by Michael Krall
There are many in Reformed
circles holding to the free and sovereign grace of God that go to great pains to make it
known that they believe in the sincere, free offer of the gospel. They state that the
gospel comes to sinners as sinners and that it is every man's duty to savingly repent and
believe the gospel even though God has only elected certain sinners to salvation.
Take the situation of the church member that
comes to the conviction through some heart-searching preaching that he is not, in fact, in a
state of grace. This is a situation that happens a lot in Reformed circles because of the
strong pointed preaching. This member goes to see his elders and confesses to them as to
the pattern of his life and hands in his resignation. In most cases these elders, if
convinced this persons is not in a state of grace, will counsel him or her to stay under
the means of grace by a continuous attendance at church. Now we believe that this is the
proper thing to do, but is it consistent with a belief in the free offer of the gospel to
sinners as sinners, and duty faith and duty repentance? We say an emphatic NO!
Why have not these elders asked this man why he
wasn't saved and what he was waiting for? What should have been done right on the spot was
to tell this man that salvation is freely offered to him as a sinner right where he was
sitting, and that he was COMMANDED TO REPENT AND BELIEVE! These same men will defend their
duty faith position with such texts as Ez. 18:31 (a text to national Israel under the Old
Covenant) where Israel is told to make themselves a new heart, but will not say the same
thing to the lost. If this is what these men believe, they are obligated to press those
things home to the conscience of this person right there and then.
We are told in Psalms that when God speaks,
"it is done, and when he commands, it stands fast". Aren't all the commands of God
to be carried out with immediate urgency? But I seriously doubt many will ever tell such a
sinner to make himself a new heart. These elders should have been faithful to what they
believed and not let that man leave until he got saved or left never wanting to hear
anything about it again. After all he must have been concerned for his soul else why even
talk to the elders and resign from the church? Why not just leave and go back into the world as many do?
The reason they will not do that is that they are
afraid of decisionism and rightly so. But the fact that these men would tell him to stay
under the means of grace, is admitting that this man had to be brought to a state of seeing
his need of Christ.
Is this preparationism? In a sense yes but it is
Biblical preparationism where God does the preparing. Anything less is decisionism. Do we
really want people to come to Christ who have never been brought to see they are sinners?
Churches are filled with such. It is this very thing that is the essence of decisionism.
One comes to Christ with a mental assent to the facts of the gospel never seeing his need
to throw himself down before Christ. Those are not the ones Jesus came to save, because He
did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
But suppose these elders upon approaching the
sinner in such a manner the person says "but I thought I repented and believed what
lack I yet? Why am I not saved?". What kind of answer can be given? When one
commands, begs and pleads with sinners to believe, (something never done by the apostles
to the lost), there is then no answer for the nominal professor who asks this question.
After all he was just responding to the pleas and exhortations of the preacher. In many
cases, it was a mere moving of the emotions; but, nonetheless, to him, he was exercising an act
of faith. All such nominal decisioned professors have one thing in common- they were never
quickened by the Holy Spirit whereby they are brought to see their need of Christ. In such
a case, there is no warrant to call that sinner to Christ. What that sinner should have
been told was to seek God "if PERHAPS he MIGHT feel after Him and find Him"
Acts 17:27. Or we can say to him what Peter said to Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:22
"Repent therefore of thy wickedness, and pray God, if PERHAPS the thought of thine
heart MIGHT be forgiven thee". In both of these cases, it is not evangelical repentance
or saving faith that the sinner is exhorted to perform.
May I say a closing word to any pastors that
may read this? If you do believe that the gospel is freely and sincerely offered to all
sinners as sinners indiscriminately and that it is the duty of such to savingly repent and
believe, then you MUST approach any such church member that way. You also must approach any prospective member who has no credible profession of faith the same way: It your duty and
responsibility to do so. You should never counsel any sinner to sit under the means of
grace since you believe it is his duty to urgently give himself a new heart, repent and
believe the gospel right here and now. To tell them to sit under the means of grace is to
either say that saving faith and evangelical repentance are not duties of dead sinners to
perform, but instead, that they are covenant promises to the elect of God (as do us
"hypercalvinists") or it is to misrepresent God as to as to the urgency of His
command.
If one happens to believe that those called to
Christ are always those that have been brought to see their lost condition such as the
thirsty, the weary and heavy laden etc...they are labeled as one of those dreaded
hypercalvinists. Those that say that only the sensible, convinced sinner has warrant to
come to Christ, are accused of preaching preparationism.
This article is not written to defend this so-called "hypercalvinist" position since it needs no defending. The Scripture is
clear that the gospel is not an offer but a proclamation, and salvation is not a gift
offered but a gift bestowed. The gospel with all its promises comforts, and consolations
are pearls that should not be cast before swine. To treat these gospel promises, which are
holy things, and "give them to dogs" is in violation of the teaching of our Lord. But what
this article is about is the inconsistency of those that claim to hold to the free offer
and yet betray themselves by their own actions.
It may be argued that the elders normally
attempt to resolve the problem first before advising the individual to continue to stay under the means of grace. We do not doubt that that may be the policy. But once the
individual has not savingly embraced Christ, what reason would there be for having him sit
under the "means of grace"? The only reason would be that there is something
that this sinner still lacks. What is that? It is the effectual work of the Holy Spirit
upon his soul, and that is the sovereign work of God, alone, that no one but God can
initiate.
But be warned, my brother, if one such sinner
makes a false profession in response to your pleas and free offers and ultimately proves
to be a reprobate: his blood will be upon your hands.