Who is God? This is the question of all Reformed dogmatics. This question is investigated in the locus theology and is revealed in all the other loci in Reformed dogmatics. In the locus theology God’s knowability, essence, names, the holy Trinity, and the works of God in eternity are examined. In all these matters the dogmatician studies the truth of who God is. But the question of who God is does not end with the locus theology; for in all the other loci, one is confronted with who God is. What does God reveal unto men in the creation and regarding who man is? What does God reveal of himself in Christ, salvation, the church, and the end of all things? One must find in all these topics of dogmatics the eternal and sovereign God, who does all things according to his decree, who infallibly brings to pass all his good pleasure, and who is never thwarted. This never may be forgotten in all of one’s study of dogmatics.

And this question is at the forefront of this article: Who is God? Is God a god who is favorably inclined to all men, desiring to save all who hear the gospel and showing grace to all who hear the gospel? In a word, is God the god of the well-meant offer of the gospel? Or is God the God of the decree, of a particular promise to a particular people? This is the matter at hand.

This matter of who God is was apparent to those who were involved in the common grace controversy in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924. Rev. Henry Danhof recalled the president of the 1924 Christian Reformed Synod, Rev. I. Van Dellen, saying,

I cannot refute all heretics, even my own brother who is a Baptist. But my Reformed antennae tell me that Danhof and Hoeksema proceed from a wrong idea of God, and that therefore their doctrine is dangerous for our churches to consider.¹

Who is God? Is God well-meaning to everyone in the preaching? Or is his promise in the preaching particular, only for the elect?

The Christian Reformed Church’s first point of common grace contains the teaching of the well-meant offer. I quote here the first point in full:

Concerning the first point, with regard to the favorable disposition of God toward mankind in general, and not only to the elect, Synod declares that according to the Scripture and the confessions it is determined that besides the saving grace of God, shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is a certain kind of favor, or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evidenced by the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dort II, 5 and III and IV, 8 and 9, which deals with the general offer of the Gospel; whereas the quoted declarations of Reformed writers from the golden age (hey-day) of Reformed theology, also give evidence that our Reformed fathers from of old have advocated these opinions (sentiments).²

It is necessary when considering the first point of common grace and the well-meant offer contained therein to identify the heart of the issue. First, as is clear from the quotation above, the first point teaches that besides the sovereign grace of God, which grace is unto salvation, there is a general favor or grace of God shown to all creatures in general. The first point teaches that God shows favor to both the elect and the reprobate. To the elect is directed God’s saving grace, which is to say, grace unto eternal life. This grace is irresistible, efficacious, and for the elect only. But both the elect and the reprobate are also objects of the favor of God, that is, of common grace. No Reformed person would deny that saving grace is shown only to God’s elect. The elect alone are saved and none besides them. No one denies that God’s saving grace is particular. The question then is whether God also shows a certain general favor to both the elect and the reprobate.

Further, that there may be no ambiguity regarding the objects of this general grace, I note that the first point deals with all men. It teaches that this certain favor of God is shown generally to all mankind—that is, “toward mankind in general” and “to His creatures in general.” Both statements refer to all mankind and not to living things in general, which would include both rational, moral creatures and beasts.

Rev. Herman Hoeksema affirmed this when he wrote,

“His creatures in general” means all men, since the first point deals with a favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general, not only toward the elect. Berkhof and Kuiper also admit this. There is then a certain grace of God shown to elect and reprobate indiscriminately.³

Moreover, this is evident from the first point, which mentions “the general offer of the Gospel” as an instance or proof of this certain favor, and the preaching of the gospel in no wise is to all creatures on earth but to men.

Finally, by way of introduction to the treatment of the well-meant offer as taught in the first point of common grace, I note that the word offer itself is not the issue, nor is the word offer as such heretical. If the first point uses “offer” in the same way that the Canons does, then the word as such is not to be condemned. This is because the word offer comes from the Latin offerre, which means to set forth or present. When Canons of Dordt 3–4.9 states that “it is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein” (Confessions and Church Order, 168), the idea is not that Christ and salvation in Christ are offered to all men indiscriminately, so that if men would only accept the call of the gospel, or a man would let Christ into his heart, then they would be saved. This is not at all the meaning of the Canons, which rejects such teachings as Pelagianism in 3–4.10 and error and rejection 3–4.9. Rather, what is expressed by “offered” in the Canons and by others such as Calvin is that in the preaching of the gospel, Christ is set forth as the only way of salvation and that apart from him there is no salvation. That the word offer itself is not the issue by no means clears the first point and the well-meant offer of the gospel from the charge of Arminianism, that the well-meant offer teaches that man’s will is decisive in salvation. This matter I will treat later.

What is this grace that God supposedly shows to the elect and the reprobate? This is a necessary question to ask, for the first point claims that besides saving, irresistible grace, there is another grace that God shows to both the elect and the reprobate. What does this grace look like? What does this grace do?

One would think that the answers to these questions would be readily and easily found and explained, considering that the three points teach this common grace. However, the reality is that the opposite is true. I will demonstrate this with a series of quotations of Herman Hoeksema concerning the writings of Prof. Louis Berkhof:

In order to be entirely fair, it is proper and expedient first to consider, what does the Christian Reformed Church accept as the meaning of the first appendage [that God in the preaching of the gospel is gracious to all who hear]? I must warn the reader that he will be greatly disappointed if he expects a concise and definite answer to this question from the leaders of the Christian Reformed Church. Their answers are ambiguous and evasive.⁴

Hoeksema later characterized the first point and Berkhof as Janus:

The first point reminds one of the two-faced head of Janus, a Roman idol distinguished by the remarkable feature of having two faces and looking in two opposite directions. There is a marked similarity between Janus and the first point. The latter is also two-faced and casts wistful looks in opposite directions. The same may be asserted of the attempts to explain the first point by the leaders of the Christian Reformed Church.

The difference is that while the two faces of heathen Janus bore a perfect resemblance to each other, the Janus of 1924 shows two totally different faces. One of his faces reminds you of Augustine, Calvin, and Gomarus, but the other shows the unmistakable features of Pelagius, Arminius, and Episcopius. Your troubles begin when you inquire of this two-faced oracle what may be the exact meaning of the first point. Then this modern Janus begins to revolve, alternately showing you one face and then the other, until you hardly know whether you are dealing with Calvin or Arminius.⁵

This characterization is because on the one hand Berkhof denied that the Christian Reformed Church introduced Arminianism in the first point and affirmed that the CRC taught the truth of limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect, and the infinite value of the blood of Christ.⁶ On the other hand, Berkhof taught that there is a certain grace of God toward all sinners, both elect and reprobate.

Though the proponents of the well-meant offer in 1924 were as all false teachers, “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1, emphasis added), we can, nevertheless, come to the bottom of what they taught in the first point and see it for what it truly is, namely, Arminianism. Let us consider Berkhof on the matter:

The following link in the argument of synod is this: the general and well-meant offer of salvation is a sign of God’s favor toward sinners, is for them a blessing from the Lord. This must emphatically be pointed out, because those who cannot agree with the declaration of synod maintain that the preaching of the word is merely intended as a curse for the reprobate who dwell under such preaching. God does not bless them by this but curses them through it. Insofar as the preaching concerns them, God merely uses it as a means to plunge them more deeply into destruction. Hence preaching is an instrument of his hatred. This is a positively unscriptural thought. The scripture teaches most certainly that we must consider the offer of salvation a temporal blessing also for those who do not heed the invitation.⁷

Berkhof defended this position by appealing to Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Ezekiel 33:11; and Matthew 23:37. Consider his exegesis of these passages:

That God calls the ungodly to conversion is presented in scripture as a proof that he desires their salvation. [The reprobate are meant here.] In the prophecy of Ezekiel we listen to the voice of the Lord in words that speak of tender mercy: “Have I any pleasure at all [even in any measure] that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live” [18:23]? “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth [he who dies in his sins] saith the Lord God: wherefore, turn…and live ye” [v. 32]. These passages teach as clearly as words can that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (notice that he does not say “the elect wicked” but “the wicked” entirely in general); and the tender calling to them witnesses of his great love for sinners and of his desire to save the ungodly.⁸

There is still another passage in Ezekiel in which the Lord expresses the same thought in still stronger language, in which he even confirms it with an oath, namely, Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Are these not the words of tender loving-kindness, in which a father implores his backsliding children [the reprobate] to return to the house and to the heart of the father? Do you listen here, even in the least degree, to the voice of hatred?⁹

Now let us consider the question that I posed earlier: What is this grace that God shows to both the elect and the reprobate? It is not saving grace, as I pointed out earlier. Very simply, this means that whatever this grace accomplishes, it does not infallibly lead to the salvation of the object of this grace. The first point teaches another grace than saving grace. A question immediately arises: Is there more than one grace of God? It is certainly true that the word grace can be used in many different ways. For example, when we read in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” then it is immediately apparent that the word “grace” refers to the power of God as he alone saves the sinner, delivers him from sin, renews him, and sanctifies him. Grace can also refer to God’s attitude toward one, which is an attitude of favor, tenderness, and love. For example, we read in Genesis 6:8: “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” And there are more uses of the word “grace” in scripture.¹⁰

But whenever we speak of God’s grace, we must always deal with God’s favor and loving-kindness for the object of that grace. This is the teaching of Hoeksema concerning the idea of grace:

Underneath all the uses of the word grace lies the always present and fundamental meaning of favor and loving-kindness. This fundamental thought must always constitute the chief element in the definition of grace. The objects, the manifestations, and the operations of this favor may vary, but grace is always favor of God.¹¹

We must remember this when dealing with the well-meant offer. This exposes the nonsense of the first point, which claims “that besides the saving grace of God…there is a certain kind of favor, or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general.” If we operate from the above assertion, that always underneath the idea of grace we are dealing with the favor of God, then we see immediately that two different graces of God or two favors of God cannot possibly coexist in God and that a contradiction arises. The well-meant offer destroys the doctrine of double predestination. Let one think logically on the matter. The first point asserts, on the one hand, that there is a saving grace of God that he shows to the elect alone and that he saves them only, seeks their salvation, and works by the power of his grace to save them alone, and that God simultaneously passes by all others who are not his elect and beloved, chosen people in Christ, seeks their destruction, leaves them in their darkness, and does not operate in them with the power of his saving grace. On the other hand, the first point asserts that there is another grace of God according to which he has a favorable disposition to all men in general, as is evidenced by the well-meant offer that is proclaimed indiscriminately to all men, whereby God seriously desires to save all those who hear. Put succinctly, God shows grace to the elect and not to the reprobate, and God also shows grace to the elect and to the reprobate. This is nonsense, plain and simple. This would put a contradiction in God of hating and loving the same person. Is not God one? Can there be any contradiction in God?

But this is the God who is taught by those who believe in the well-meant offer. Is this not clear from Berkhof? Berkhof taught that the well-meant offer shows that God has favor toward all sinners. All sinners, entirely general. Berkhof did not mean elect sinners but all sinners, elect and reprobate—“we must consider the offer of salvation a temporal blessing also for those who do not heed the invitation,” as he put it. This too must be remembered when dealing with Berkhof’s exegesis of the passages in Ezekiel. Berkhof taught a God who swears by himself that he has no pleasure in the death of wicked sinners, entirely general, and desires the salvation of all who hear the gospel. God by a holy oath, said Berkhof, tenderly calls to all and assures all who hear that he desires their salvation and loves them.

Berkhof’s entire presentation of the matter is thoroughly un-Reformed. Berkhof entirely omitted election and reprobation from his exegesis. But predestination is fundamental to understanding the texts in Ezekiel. Remember, Ezekiel was a prophet to Judah in captivity, and the word of God through Ezekiel to Judah was this:

21. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezek. 18:21–23)

This was God’s word to his rebellious people in captivity who had departed from the Lord and turned to idol gods; God’s word to them was to repent and to live, for he had no pleasure in the death of the wicked. And this word went out to the entire nation; both the elect and the reprobate heard it. This word was addressed to Judah as she was one organic whole, as one wheat field that had both wheat and tares. This word was to all but not for all. Always God’s promise in the gospel is salvation for Israel but not all of Israel.

In close connection to Ezekiel 18:21–23 are the words of Ezekiel 33:11: “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Here especially, if one claims that God desires the salvation of all who hear the preaching, then he is exceedingly audacious. Men ought to be still when the living God speaks and swears by his own being to the truth of his words. Surely, as God speaks, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but in their life. But this is true only of the elect wicked whom God has purposed to save from eternity. This necessarily must be the case because God swears by his own name. Therefore, if God swears by his own name that he has no pleasure in the death of all who hear the gospel, then surely all who hear the gospel are saved. God swears by his own name! Is not God the justifier of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5)? Is God not the one who justifies (8:33)? Is not salvation of God who shows mercy and not of him who wills nor of him who runs (9:16)? Is not salvation of the Lord (Jonah 2:9)? If it is God who saves, and if he desires to save all who hear, then surely, all who hear are saved.

In connection with these texts, I quote John Calvin, as he responded to Pighius’ Pelagian interpretation of these texts:

God requires of us this conversion, or turning away from our iniquity [Ezek. 18:23, 30; Ezek. 33:11], and in whomever he finds it, he does not disappoint such a one of the promised reward of eternal life. Therefore, God is as much said to have pleasure in and to will this eternal life as to have pleasure in repentance; he has pleasure in repentance because he invites all men to it by his word. All this is in perfect harmony with his secret and eternal counsel by which he decreed to convert none except his own elect. None but God’s elect, therefore, ever do turn from their wickedness. Yet on these accounts the adorable God is not to be considered variable or capable of change, because as a lawgiver he enlightens all men with the external doctrine of conditional life. In this primary manner he calls or invites all men unto eternal life. But he brings unto eternal life his own children, only those whom he willed according to his eternal purpose and regenerated by his Spirit as an eternal Father.

It is quite certain that men do not “turn from their evil ways” to the Lord of their own accord or by any instinct of nature. Equally certain is it that the gift of conversion is not common to all men, because this is one of the two covenants that God promises he will not make with any but his own children and his own elect people, concerning whom he has recorded his promise, “I will write my law in their hearts” [Jer. 31:33]. A man must be utterly beside himself to assert that this promise is made to all men generally and indiscriminately.¹²

And Hoeksema, who referred to Calvin in opposition to Berkhof on this matter, wrote:

Calvin affirms what I have often and always taught and written: that insofar as the message is general and comes to all, it is conditional. The offer is eternal life. The condition limiting this offer is turn from your wicked ways.

This condition makes the content of the general message particular. As I have emphasized in the past, a contention my opponents have tried to laugh to scorn, there is a general proclamation of a conditional and particular gospel. He promises to all who believe peace and eternal life.¹³

I do not doubt that one’s Reformed antenna quivers when he reads that the gospel is “conditional and particular” and of “conditional life.” But we must note how Hoeksema and Calvin used the word condition. They did not use condition in the sense that it is that which man must do before God acts. They did not mean to say that salvation is a matter of the will of the sinner who hears the gospel. This is how we understand conditional theology today. Man does something first, and then God gives him salvation. That kind of theology is always characterized by being general. Christ died for the sins of mankind, and if you accept Christ or believe in him, then you will be saved. This was not the point that Calvin and Hoeksema were making.

Rather, Hoeksema and Calvin used the word condition to limit salvation in the preaching of the gospel to the elect. The preaching of the gospel is always the general proclamation of a particular promise. First, the preaching is a general proclamation. This means that when a minister preaches, he preaches the gospel to both the elect and reprobate. The gospel is sounded in the ears of the elect and reprobate, so that both hear the good news of the salvation accomplished by Jehovah-salvation. All who come under the preaching, whether elect or reprobate, hear the words, “Christ died for you and paid for your sins.” The preaching of the gospel is a general proclamation.

But just because the gospel is preached promiscuously and without distinction does not mean that the gospel is general—that is, that the promise of the gospel is for everyone. The preaching of the gospel is not the general proclamation of a general promise. This would be conditional theology as we have it today—that is, the preacher proclaims that Christ died for everyone, and now it is time for the people to get busy and believe in Christ, and then they will be saved. That is proclaiming a salvation that waits and depends on the will of man.

Rather, the preaching of the gospel is the general proclamation of a particular promise. The point of Calvin and Hoeksema was that although the promise is proclaimed generally to all, it is not for all. Salvation is not for all who hear on the condition that they turn and believe, for that is salvation governed by man’s will and not by predestination. But salvation is for the elect, who are the ones who turn and believe. And you must insist on this word order: salvation is for the elect, who are those who turn and believe. That is what Calvin wrote regarding the promise of Jeremiah 31:33: “I will write my law in their hearts.”

[God] brings unto eternal life his own children, only those whom he willed according to his eternal purpose and regenerated by his Spirit as an eternal Father…

The gift of conversion is not common to all men, because this is one of the two covenants that God promises he will not make with any but his own children and his own elect people.

Now, if we define the elect as those who turn and believe, then Calvin and Hoeksema’s point is made clearer. They did not use the term condition to explain what someone needs to do to be saved, but they used the term to describe those who are saved, those to whom the promise of the gospel belongs. Calvin and Hoeksema described them by means of what they do by the work of the Holy Spirit—that is, they turn and believe.

This is in harmony with Canons of Dordt 2.5: “Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life”; and Canons of Dordt 1.9 states, “Men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation” (Confessions and Church Order, 163, 157). You could simply insert the words “the elect” or “the children of God” in these statements of the Canons. The elect are described in the Canons as those who believe in Christ crucified, which faith proceeds from election, the fountain of every saving good. The promise of the gospel is that the elect shall not perish but have everlasting life. And according to the Form for the Administration of Baptism, it is the elect who are “buried with [Christ] into His death” and “raised with Him in newness of life” (Confessions and Church Order, 259).

Election and the particular promise also explain passages in scripture such as Matthew 11:28: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Here again is the same general proclamation, yet rest is given only to the laboring and heavy-laden ones who come to Christ. By identifying those who come as laboring and heavy-laden, it is clear that the promise in the text is particular. Not all men labor and are heavy laden. Not all men come to Christ. The text is governed by election and reprobation. It is the elect sinner who is regenerated, so that he labors and is heavy laden. By virtue of his new heart and the knowledge of his sin, the elect sinner labors under the weight of guilt and sorrow for sin, which is as a heavy burden on him. Christ says, “Come unto me, and I will give you rest.” And Christ also says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44). It is from the fountain of every saving good that the elect are regenerated; and then being called by God and drawn to Jesus Christ, they come to him and are given rest. This is not what man must do to be saved and have rest but what the man does who is saved, being elect in Christ.

Over time the term condition has been totally corrupted to the point where it cannot be used in an orthodox way. Condition has come to mean what man must do to be saved. But it is clear that neither Calvin nor Hoeksema meant it this way. Furthermore, they were not discussing what someone must do to be saved, but they were discussing who is saved. It is clear from both men’s writings that they were teaching that salvation is for the elect, and for them only, because it is the elect, and them only, who by God are made to believe and turn from their wicked ways.

Is this to be ascribed to the exercise of man’s free will?

No.

But it must be wholly ascribed to God, who as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son [and all this for God’s glory and not their own], that they might show forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. (Canons of Dordt 3–4.10, in Confessions and Church Order, 168)

That there would be no doubt, Calvin wrote,

But, I ask you, what kind of a division, and how iniquitous a division of all praise and glory, would it be to make God the creator of us mortal men, and yet to make each one of us his own creator unto righteousness and eternal life? In this way God would only have for himself the praise of ineffectual and failing grace. The portion of the glory that is far more excellent would fall to our lot. But Scripture positively affirms that to circumcise the hearts of men is the work of God alone, and regeneration is not ascribed to any other than God himself.¹⁴

This article is the first half of a dogmatics paper that was written on the well-meant offer of the gospel. So far I have examined what is meant in the first point of common grace when it speaks of a general favor of God toward all mankind and that this is grounded in the supposed general offer of the gospel. Next time, I will explain the well-meant offer of the gospel for what it truly is, namely, Arminianism. The first point makes the gospel dependent on the will of the sinner and robs God of his sovereignty. And I will establish the positive truth of God’s sovereignty in the preaching of the gospel. The truth of the matter is that God’s will, not man’s will, is the issue in the preaching of the gospel. God works out his own will according to his decree of election and reprobation. God loves some who hear the preaching and hates others who hear the preaching. These are not confused, as the well-meant offer would have it. Whom God hates, he destroys through the preaching of the gospel; but the elect whom he loves, he saves through that preaching. This truth I will consider next time.