What do you think?
Rate this book
Corrupting the Word of God: The History of the Well-Meant Offer
Does the eternal, unchangeable, all-powerful, and sovereign God really have a temporal, changeable and weak desire to save those whom he has unconditionally reprobated (Rom. 9:22), for whom the Son did not die (John 12:31) and whom the Holy Spirit will not regenerate, sanctify or glorify (John 3:8)?
Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anabaptism, Arminianism, Amyraldism, and Marrowism say yes to the well-meant offer of the gospel. The biblical, Augustinian, Reformed, and creedal position is no!
Emeritus professor of church history, Herman Hanko, guides us through fascinating doctrinal controversies in the early, Reformation and modern eras of the church, taking us to North Africa, Switzerland, France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, and America, and emphasizing the teaching of the great theologians, such as Augustine and John Calvin, on God’s particular grace, which is always irresistible and never fails or is frustrated.
In dealing with the historical perspective of God's absolutely sovereign grace versus the well-meant offer, this book fills a gap in the literature, and does so in a way that is warm and easily understood.
Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anabaptism, Arminianism, Amyraldism, and Marrowism say yes to the well-meant offer of the gospel. The biblical, Augustinian, Reformed, and creedal position is no!
Emeritus professor of church history, Herman Hanko, guides us through fascinating doctrinal controversies in the early, Reformation and modern eras of the church, taking us to North Africa, Switzerland, France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, and America, and emphasizing the teaching of the great theologians, such as Augustine and John Calvin, on God’s particular grace, which is always irresistible and never fails or is frustrated.
In dealing with the historical perspective of God's absolutely sovereign grace versus the well-meant offer, this book fills a gap in the literature, and does so in a way that is warm and easily understood.
- GenresTheology
272 pages, Hardcover
Published November 29, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 28, 2024
A genuinely terrible book for all the following reasons:
1. Hanko (and Hoeksema) fail to cite sources for the majority of their claims. The reader is left simply to take their word for most of what they say.
2. Hanko fails to seriously interact with his opponents. He makes broad statements like, "proponents of the well-meant offer believe X," but then cites no sources and engages very few arguments. The closest he really comes is at the end, where he offers his own interpretations of key passages. But even here he doesn't engage primary sources, he simply states that proponents of the WMO appeal to the text.
3. Of the few citations that are to be found throughout the book, many of them are secondary rather than primary sources. That's just poor scholarship.
4. Hanko appears to struggle with making distinctions. For example, he cannot distinguish between kinds of grace; all grace must be saving, so there is no common grace expressed in the WMO. Additionally, in his mind, the WMO must mean unlimited atonement, natural goodness in man, etc. He often claims that self-avowed Calvinists who hold the WMO must be dangerously inconsistent, but he does not even attempt to demonstrate this through engagement with primary sources. For this reason, he frequently cites Reformed theologians affirming limited atonement or election and reprobation as though that were definitive proof they denied the WMO.
5. Some of the historical claims that I followed up on are patently false. He claims Luther held firmly to limited atonement. I looked it up and found a sermon in which Luther explicitly denied the doctrine. He claims Kuyper distinguished "general grace" from "common grace," denying the former and insisting the latter is given only to the wicked. I read the first two pages of Kuyper's Common Grace and found this to be plainly incorrect.
6. Hanko simply comes across as an uncharitable jerk for whom there can be no distinction between primary or secondary doctrines. All doctrinal errors, however egregious, are "heresy" and examples of rank unfaithfulness to God and his word.
7. Related to all the above, Hanko fails to rightly interpret the historical sources to which he appeals. The number of times he quoted a Reformed theologian clearly affirming the WMO, while at the same time claiming the author in question denied it, was frankly hilarious.
This book is only good for entertainment. Anyone who picks it up hoping to learn something will either be sorely disappointed or hopelessly confused.
1. Hanko (and Hoeksema) fail to cite sources for the majority of their claims. The reader is left simply to take their word for most of what they say.
2. Hanko fails to seriously interact with his opponents. He makes broad statements like, "proponents of the well-meant offer believe X," but then cites no sources and engages very few arguments. The closest he really comes is at the end, where he offers his own interpretations of key passages. But even here he doesn't engage primary sources, he simply states that proponents of the WMO appeal to the text.
3. Of the few citations that are to be found throughout the book, many of them are secondary rather than primary sources. That's just poor scholarship.
4. Hanko appears to struggle with making distinctions. For example, he cannot distinguish between kinds of grace; all grace must be saving, so there is no common grace expressed in the WMO. Additionally, in his mind, the WMO must mean unlimited atonement, natural goodness in man, etc. He often claims that self-avowed Calvinists who hold the WMO must be dangerously inconsistent, but he does not even attempt to demonstrate this through engagement with primary sources. For this reason, he frequently cites Reformed theologians affirming limited atonement or election and reprobation as though that were definitive proof they denied the WMO.
5. Some of the historical claims that I followed up on are patently false. He claims Luther held firmly to limited atonement. I looked it up and found a sermon in which Luther explicitly denied the doctrine. He claims Kuyper distinguished "general grace" from "common grace," denying the former and insisting the latter is given only to the wicked. I read the first two pages of Kuyper's Common Grace and found this to be plainly incorrect.
6. Hanko simply comes across as an uncharitable jerk for whom there can be no distinction between primary or secondary doctrines. All doctrinal errors, however egregious, are "heresy" and examples of rank unfaithfulness to God and his word.
7. Related to all the above, Hanko fails to rightly interpret the historical sources to which he appeals. The number of times he quoted a Reformed theologian clearly affirming the WMO, while at the same time claiming the author in question denied it, was frankly hilarious.
This book is only good for entertainment. Anyone who picks it up hoping to learn something will either be sorely disappointed or hopelessly confused.
December 3, 2018
Although I agree with the author theologically in rejecting the well-meant offer and hypothetical universalism, I do not believe that this book helps the cause. Any book that attempts to survey a wide range of history will inevitably have some weak points, as it is not possible to speak authoritatively on a vast range of historical contexts from Augustine's times to the present. It would be foolish to expect anything like perfection in such a survey.
This volume contains more errors and contradictory analyses than is tolerable, however. Also, the attempt to write-off anyone who holds to hypothetical universalism or the well-meant offer as an Amyraldian or an Arminian is neither historically accurate nor honest.
As an example of poor analysis, the primary author (Herman Hanko, who wrote about 80% of the book) claims that the delegates at Dort from Great Britain and Bremen defended Arminian positions on the floor of the Synod of Dort while later endorsing the Canons that condemned these very opinions. Perhaps he knows a way to square this circle, but, for the time being, I am at a loss.
There is some good material on Amyraldianism, especially the references to Pierre Du Molin, but the assessment of the views of John Davenant, the Westminster Assembly, and the Marrow Men was particularly bad. I would also point out that this book has not received uncritical praise even within PRCA circles, as the Revd Douglas Kuiper made some very relevant critiques in a recent edition of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal.
I am very loath to give the book a one-star rating because the main author is a good man, the style of writing is pleasant, and I appreciate his zeal for the truth of God, but zeal must be according to knowledge. This book makes the crucial mistake of seeking to advance theological truth via historical error and I am afraid that it fails miserably.
This volume contains more errors and contradictory analyses than is tolerable, however. Also, the attempt to write-off anyone who holds to hypothetical universalism or the well-meant offer as an Amyraldian or an Arminian is neither historically accurate nor honest.
As an example of poor analysis, the primary author (Herman Hanko, who wrote about 80% of the book) claims that the delegates at Dort from Great Britain and Bremen defended Arminian positions on the floor of the Synod of Dort while later endorsing the Canons that condemned these very opinions. Perhaps he knows a way to square this circle, but, for the time being, I am at a loss.
There is some good material on Amyraldianism, especially the references to Pierre Du Molin, but the assessment of the views of John Davenant, the Westminster Assembly, and the Marrow Men was particularly bad. I would also point out that this book has not received uncritical praise even within PRCA circles, as the Revd Douglas Kuiper made some very relevant critiques in a recent edition of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal.
I am very loath to give the book a one-star rating because the main author is a good man, the style of writing is pleasant, and I appreciate his zeal for the truth of God, but zeal must be according to knowledge. This book makes the crucial mistake of seeking to advance theological truth via historical error and I am afraid that it fails miserably.
November 19, 2017
There are a number of good books on the subject matter of the well-meant offer and what constitutes hyper-calvinism, but this is certainly the best of the lot. Contrary to the popular trend labels "hyper-calvinism" on anyone who denies the well-meant offer, Herman Hanko demonstrates from an excellent study of church history that a denial of the well-meant offer is actually part what constituted historical calvinism, and it is those who affirm the well-meant offer who defer from the historical position. Excellent!
May 24, 2024
Good overview of Reformed History, but the authors engaged in straw men to prove their primary thesis: that the gospel should not be offered promiscuously. It came down to a form vs. substance debate that gutted the primary thesis. Otherwise, though, a valuable book for the history alone.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews