so an unprofitable “quoting conflict” ensues, with which church life is sometimes filled. In the Westminster Confession, however, we are not concerned with a statement of one or another theologian, but with a confessional statement.

The Offer

When we will now try to describe what is to be understood by the offer of grace, we wish to note that there need be no argument about the word “offer.” Although it is not a word found in Scripture (which prefers the use of “preaching” or “proclaiming”), its use has been confessionally accepted in the Reformed Doctrinal Standards and later statements. Just think of the above quotation from the Westminster Confession, and the Canons of Dordt (third and fourth heads of doctrine, Article 9: “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein”), but also of the sixth statement of our 1931 General Synod where the “serious offer of Christ and the covenant-benefits in the Gospel,” are spoken of.

To argue about the precise interpretation of the Latin word “offerre,” which in the Canons of Dordt is translated as “to offer” does not seem an issue to me. The translators of our Canons certainly knew what they were doing. Thus we have no objection to the use of the term “offer of grace” as long as it is not interpreted to mean that fallen man is presumed to have some ability to do good and is able to accept this offer and believe of himself. We do not preach such a “remonstrant” offer of Christ.

It is distorting the facts if we suggest that the maintaining of the term “offer of grace” must necessarily lead to Remonstrantism. This would then also implicitly accuse the Synod of Dordt and our Synod of 1931. We would also be distorting the facts if we supposed that the old “Cross-congregations” of the last century had an aversion to the offer of grace as maintained by us. This they were not opposed to. I again wish to refer to the book by the “cross-minister,” Rev. Engelberts, mentioned in our first article.

In this book, Rev. Engelberts expressed in words the objections, as we previously saw, that existed among the “cross-congregations,” against the Seceders’s favoring of the term “sincere offer of God’s grace.” When he begins, however, to explain what his objections are, it appears that his objections are directed against such a preaching that was unfortunately creeping in by the Seceders, where knowledge of misery by the law is denied, and faith is presented as an act of man, without any further mention of a divine gift of grace. We are also opposed to such an offer of salvation where man’s state of death is neglected, faith in the promises are imposed, and the necessity of regeneration is denied. Do not say, however, that we have left the path of the “Cross-congregations” in 1931 by adhering to the offer of Christ in the Gospel.

Rev. A. Moerkerken is pastor of the Gereformeerde Gemeente (Netherlands Reformed Congregation) of Nieuw-Beijerland, the Netherlands. Translated from De Saambinder.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen