Last time I considered the well-meant offer of the gospel as contained in the first point of common grace and as it was further explained by Louis Berkhof. When the well-meant offer was developed, it was done deceitfully and two-facedly. The well-meant offer was posited in the first point as a proof of God’s common grace toward all men, specifically toward those who hear the preaching of the gospel. Yet the question of what this grace actually did remained a mystery, and the answer lay shrouded behind an ever-changing Arminian and Reformed face. If God has grace or favor toward all who hear the preaching, then one would correctly expect that all who hear will be saved. This is for the simple reason that God’s grace is always irresistible even as God himself is irresistible. Yet it is not the case that everyone who hears the gospel is saved, as everybody knows. This should have been enough to end all talk of the well-meant offer. But the false doctrine of the well-meant offer remains to this day. At bottom, the well-meant offer is a denial of the truth of God.

Still more, the well-meant offer denies the decree of election and reprobation, and especially does it destroy the decree of reprobation. Common grace denies that God hates and is destroying the reprobate. If God calls lovingly to elect and reprobate alike, desiring their salvation, then what of God’s hatred of the reprobate? Does God will their destruction or not? Furthermore, election too is corrupted. What matters in salvation is the reaction of man’s will to the preaching, not God’s decree of election and reprobation.

This is what I will consider in this article. The well-meant offer denies God’s sovereign decree of election and reprobation in relation to the preaching of the gospel. It is not the decree that matters, but it is man’s will that matters. Both God and predestination are denied, and instead, man is brought forth as decisive in salvation. We deny this and confess that when the preaching comes, God always works according to his decree of election and reprobation, with the inevitable salvation of the elect whom God desires to save and the inevitable destruction of the reprobate whom God does not desire to save and wills to destroy.

It becomes increasingly evident that it is simply impossible that God desires to save both the elect and reprobate. If it is God who alone is responsible for salvation and his promise is that he will write his law on our hearts, then if God desired the salvation of all who hear the gospel, surely he would begin his work of salvation in the hearts of all sinners.

Hoeksema made this important point regarding the gospel and the promise of the gospel:

Does not the gospel contain much more than the preaching of what the Lord did for us? Does it not also imply the preaching of the riches of his grace, whereby he applies salvation to all his elect? Does this grace of the Lord Jesus Christ not belong to the promise of the gospel? I am now thinking of the grace of regeneration, whereby in principle we become partakers of the life of the risen Lord; of the grace of effectual calling, whereby we are translated from darkness into light; of the grace of faith, whereby we know that we are justified before God and have peace with him through our Lord Jesus Christ; of the grace of conversion and sanctification, the mortification of the old man and the quickening of the new man; of the grace of perseverance, so that no one can pluck us out of Christ’s hand. Do not all these blessings of grace belong to the promise of the gospel?¹

Now we begin to see that the well-meant offer is nothing but sheer Arminianism. If God seriously desires the salvation of all men, has no pleasure in their destruction, and tenderly calls them in the preaching, then why, oh why, does he withhold his hand from them? If the scriptures are true, then is not God in the heavens, and does he not do whatsoever he has pleased (Ps. 115:3)? And if it is true, as Ephraim said, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God” (Jer. 31:18), and God is pleased that all men who hear the gospel turn and live and it is in the power of God to turn men, then why does God not act upon his desire? Is not God omnipotent and sovereign? Why are not all men who hear saved? Surely, God is capable of saving all men; he is God Almighty. The only answer that can be given is that God is thwarted by the will of man.

This can be seen when you consider the writings of Louis Berkhof and H. J. Kuiper. In connection with Ezekiel 33:11, Berkhof wrote,

Does not Jesus’ lamentation over Jerusalem point in the same direction? Can you imagine anything that surpasses this in touching pathos? “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37)²

Remember that the direction to which Berkhof referred was that in tender love God calls in the gospel to all sinners to turn from their wicked ways and to return to him and that, in Berkhof’s words, there is not found in God’s voice any hatred in the least degree. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the Lord’s desire to save those of Jerusalem was brought to ruin because they would not be saved. And then you see that the omnipotent God of heaven and earth is overcome by the wills of men who will not heed God’s call. Augustine was correct when he called those who would teach this “profanely mad.”³

Furthermore, Berkhof showed himself to be an Arminian when he wrote concerning Genesis 6:3,

The Holy Spirit resisted the ungodliness and perversity of those generations that lived before the flood. He sought to check their ungodliness and to lead them to repentance…But the Spirit strove in vain; sin increased rapidly.⁴

Such a statement is shockingly heretical. Nowhere in Genesis 6 do we read of the Spirit’s striving to check the ungodliness and perversity of the generations that lived before the flood. Besides, to assert that the Spirit of God strives in vain and fails in any sense whatsoever is an outright attack on God and the Spirit. We find in this chapter nothing to do with God’s desire to lead those wicked generations to repentance, but we find God’s righteous judgment of men before the flood. First, we are dealing in this text with the “sons of God [who] saw the daughters of men that they were fair” and who took them to be their wives (v. 2). We read also of the “giants in the earth” who abounded greatly in wickedness (v. 4). And God said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man” (v. 3). Here we have the pronouncement of destruction as the righteous judgment of God on those who violated God’s covenant in their taking as wives the daughters of men and the judgment of God on the sheer wickedness of the world at that time. No longer would God strive with men, accusing them of their sins in their consciences by his Spirit, but God would simply give them over to their wicked flesh, heap judgment upon them, and destroy them with the flood. Only Noah and his seed found grace, or favor, in God’s sight. God loved none besides Noah and his seed, and God sought only their salvation, and he destroyed the rest of the world. Not grace, as Berkhof would have it, but judgment was found for the wicked at the time of the flood: the judgment of the sovereign God who does not love all men, but only his elect, and the judgment of God who gives the reprobate over to their wicked flesh so that they are destroyed. Never does God strive in vain; never are his will and desire brought to nought.

I quote Berkhof once more in connection with Romans 2:4, which reads, “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” This text was used in defense of the first point of common grace.⁵ Berkhof wrote,

The explanation of this [the riches of God’s goodness] must be found in the purpose God had in view with this revelation of his love. And what was that purpose? Was it to cast the ungodly Jews more deeply into perdition? No, but to lead them to repentance…But in the case of the Jews the result does not correspond to the intention. They hardened themselves against the revelation of God’s goodness.⁶

Such an interpretation of scripture is not Reformed. First, Berkhof contended that regarding the Jews, God’s intention had failed. Berkhof asserted that when God revealed to the Jews grace and goodness, God intended to bring them to repentance. But the real result was that they were not brought to repentance because they had hardened themselves. Such exegesis categorically denies irresistible grace. Furthermore, Berkhof taught that God’s intentions come to fruition when man’s will complies, so that he does not harden himself. Berkhof’s teaching is Arminianism, plain and simple.

Canons of Dordt 1.6 teaches the Reformed view:

That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree, For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18). Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God. (Confessions and Church Order, 156)

The Reformed teach sovereign election and reprobation. It is Reformed to teach that God softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate they are. God is not stumped by man’s obduracy and hardness, but God works all things after the counsel of his will. To put it simply, if God wants to do something, then he will do it. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Furthermore, God saves according to his decree of election. That is Canons 1.7, which states, “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby…He hath…chosen…a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ” (Confessions and Church Order, 156).

And Canons 2.8 teaches:

It was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death. (Confessions and Church Order, 163–64, emphasis added)

And finally, Canons 2.9:

This purpose, proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforth still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell. (Confessions and Church Order, 164)

That is Reformed. That is the truth. God from before the foundation of the world eternally chose who would be partakers of the redemption of Christ and every saving benefit purchased by his blood, and God has infallibly brought this to pass. Nothing can resist the will and purpose of God, not even man’s will (certainly our wills must be considered to be “opposition of the gates of hell,” for even our own flesh is our enemy). All others upon whom God does not will and purpose the saving blessings of the cross, God leaves to destruction in their darkness, obduracy, and wickedness. God simply leaves the reprobate to their death and destruction. God does not even attempt to save the reprobate, as Berkhof would have it. God is not moved in his bowels of mercy when the reprobate are destroyed. God does not desire their salvation. He hates the reprobate. And when the gospel is preached and that gospel hits the reprobates’ ears, God says nothing to them but that he hates them and wills their destruction, for if God desired their salvation, he could and would save them.

This must be our conception of God’s attitude toward the wicked reprobate when they hear the preaching. God does not merely leave them in their darkness and hardness, but he actively works their destruction. After Jesus spoke the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, his disciples asked him, “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” (v. 10).

Jesus answered them, saying,

11. Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15. For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matt. 13:11, 14–15, emphasis added)

These verses demonstrate my point. God does not give all men to know and understand the things of the kingdom of heaven—that is, to be regenerated by the Spirit and called out of darkness. And God does not regenerate them for the express purpose that they are not converted from their natural darkness and do not receive the blessings merited by Christ unto their healing. To further demonstrate that the power of conversion rests in the hands of God alone, so if it is God’s desire that men turn, then surely he will turn them, we read in Exodus 4:21, “The Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (emphasis added). The power to harden and to soften men’s hearts so that they might turn and believe rests solely in the hands of God. This is demonstrated powerfully in the case of Pharaoh. He saw all the wonders that God had wrought by Moses. From a human perspective you would say that Pharaoh must have been mad not to let God’s people go when confronted by such wonders. But such is the madness of man’s darkness, that coming face to face with the power of the living God, man is still utterly incapable of turning from his sin unless God himself lays hold upon man by his Spirit and causes his light to shine in man’s darkness.

After all this, if a man still has the audacity to maintain that God desires that all men who hear the preaching turn from their sins and be saved, then let him consider Romans 9. In this chapter we are confronted with the sovereign God of election and reprobation, who always accomplishes his purpose. We read in the beginning of the chapter of Paul’s sorrow over the unbelieving Jews of his day, who had “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came” (vv. 4–5). The Jews had everything, and they still did not believe. Paul immediately states, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (v. 6). Certainly it would be true that the word of God had taken none effect if his promise had been for all Israel. That is, if God’s promise had been extended to all the people of Israel, if God had said to all the people of Israel that salvation was for them, that he longed for their salvation and because of this gave them the covenants, the law, and the priesthood, and they needed merely to turn and believe—accept the offer—then God’s word would have taken none effect. This would be because God’s word to them in love in his sending to them the gospel did not yield fruit that matched with God’s word and desire. Or to put it as Berkhof did: “The result does not correspond to the intention.”

Rather, God’s promise is not to all Israel. He does not offer salvation to all men. Rather, God’s promise is for the children of promise who are those “counted for the seed,” which seed is Christ (Rom. 9:8). And there you have election, as it is the eternal giving of God’s chosen people to Christ, so that Christ is their eternal head, and they are partakers of Christ as his body. But the apostle does not stop here. To demonstrate further the point that the promise of the gospel is particular and not for all who hear, the apostle mentions the children of Rebecca, concerning whom God said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (v. 13). Why? “That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” (v. 11). The purpose of God according to election is found in the previous chapter, where Paul establishes the unbreakable chain of salvation beginning with God’s foreknowledge (his loving beforehand) and his predestination and ending with the glorification of the object of God’s love and favor (8:28–30).

What of Esau and the reprobate? The purpose of God stands for them as well, which purpose is that God is glorified in their destruction.

22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. (Rom. 9:22–23)

And elsewhere: “The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4).

We now see clearly that it is far from the truth that God wills the salvation of all to whom he sends his gospel, but God has a purpose when that preaching comes. The purpose is that he who calls may be glorified and not the one who wills. For it is God who has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens. Concerning those on whom God has mercy, God’s purpose is that they be chosen vessels of mercy that show forth his power and goodness. Concerning the reprobate, God hardens them and leaves them until they arrive to their destruction in order that God’s mercy and power may be accentuated by their destruction. God is glorified by all this. For the elect, who are appointed to life, are brought to everlasting life in Christ and as such are a savor of life unto life; and the reprobate, who are appointed to death, are delivered to death, and in this they too are a savor to God. This is scriptural and creedal. The well-meant offer is neither.