Evil Fruits of the Conditional Covenant (1)

memento · Bericht door **memento** » 13 feb 2007, 20:41

@Bert,

I think you know what I mean when I say that Hoeksema significantly differed from the reformers on essential doctrines. See here for a link: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=206 (I have Turretin here in my bookshelf, and I have read Engelsma en Hoeksema, and the claims of this blog are correct)

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 13 feb 2007, 20:58

memento schreef:@Bert,

I think you know what I mean when I say that Hoeksema significantly differed from the reformers on essential doctrines. See here for a link: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=206 (I have Turretin here in my bookshelf, and I have read Engelsma en Hoeksema, and the claims of this blog are correct)

Memento, have read the article you quoted above. I beg to differ, but I do not see the point he is trying to make. Prof. Engelsma, the PRCA, and Turretin teach basically the same, with perhaps some minor accent differences. They all teach that the Gospel must come to all, that the command comes to everyone that hears the Gospel to repent and believe, and that God does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the sinner come to Him.

Furthermore, the case he is trying to make of Prof. Engelsma misrepresenting Turretin simply does not hold water.

Again I come with the question, how are the PRCA hypercalvinist? How am I hypercalvinist?

Klavier · Bericht door **Klavier** » 13 feb 2007, 21:08

Bert Mulder schreef:How was Hoeksema hypercalvenist? What did he teach that the reformers didnt' teach?

Bert, A Hypercalvinist is a teacher using only the dogmatics from Calvin and preaching only the election. This means that the Hypercalvinist always speaks about election and rejection and not about believe and unbelieve. Election can only be discovered by looking for possible fruits of believe in hisself. Whithout doing anything from the sinner. Without doing anything before believing the gospel.

The reformers teached more:
Election and rejection are hidden. Believe is worked by the Holy Spirit using proclamation of the Gospel. The gospel is a delighted message of grace for sinners. Who believes this is saved by God.
This believe is worked by the Holy Spirit. Who believes may believe in the grace of God in Christ and also in the personal election.
The gospel is not the election. The election is the reason of the gospel, but not itself. The gospel is the gospel for all listeners.
The gospel: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

No 'brake' for a proclamation for possible rejected people.
The DL teaches us that the rejection is caused by the rejection the gospel by the listener. So, the gospel cannot be restricted to only the elected people. Alse the election comes true after the proclamation of the gospel. But believing the gospel it's not the reason of the election.
The gospel contains obligations of grace. Without any restriction.
As I wrote, the effect (Calvin) of preaching the gospel makes the seperation. The seperation cannot be made before and build in the proclamation. The proclamation itselfs seperates. Because the proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of te Words of God. The seperation is made by God.

Bert, I don't know ds. Hoeksema, but you can make your conclusion yourself if it's a Hypercalvinist.

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 13 feb 2007, 21:12

Klavier schreef:
Bert Mulder schreef:How was Hoeksema hypercalvenist? What did he teach that the reformers didnt' teach?
Bert, A Hypercalvinist is a teacher using only the dogmatics from Calvin and preaching only the election. This means that the Hypercalvinist always speaks about election and rejection and not about believe and unbelieve. Election can only be discovered by looking for possible fruits of believe in hisself. Whithout doing anything from the sinner. Without doing anything before believing the gospel.

The reformers teached more:
Election and rejection are hidden. Believe is worked by the Holy Spirit using proclamation of the Gospel. The gospel is a delighted message of grace for sinners. Who believes this is saved by God.
This believe is worked by the Holy Spirit. Who believes may believe in the grace of God in Christ and also in the personal election.
The gospel is not the election. The election is the reason of the gospel, but not itself. The gospel is the gospel for all listeners.
The gospel: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

No 'brake' for a proclamation for possible rejected people.
The DL teaches us that the rejection is caused by the rejection the gospel by the listener. So, the gospel cannot be restricted to only the elected people. Alse the election comes true after the proclamation of the gospel. But believing the gospel it's not the reason of the election.
The gospel contains obligations of grace. Without any restriction.
As I wrote, the effect (Calvin) of preaching the gospel makes the seperation. The seperation cannot be made before and build in the proclamation. The proclamation itselfs seperates. Because the proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of te Words of God. The seperation is made by God.

Bert, I don't know ds. Hoeksema, but you can make your conclusion yourself if it's a Hypercalvinist.

I agree with your statement here about hypercalvinism, Klavier. And by that definition, Hoeksema, the PRCA, and me, myself certainly are no hypercalvinists. We insists that the free Gospel must come to everyone who will hear.

memento · Bericht door **memento** » 13 feb 2007, 22:49

Prof. Engelsma, the PRCA, and Turretin teach basically the same, with perhaps some minor accent differences. They all teach that the Gospel must come to all, that the command comes to everyone that hears the Gospel to repent and believe, and that God does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the sinner come to Him.

Bert, I'm a proud owner of Turretin's Elenctic Theology, and have read the chapters he's written about election and calling, and however Turretin may have some strong supra-lapsarian ideas, he does not deny the free, well-meant and unconditional offer of grace unto every hearer, to both those who will be saved by power of the predestination, through faith, and to those who will not be saved. If I have time, I will prove that from his writings.

Hoeksema, however, denies the free, unconditional and well-meant offer, especially the 'well-meant' part. I will illustrate it with a quotation from Wikipedia, which gives a correct and concise summary of his views:

Connected to the first point of common grace, which asserts that God's "common grace" is demonstrated in a "general offer" of the gospel, Hoeksema asserted that such a view is pure Arminianism. While God commands all men to repent and believe and this command must be preached to all, Hoeksema insisted this command, like all other commands to godliness in Bible, is not a "well-meant offer" since it is impossible for unregenerated, totally depraved man to truly perform apart from God's saving grace. In order for it to be a true "offer" man must be able to accept the offer. Calvinism's doctrine of Total Depravity denies this capability, while Arminiasm asserts every man is capable of choosing for or against God. Hoeksema concluded that while men may debate whether God can justly command a man to do what he is incapable of doing, they cannot do so under the guise of Calvinism. (source)

The difference between this view and the classic reformed view is that classic reformed theology holds that man is not able to accept the grace that is offered to him because of his evil will, not because of a lack of power. Edwards has written an excellent treatise on the freedom of the will, which deals with that subject.

To deny that the offer of grace unto 'a vessel of wrath' is well-meant, is a feature of what is better known as hyper-Calvinism. It doesn't do justice to lot's of texts in the Scriptures, like for example that of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem.

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 13 feb 2007, 23:05

Sad to say, this is where he disagree, Memento. While I do not have Turretin's Eclectic Theology, and have never read it, I have read not only the excerpts you have provided, as well as many other excerpts. Granted, all the other excerpts of Turretin were used to support the non-offer position, by PRCA clergy, as well as by Dr. Steenblok.

One thing we always have to keep in mind in all this is the actual meaning of the latin word offere, which means to display. I do not have any problem with offer in that sense of the word. What I do have a problem with is those that say that it is up to man to accept or refuse. Because that is contrary to Scripture and the confessions, particularly the 3/4 head of the Canons. The call of the Gospel, in the mean time, comes to everyone that comes into contact with the Gospel. And God does not desire the death of the wicked, but that people repent from their sin and come to Him.

This pamphlet is also instructive here:

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/furthero ... eoffer.htm

elbert · Bericht door **elbert** » 14 feb 2007, 10:50

Klavier schreef: As I wrote, the effect (Calvin) of preaching the gospel makes the seperation. The seperation cannot be made before and build in the proclamation. The proclamation itselfs seperates. Because the proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of te Words of God. The seperation is made by God.

Exactly, see also the catechism of Heidelberg, questions and answers 83 and 84.

Question 83. What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and christian discipline, or excommunication out of the christian church; by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers.

Question 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: (a) according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.

Therefore the proclamation of the gospel itself separates.

Klavier · Bericht door **Klavier** » 14 feb 2007, 11:34

Bert Mulder schreef:One thing we always have to keep in mind in all this is the actual meaning of the latin word offere, which means to display. I do not have any problem with offer in that sense of the word. What I do have a problem with is those that say that it is up to man to accept or refuse.

Who can believe the gospel can accept.
Who rejects the gospel cannot believe.
Believe is a gift of God. The gospel is the instrument. So, who can believe, has opened eyes by God, using the preaching of the gospel.
The gospel is always a message of grace for sinners. Always!
If not, it's not a gospel anymore.

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 14 feb 2007, 16:34

elbert schreef:
Klavier schreef: As I wrote, the effect (Calvin) of preaching the gospel makes the seperation. The seperation cannot be made before and build in the proclamation. The proclamation itselfs seperates. Because the proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of te Words of God. The seperation is made by God.
Exactly, see also the catechism of Heidelberg, questions and answers 83 and 84.

Question 83. What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and christian discipline, or excommunication out of the christian church; by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers.

Question 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: (a) according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.
Therefore the proclamation of the gospel itself separates.

Exactly! And because of the separation the gospel makes, it is not grace to every hearer. But that is determined by God, not the preacher.

Klavier · Bericht door **Klavier** » 14 feb 2007, 16:52

Bert Mulder schreef:
elbert schreef:
Klavier schreef: As I wrote, the effect (Calvin) of preaching the gospel makes the seperation. The seperation cannot be made before and build in the proclamation. The proclamation itselfs seperates. Because the proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of te Words of God. The seperation is made by God.
Exactly, see also the catechism of Heidelberg, questions and answers 83 and 84.

Question 83. What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and christian discipline, or excommunication out of the christian church; by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers.

Question 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: (a) according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.
Therefore the proclamation of the gospel itself separates.
Exactly! And because of the separation the gospel makes, it is not grace to every hearer. But that is determined by God, not the preacher.

Yes, is't a offer of grace for every hearer which believe. This must be proclamated to ALL hearers. Just speak as John.3:16.
Let's be complete in our expressions. The gospel is a gospel for every hearder. The effect of the gospel is not a part of the gospel itself, but a point of the dogmatics and is for learning the believers and for warning the unbelievers after rejecting the gospel.
Sure, there is no grace for hearers which reject the gospel.
But the gospel itselfs does not contain a restriction for unbelievers.
The restriction of grace for unbelievers in the gospel should make the gospel responsible for the possibility of unbelieve. No, it's the sinner who rejects the gospel, which is responsible for the rejection of grace. The gospel is a message of grace for sinners.
Nobody can exclude himself from the need for grace because everybody is a sinner. Who rejects the grace, rejects the gospel.
Can people reject the gospel: Yes!
Can people accept the gospel: Yes, in believe. As a gift, as a new born person.
More options are not possible. There is no way between accepting grace and rejecting grace.

memento · Bericht door **memento** » 15 feb 2007, 09:02

Bert Mulder schreef:Sad to say, this is where he disagree, Memento. While I do not have Turretin's Eclectic Theology, and have never read it, I have read not only the excerpts you have provided, as well as many other excerpts. Granted, all the other excerpts of Turretin were used to support the non-offer position, by PRCA clergy, as well as by Dr. Steenblok.

One thing we always have to keep in mind in all this is the actual meaning of the latin word offere, which means to display. I do not have any problem with offer in that sense of the word. What I do have a problem with is those that say that it is up to man to accept or refuse. Because that is contrary to Scripture and the confessions, particularly the 3/4 head of the Canons. The call of the Gospel, in the mean time, comes to everyone that comes into contact with the Gospel. And God does not desire the death of the wicked, but that people repent from their sin and come to Him.

This pamphlet is also instructive here:

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/furthero ... eoffer.htm

If I can find some time, I will refute this position from the writings of Calvin and Turretin.

Also I will search for some info about the 'offer' word, and try to display that the fathers of Dordt did mean more with it that just displaying.

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 15 mar 2007, 12:26

memento schreef:Bert, Hoeksema teached a kind of hyper-calvinism, that isn't reformed. It is more in the line of thinking of great neo-calvinists, like Kuyper, Schilder and Steenblok.

The problem I have with Hoeksema is that he, unlike Steenblok, was a very smart thinker, knowing full well all implications that his teachings do have, and I suppose also full well knowing that he was teaching something the reformers didn't teach. Where Kuyper and Schilder settled for a theology that at least did not deny the free gospel offer (resulting in a faulty covenant view), and Steenblok, denying in words the free offer of the gospel, but in practice not consequently, Hoeksema was consequent both in his theology as in his actual preaching.

So, on the one hand I greatly admire him for his (systematical) theological thinking, on the other hand: stay away from his teachings about predestination and the covenant!

Memento, any progress on defending the statement you made here? Otherwise you may consider withdrawing this charge. More so, because in the opinion of the PRCA, this doctrine is completely in accordance with Scripture, as well as the three forms of unity. Our churches do not teach anything on predestination that you will not find in the first head of the Canons. Just as they do not teach anything on the covenant that you do not find in the confessions.

Bert Mulder · Bericht door **Bert Mulder** » 12 sep 2007, 19:26

memento schreef:
Bert Mulder schreef:Sad to say, this is where he disagree, Memento. While I do not have Turretin's Eclectic Theology, and have never read it, I have read not only the excerpts you have provided, as well as many other excerpts. Granted, all the other excerpts of Turretin were used to support the non-offer position, by PRCA clergy, as well as by Dr. Steenblok.

One thing we always have to keep in mind in all this is the actual meaning of the latin word offere, which means to display. I do not have any problem with offer in that sense of the word. What I do have a problem with is those that say that it is up to man to accept or refuse. Because that is contrary to Scripture and the confessions, particularly the 3/4 head of the Canons. The call of the Gospel, in the mean time, comes to everyone that comes into contact with the Gospel. And God does not desire the death of the wicked, but that people repent from their sin and come to Him.

This pamphlet is also instructive here:

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/furthero ... eoffer.htm
If I can find some time, I will refute this position from the writings of Calvin and Turretin.

Also I will search for some info about the 'offer' word, and try to display that the fathers of Dordt did mean more with it that just displaying.

Have in the meantime acquired a copy of Turretin's Institutes of Eclectic Theology.

Thoroughly enjoy reading him. His chapter on the calling unequivocally states his position AGAINST any welmeant offer.

Flynn · Bericht door **Flynn** » 12 sep 2007, 21:05

Bert said:

Thoroughly enjoy reading him. His chapter on the calling unequivocally states his position AGAINST any welmeant offer.

David: G'day Bert,

Sorry I dont speak Dutch. I have been doing research on PRC theology for about a decade now. I would love to talk to you about the word offer in Latin and as used in English and by the Reformed fathers.

But right now, regarding Turretin. You say he is against the well-meant offer. I am not sure where or what you are reading. But I would encourage you to follow these links:

http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=236
Turretin on the Free Offer and Common Grace

I have yet to post comments from vol 2 and 3, but sometime soon I will.

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... f-all-men/ Turretin on God Desiring and Wishing that All Men be Saved

Here Turretin is explicit, and you will see how David Engelsma misquoted him.

If you go to either blog, scope out the categories of general love.

Some of us are slowly building up a data-base of information for classic Calvinism. You are welcome to browse the blogs, join the list, or just interact with us through the comments section.

Take care,
David

Flynn · Bericht door **Flynn** » 13 sep 2007, 16:40

I also uploaded some Turretin on General Love here:
http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... eral-love/

And feel free to browse this archive:
http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?cat=67

I think when you put all the documentation together, Momento's comments:

If I can find some time, I will refute this position from the writings of Calvin and Turretin. Also I will search for some info about the 'offer' word, and try to display that the fathers of Dordt did mean more with it that just displaying.

are easily sustained.

Take care,
David