# The Well-meant offer of the Gospel



## Jan Ziska

Hi, 

I was wondering what you all thought about the free offer of the Gospel, or the well-meant offer of the Gospel.

I've realised that a fairly large point of difference between my denomination and most other Calvinist denominations is in this area.

To me, the position held in this paper Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism? seems the most common sensical and biblical.

Can we say to the general populace, 'God loves you'?


----------



## Herald

> Can we say to the general populace, 'God loves you'?


"God loves you" is a loaded term. We normally hear it in the following phrase: "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." The problem is obvious to all those who hold to the doctrines of grace: God does not love all. 

What gets us in trouble is any attempt to become so specific in preaching the gospel, that we remove any reference to God's love. In my humble opinion that strays towards the hyper-Calvinist position. God DOES love His elect. We can speak with certainty and confidence about God's love in sending His Son to pay the penalty for sin. We need not cringe at the proclamation of John 3:16 that, "God so loved the world." Yes, as Calvinists, we understand the correct interpretation of that passage, but it does not change the fact that God loves. 

What we cannot do is guarantee the sinner that God loves THEM. Imagine the ramifications to God's nature if we turn his love in a capricious form of cruelty. God loves the sinner, but His love may nor may not result in the sinner being converted. We would be guilty of turning God into a malevolent tempter; enticing the sinner with His love, but preventing him from enjoying it. The Lord tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). 

I am comfortable in saying that the Father sent His Son on a mission of mercy and love for those who will believe in Him. I remove the personalization towards the individual and speak of God's love in more perfect terms. It is also, quite accurate. God DID send His Son on a mission of mercy and love. Yes, only the elect will be the recipients of both, but that does not lessen either.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I would never tell people whom I don't know that Christ died for them. I would tell them (as the writer of the article says) to repent and believe and that all who do will be saved (knowing they will only repent and believe if God elected them). I've always drawn the line of hyper-calvinism with those who would not exhort people to repent and believe though their election is unknown to us. 

I believe God does have a love for the non-elect but not a salvific love. I don't don't think it's appropriate to use that in the gospel proclamation. I don't see evidence in the NT proclamations of the gospel of telling random people that God loves them and *wants* to save them. I see the declaration that He *will* save all who repent and believe. What do you guys think?


----------



## discipulo

I believe this is different from the scope of God’s Love to the elect alone.

It has to do with the Proclamation of the Gospel to all, and how that Proclamation is defined.

The expression *Well Meant Offer of the Gospel * also mentioned as *Free Offer of the Gospel*, has found some opposition as being unsound and non Calvinistic, a controversy that took place in the 1920s and in the 1940s, till today.

I actually have David Engelsma book Hyper Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, , page 91, chapter 4 Is Denial of the Well Meant Offer of the Gospel Hyper Calvinism.

He tries to prove that sound Calvinism can’t formulate the Proclamation of the Gospel through that expression.

-----Added 1/13/2009 at 05:36:54 EST-----



ManleyBeasley said:


> I would never tell people whom I don't know that Christ died for them. I would tell them (as the writer of the article says) to repent and believe and that all who do will be saved (knowing they will only repent and believe if God elected them). I've always drawn the line of hyper-calvinism with those who would not exhort people to repent and believe though their election is unknown to us.
> 
> I believe God does have a love for the non-elect but not a salvific love. I don't don't think it's appropriate to use that in the gospel proclamation. I don't see evidence in the NT proclamations of the gospel of telling random people that God loves them and *wants* to save them. I see the declaration that He *will* save all who repent and believe. What do you guys think?



True that refutation has also a relation to objections on the understanding of the doctrine of Common Grace.

First of all I must say myself, In my humble opinion, I don’t see any theological problem with the expression Well Meant Offer of the Gospel, even if I think it is more consistent with God's immutability and the doctrines of Reprobation and double Predestination, to express the scope of the Kerygma as a Proclamation meant to be made to all. 

_Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. _Mark 16:15 KJV

Because God chose preaching as a means to call the elect for salvation, and to proclaim the Glory of His Grace to all, and so the reprobate will also be accountable for hearing the Gospel.


_it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe_ 1 Corinthians 1:21

The Kerygma is the context in which the Apostle Paul mentions both the elect and the reprobate 

_When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ
For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life._2 Corinthians 2:12, 15-16 ESV

So Preaching and Proclamation should very likely not be expressed as an Offer.

But the truth is that the expression Well Meant Offer is subscribed by several theologians.

see John Murray and Louis Berkhof on the Well-Meant Offer 

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive John Murray on the Well-Meant Offer


Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Berkhof on the Will of God for Salvation of All Men


With all due respect for Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, Klaas Schilder, David Englesma, Herman Hanko, Robert Reymond, who are theologians worthy of all respect, who saw theological inconsistencies in the expression, I don't see any reason to state their refutation as Hyper Calvinism, which is a very different «camp».

But I also don't see how could be acceptable a counter reaction to question the soundness of the Calvinism of theologians like Charles Spurgeon, Louis Berkhof, John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, Ned Stonehouse, etc…or Abraham Kuyper who, in spite of the Synod of Dort «neutral statement» on the matter, was openly Supralapsarian.


----------



## Michael Doyle

In my experience in open air preaching and one to one evangelism, it has been a continual growth toward preaching the truth. Where once upon a time I would say that Christ died for you (meaning all hearers) and demonstrated His love for you in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (meaning all hearers). Over the last couple of years that has become unsettling as it is inconsistent with the bibles proclamations.

It is much more consistent to proclaim, "Let him who has ears to hear, let him hear, pray the Lord God would grant you repentance, then turn from your sins and receive the gift of grace which comes through the blood of Christ for all who would believe." When the hearer is granted a softness of heart through the Holy Spirit`s regeneration (which whereby I can never be fully sure, other than a fallen countenance, which may or may not be authentic), I am thereby free to express the Love of God for all who belong to Christ.

The hard part for me is not wanting to complicate the process of the gospel proclamation. All are respnsible for their sins and thereby commanded to repent but only those whom the Father draws will come to Jesus.


----------



## Herald

Michael Doyle said:


> In my experience in open air preaching and one to one evangelism, it has been a continual growth toward preaching the truth. Where once upon a time I would say that Christ died for you (meaning all hearers) and demonstrated His love for you in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (meaning all hearers). Over the last couple of years that has become unsettling as it is inconsistent with the bibles proclamations.
> 
> It is much more consistent to proclaim, "Let him who has ears to hear, let him hear, pray the Lord God would grant you repentance, then turn from your sins and receive the gift of grace which comes through the blood of Christ for all who would believe." When the hearer is granted a softness of heart through the Holy Spirit`s regeneration (which whereby I can never be fully sure, other than a fallen countenance, which may or may not be authentic), I am thereby free to express the Love of God for all who belong to Christ.
> 
> The hard part for me is not wanting to complicate the process of the gospel proclamation. All are responsible for their sins and thereby commanded to repent but only those whom the Father draws will come to Jesus.



Brother, you preach to all, as though all are capable of believing. I thank God that we do not know who the elect are. Preach to all men, plead with all men, beg all men to be reconciled to Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). The work of conversion belongs to God. We play the part God chooses us to fill by proclaiming His Word to all who will listen.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

See _The Blue Banner, _v9#10-12, "Murray on the Free Offer: A Review," by Matthew Winzer, 3-20.
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim72

Check out this sermon from Sinclair Ferguson. It's really good.

SermonAudio.com - The Free Offer of the Gospel


----------



## CDM

NaphtaliPress said:


> See _The Blue Banner, _v9#10-12, "Murray on the Free Offer: A Review," by Matthew Winzer, 3-20.
> http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf



Thank you Rev. Winzer for the excellent article in the BB. Thanks Chris for linking to it. 

For anyone here who does not adequately understand this topic, I can't recommend Rev. Winzer's article enough.


----------



## turmeric

It's well-meant to the elect. I think a proper understanding of election would free us of the need to use the term "well-meant". The idea is to prove God innocent of the charge of dangling something in front of someone, then saying "you can't have it", but the fact is, no one wants it unless God makes him willing. 

Note to self; read Rev. Winzer's article.


----------



## discipulo

Being Common Grace (Common to clearly differ it from Special Particular Salvific Grace) clearly off topic, I will skip to make any comment on it.



turmeric said:


> It's well-meant to the elect. I think a proper understanding of election would free us of the need to use the term "well-meant". The idea is to prove God innocent of the charge of dangling something in front of someone, then saying "you can't have it", but the fact is, no one wants it unless God makes him willing.
> 
> Note to self; read Rev. Winzer's article.



In total agreement, Well Meant Offer or Free Offer don’t seem to be precise and may question our right postulates on God’s Love and Salvation being only granted to the Elect.

In that sense the Article by Reverend Winzer is brilliant, thank you.

But often theologians that share the same postulates, differ on methodologies and aims for a certain elaboration and we end up concluding from their inference that their postulates differ too.

Because one matter is subordinate to other, doesn’t make them contradictory, that was a Medieval, Scholastic and later, also a Rationalistic concept.
An explanation from Peter A.Lillback that helped me greatly.

God’s Sovereign Decrees anticipate and subordinate the doctrines on the Kerygma, but having that postulate should not make us see the Proclamation of the Gospel to All as a contradiction. It is also God's commandment.

I wonder if that is not that paradox (an apparent contradiction) precisely the rationalistic trap that makes such a difficult issue from this matter?

Scott Clark made a new (2008) preface to John Murray’s article: The Free Offer of the Gospel.

This preface brings a lot of clarity to the nature of the controversy. 
Preface and Article in PDF attached


----------



## Poimen

*Canons of Dordrecht, 3&4.4*



> "_It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel_ and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.



I think anything beyond this statement is up for debate (i.e. not settled, confessional Reformed theology).


----------



## Michael Doyle

> Brother, you preach to all, as though all are capable of believing. I thank God that we do not know who the elect are. Preach to all men, plead with all men, beg all men to be reconciled to Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). The work of conversion belongs to God. We play the part God chooses us to fill by proclaiming His Word to all who will listen.



Bill, I agree we preach to all but merely trying to be consistent with what we are preaching to all. The gospel is a free offer and a summons for all mankind but I am also aware that I am responsible for my declaration and I am reverant about such things.

Thank you Bill for your reply. I hope I havent strayed to far...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

resources:

1. "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology," in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine.

2. Westminster Seminary California clark

3. James Durham Thesis


----------



## brandonadams

The Sincere Insanity of the Well Meant Offer God’s Hammer

Well Meant Hypocrisy ? More Observations on the Free Offer God’s Hammer

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgOH4WRXz0&feature=PlayList&p=090468E85C40DEE2&index=1]YouTube - Demanding Irrationality[/ame] (James White defending himself against accusation of being a Hyper)


----------



## discipulo

brandonadams said:


> The Sincere Insanity of the Well Meant Offer God’s Hammer
> 
> Well Meant Hypocrisy ? More Observations on the Free Offer God’s Hammer)



Brandon, don’t you think this kind of article makes exactly the same kind of extreme assertions on sound Theologians, as does shouting Hyper Calvinism, as soon as the issue is debated?

To extreme positions normally prevents the diverging parts from listening to one another…


----------



## ManleyBeasley

It is not misleading to say, "If you repent and believe God will save you." It does seem to be misleading to tell people Jesus died for them and loves them salvifically (is this a word?). I don't see anyone in scripture saying that. Please show me if I'm incorrect about that but I haven't noticed it. Regardless, to say people that don't say "Jesus died for you" are hyper-calvinists is a misunderstanding of what hyper-calvinism is. The hyper-calvinists refused to exhort people to believe because they may be unable. I don't see anyone here supporting that.


----------



## CDM

Man, I can't keep up with all the monikers, misnomers, and oh-so-gentlemanly-Christian epithets slung around here anymore. I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent group of members leaving the PB? To some, to deny the "free offer" (as presented by X, Y, or Z—take your pick) you are a hyper-Calvinist or a rationalist. Some would say if you are Supralapsarian you are hyper. For each one that accuses a James White of being hyper you could find another who accuses him of being a "low-Calvinist." If I were to poll the PB about my views, I bet I could get labeled as a rationalist, hyper, low, and high Calvinist! Sheesh. Vanity of vanities.

 

Again, I’d like to reiterate my praise for Rev. Winzer’s very useful article, in which, did he not only answer the other view on each point, but did it without the need of appealing to the masses and making caricatures of those who would differ.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*As far as any of the moderators know, and as far as any has said, it does not. Let's not put 2 and 2 together and get 5. 
Everyone take a breather for a few hours. The mods will review the thread before determining whether to open it*.



mangum said:


> Man, I can't keep up with all the monikers, misnomers, and oh-so-gentlemanly-Christian epithets slung around here anymore. I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent group of members leaving the PB?


----------



## BertMulder

> Thread is reopened. Have fun. Play nice.



I will hold my peace... for now at least


----------



## Whitefield




----------



## discipulo

After several readings, namely 

*THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY by Edward Fisher*

Chapter II, Section III, 3 The warrant to believe in Christ.

The warrant to believe in Christ.

resources from the site related to the Scottish Puritan James Durham

*James Durham ( 1622-1658 ) and the Free Offer of the Gospel*:

A Case Study on the Meaning of the Westminster Confession of Faith VII:III

_He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved._

James Durham Thesis


and the article I highly recommend, with an important exegetical research on the offer of the Gospel, where Roger Nicole explains why the doctrine of a Definite Atonement and a Universal Well Meant Offer of the Gospel are Not incompatible.

*Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement by Dr. Roger Nicole *

pdf attached below and quote

_As indicated above, it is really the Calvinist who has in his theological approach the best basis for making a real offer, and on that account he should be most zealous in the proclamation of the gospel. _

Definite Atonement

I can't find any reason to maintain the questions I had on the Proclamation of the Gospel being expressed
as a Well Meant Offer of the Gospel or a Free Offer of the Gospel.


----------



## BertMulder

Esteemed discipulo, believe your signature says it best:

_there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17_

Salvation is all of grace, and our accepting of an offer is not something we must do to be saved. Thus 'offer of salvation' is, in any case, bad terminology. Yes, I know historically sound theologians used the term. That was generally before the controversy arose...


----------



## discipulo

BertMulder said:


> Esteemed discipulo, believe your signature says it best:
> 
> _there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17_
> 
> Salvation is all of grace, and our accepting of an offer is not something we must do to be saved. Thus 'offer of salvation' is, in any case, bad terminology. Yes, I know historically sound theologians used the term. That was generally before the controversy arose...



I do agree with you, and thank you for putting it in a Kind and Irenic way.
If you read my posts you saw both my reserves and my acceptance of the terms.
Fisher in the Marrow writes these both paragraphs

_I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life

that although some men be ordained to condemnation, yet so long as the Lord has concealed their names, and not set a mark of reprobation upon any man in particular, but offers the pardon generally to all_.

Yet I will not question the soundness or strict Calvinism of Edwin Fisher or Thomas Boston.

This will be a bit off topic, but this thread touches a sensitive area.

Geerhardus Vos, who was a B. Th., used to say that the Bible doesn’t need Systematic Theology (or Dogmatics for the same reason), *we do*.

We, in our finitude, hopefully trembling, we draw with Reverence, from God’s Eternal Word, a doctrinal understanding of the Truth. And we speak of God in the Presence of God.

When we define the boundaries of our understanding of doctrine, we don’t need to overlap in everything, to recognize each other as Reformed and Biblical.

Let’s remember that if the devil can’t pull us he will push us.
Heresies are from the flesh, but so are Divisions in the fellowship of the Saints. 

Forbearing one another in love, we must debate with some forbearing in love, with oil on the junctions of the members of the body, if we don’t want to hurt each other.

_With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace._ Ephesians 4:2,3


----------



## Jon 316

sorry to cut in at this point. I was thinking about this thread earlier today. I agree with election and limited atonement. However this verse did come to me today

Acts 2: 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. _39The promise is for you _and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 

Peter seems to infer that those present could consider that the promise was applicable to them. I know it ends with the promise ultimately being 'for all whom the Lord our God will call'. And obviously only the elect respond. However it does not change the fact that Peter makes 'open' the availability of the promise. Not only so, but he personalises it by saying 'you'.


----------



## Whitefield

I'm still looking for the Greek word translated "whosoever".


----------



## Jon 316

but is not saying to a crowd of people 'the promise is for you' no diffrent from saying 'Jesus died for you' or 'God loved you'? In this way, the gosple was 'offered'.


----------



## BertMulder

> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but is not saying to a crowd of people 'the promise is for you' no diffrent from saying 'Jesus died for you' or 'God loved you'? In this way, the gosple was 'offered'.
> 
> 
> 
> It _*is*_ different. There's a hermeneutical principle called "The Analogy of Scripture" wherein Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture. All throughout Scripture we see that Christ's Atonement, and the fruit thereof, is for _only_ His sheep. Only for the elect. So to interpret Peter's words as saying "Jesus died for you" is to _mis_interpret that passage, as can be attested to by consulting the rest of Scripture. What is the qualifier, then, in this passage? "To as many as the Lord our God will call." We are all convinced that those who repent and believe will indeed inherit the promises attached unto the Gospel.
Click to expand...


And saying, as Boston did, that Jesus was _dead_ for all, is saying the same thing as that He died for all.


----------



## Jon 316

but that doesnt change the fact that Peter actually says 'the promise is for *you*' to a large crowd of people of which he did not know who among them are the elect and who is not.


----------



## BertMulder

Jon 316 said:


> but that doesnt change the fact that Peter actually says 'the promise is for *you*' to a large crowd of people of which he did not know who among them are the elect and who is not.



He also does not say, for you, head for head...


----------



## Jon 316

lol I dont disagree that only the elect will believe. My point is that this thread suggests that the 'personalising' of the offer of the gospel to non believers is wrong because some of those unbelievers may not be among the elect. However, Peter did not seem to have that problem as he clearly 'personalised' the gospel offer. The fact that there is a disclaimer 'all whom the Lord our God will call' does not change the initial 'personalisation'.

surely..


----------



## Whitefield

> What we _have_ asserted is that it is false to tell a lost person "Christ died for _you_."



That's true. But how do we know who they are?


----------



## Jon 316

> No one in this thread has asserted such a thing. What we have asserted is that God does not sincerely desire the salvation of those whom He has decreed reprobate.



When you said this, I thought I had perhaps misunderstood some of the earlier points in the thread.



> What we have asserted is that God does not sincerely desire the salvation of those whom He has decreed reprobate.



I understand this, and agree.



> What we have asserted is that it is false to tell a lost person "Christ died for you."



Perhaps we are having terminolgy problems, but this is the point I was making about the thgread which you have just said that the thread is not making. The 'personalisation' of the gospel offer. Now you state the reason for this as 



> How can we know such a thing? We don't. We know that Christ died to save sinners. We know that Christ died to save His elect. Why would we go beyond what Scripture says? We shouldn't.



Wheras I am arguing that it seems that Peter did in fact do this.

But you are arguing that he did not.

So our difference is over our interpretation of what Peter was and was not saying. 

In the midst of a gosple sermon and in response to unbelievers asking 'what should we do' Peter tells them and follows on by saying 'the promise is for you, your family and all who the Lord ou God will call' seems to show that Peter did in fact make assumptions about his audience. How did he know if all before him where elect. How could he say the promise was for their family?

I agree, that he adds, all whom the Lord our God will call. But like I say, it seems to me that he made the invitation quite personal.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

God indeed promises that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. God’s love for mankind is seen in the sending of his Son. The universal call of the gospel is for all to repent and trust in Christ. Christ’s work on the cross does in fact save the human race by securing the salvation of all whom the Father has given him — yet not all individuals are saved. One might ask, How can God be sincere in His promise if He has chosen to save only some? 

Let me put it this way: The promises of God are sincere, but they are for those who come and take them. *There are no gracious promises for those who will not believe*. Christ is the only Savior there is and he is promised as the Savior of those who turn to Him, *not those who don’t*. This is why we must beseech men to believe in Christ, so they may take to themselves the promises of God. And we know that they are enabled to do so as the Lord quickens their dead hearts and removes their unwillingness and stubbornness.

The sincerity of a promise is proven by its fulfillment. And the glorious fact is that the promises of God have in every single instance been found true. Everyone who has called on the name of the Lord has been saved. Not one who has trusted Christ has perished. There has never been a person who has wanted to come to Christ, who has found God’s sovereign election to be a barrier in the way.


----------



## LawrenceU

I'm no moderator, but I think y'all may be speaking past one another. Peter did say that to the entire gathered assembly, 'Repent and be baptised every one of you . . .' That command is made to all men. It is not the same as saying that Christ died for everyone.

But, then maybe I'm reading too graciously.


----------



## BertMulder

Jon 316 said:


> In the midst of a gosple sermon and in response to unbelievers asking 'what should we do' Peter tells them and follows on by saying 'the promise is for you, your family and all who the Lord ou God will call' seems to show that Peter did in fact make assumptions about his audience. How did he know if all before him where elect. How could he say the promise was for their family?
> 
> I agree, that he adds, all whom the Lord our God will call. But like I say, it seems to me that he made the invitation quite personal.



I beg to differ, my friend:

This is what Peter said, (according the the KJV version):



> 37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
> 
> 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.



So yes, the promise is unto you, and to your children, with the qualifier that this promise is good, for whosoever it pleases the Lord to call. Not to you head for head. But only the ones that He chooses to call.

So, to rephrase what Peter said: "Any one of you, whom the Lord pleases to call, for you and your children is the promise; so repent, and be baptized everyone of you that repents, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."


----------



## toddpedlar

Jon 316 said:


> So our difference is over our interpretation of what Peter was and was not saying.
> 
> In the midst of a gosple sermon and in response to unbelievers asking 'what should we do' Peter tells them and follows on by saying 'the promise is for you, your family and all who the Lord ou God will call' seems to show that Peter did in fact make assumptions about his audience. How did he know if all before him where elect. How could he say the promise was for their family?
> 
> I agree, that he adds, all whom the Lord our God will call. But like I say, it seems to me that he made the invitation quite personal.



What assumptions do you think he made? He did make it personal, but did not in any way imply that Christ actually died for any individual (which the statement "Christ died for you" does). As suggested, it would be good if you took some time to see what the confessions say about calling, election, justification, etc.


----------



## discipulo

"_God delights in the conversion and eternal life of the sinner, as a thing pleasing in itself, and congruous with His own infinitely compassionate nature, rather than in his perdition; and therefore demands from man, as an act due from him, to turn if he would live. *But although He does not will, in the sense of delighting in, the death of the sinner, He at the same time wills, in the sense of decreeing, the death of the sinner for the display of His justice. *Even as an upright magistrate, though he does not delight in and desire the death of the criminal, yet determines to inflict the just penalty of the law." _

*Francis Turretin - Institutes of Elenctic Theology* IV ch. XVII . 33

Do you see any Contradiction? Paradox is an apparent contradiction!

This is not indeed an easy matter, that's why I found Roger Nicole's article so helpful

Roger Nicole of course also stands for Particular Salvation and Limited Atonement, actually he is defending it in this article.

Definite Atonement


----------



## Jon 316

With all due respect I'm going to bail from this 'discussion'.



> "You are here to learn, not question the principles of Scripture as articulated and espoused by Reformed Theology and her Confessions."



Again with all due respect, I teach in secondary schools and questioning is actually part of the learning process. If I am right in understanding what you are saying, are you saying that these things cannot be questioned and discussed? If this is the case then perhaps I have misunderstood the aims of the discussion board.


----------



## Jon 316

Hi, I'm new to 1) This forum 2) Reformed thinking...

My background is evangelicalism (the modern version) I'm also an evangelist. The concept of not telling people that Jesus died for them is new to me. I embraced the L of T.U.L.I.P about a year or so ago. In the light of limited atonement, what you all are saying, makes sense to a point. But like I say, the scripture I quoted came to me today and I've been chewing it over. 

I have a copy of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, I think I have a copy of the westminster shorter chatichism. I have read them in the past. But it has been a while. I'll spend some time looking into them again, to help me see where you all are coming from. 

John


----------



## Jon 316

Apology accepted


----------



## discipulo

discipulo said:


> "_God delights in the conversion and eternal life of the sinner, as a thing pleasing in itself, and congruous with His own infinitely compassionate nature, rather than in his perdition; and therefore demands from man, as an act due from him, to turn if he would live. *But although He does not will, in the sense of delighting in, the death of the sinner, He at the same time wills, in the sense of decreeing, the death of the sinner for the display of His justice. *Even as an upright magistrate, though he does not delight in and desire the death of the criminal, yet determines to inflict the just penalty of the law." _
> 
> *Francis Turretin - Institutes of Elenctic Theology* IV ch. XVII . 33



God’s will to Save the Elect Alone doesn't contradict the Well Meant Offer or Free Offer of the Gospel 

Theology explains this matter, to follow my quote on Turretin, and some remarks on former posts.
The Decrees to Salvation and Reprobation are in the Decretive Will of God, within Himself (ad-infra).
The invitation to all through the Free Offer of the Gospel is in the Preceptive Will of God. 
That is what He chooses to reveal outside (ad-extra) Himself. These are the rule for the creature's actions. 
Like Believe or Repent.

Preceptive Will of God in the Commandment

_Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest_. Mathew 11:28

Decretive Will of God expressed in

_No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him. _John 6:44

The Preceptive Will is subordinate to the Decretive Will, no contradiction, because always/finally everything happens/will be 
_according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will _Ephesians 1:11


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jon 316 said:


> Hi, I'm new to 1) This forum 2) Reformed thinking...
> 
> My background is evangelicalism (the modern version) I'm also an evangelist. The concept of not telling people that Jesus died for them is new to me. I embraced the L of T.U.L.I.P about a year or so ago. In the light of limited atonement, what you all are saying, makes sense to a point. But like I say, the scripture I quoted came to me today and I've been chewing it over.
> 
> I have a copy of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, I think I have a copy of the westminster shorter chatichism. I have read them in the past. But it has been a while. I'll spend some time looking into them again, to help me see where you all are coming from.
> 
> John



Consider this about the idea of telling people that Jesus died for them in relation to the "L" of TULIP.

Why is it that that "L" of TULIP is so core to the Gospel of grace? Because, as you read especially Hebrews 9-10, one of the assurances that we have is that we have a perfect High Priest whose atoning sacrifice saves to the uttermost. It is once-for-all. The wrath of God has been fully satisfied by our High Priest. Not only that but He ever intercedes for His own to ensure their salvation from beginning to end. I know I am saved not because Christ died, generically, for all of mankind, but that His atonement actually accomplished redemption for those that trust in Him.

If we assume that Christ died for all then what is the nature of the Atonement? Imperfect. It means that Christ's sacrifice makes men savable but also losable because the wrath of God was not satisfied for any particular persons but for men who must add faith to the work of Christ in order for the two to mix together and, thereby, satisfy the wrath of God. In other words, the Atonement is imperfect until it is mixed with human faith whereas the Scriptures teach that grace precedes faith. Christ's death precedes our belief. He died for us while we were His enemies and He justifies the un-Godly. Our faith is a result of God's electing love toward us and the instrument that unites us to a work that Christ has accomplished on our behalf.

Thus, it is not proper to a general audience to say: "Christ died for you" because it implies a view of the atonement as inadequate. It implies an imperfect Savior whose Atonement needs their belief. If you really believe in the Atonement of Christ and say "Christ died for you" then you should also say "so you are saved whether you believe or not." For, if Christ died for the person, then there is nothing else to do but to announce their salvation. 

The Atoning work of Christ perfectly satifies the wrath of God and our faith does not add one iota to its value but is the alone instrument by which we lay hold of Christ's perfect work. What we need to declare in the Gospel is man without hope apart from Christ, Christ's perfect sacrifice on the Cross for all who believe, and a call to come to Christ for salvation.

Blessings!


----------



## Jon 316

I dont believe Christ did die for all

-----Added 1/14/2009 at 04:15:21 EST-----

I have just dug out my baptist confession book..

The 1689: A Faith to Confess is this the same as the London Baptist Confession of Faith?


----------



## cih1355

Instead of saying, "Jesus was punished for you", to non-Christians, I would say, "Jesus was punished for other people". If a non-Christian asks, "Who are those other people?", then I would say, "The people whom God chose to save and those people are called God's elect.". If a non-Christian asks, "Who are God's elect?", then I say, "You don't need to find out who God's elect are. God commands you to repent of your sin and to trust in Jesus alone for your salvation and that is your responsibility."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You can find all the confessions here: The PuritanBoard - Reformed Confessions


----------



## Jon 316

cheers guys


----------



## ManleyBeasley

cih1355 said:


> Instead of saying, "Jesus was punished for you", to non-Christians, I would say, "Jesus was punished for other people". If a non-Christian asks, "Who are those other people?", then I would say, "The people whom God chose to save and those people are called God's elect.". If a non-Christian asks, "Who are God's elect?", then I say, "You don't need to find out who God's elect are. God commands you to repent of your sin and to trust in Jesus alone for your salvation and that is your responsibility."



I think its unnecessary to say anything more than Jesus died for sinners and he will save all who repent and put faith in Him alone. We don't know who the elect are so why try to say what we don't know? I also don't see the need to explain particular redemption to them in detail when proclaiming the gospel. If they ask about who He died for I think a correct response is "He died for all who repent and place faith in Him." (ie the elect) which is very close to the particular redemption language of John 3:16.

For God so loved the world that *He gave His only begotten son*, that whosoever *believes in Him will not perish* but have everlasting life.


----------



## MW

BertMulder said:


> And saying, as Boston did, that Jesus was _dead_ for all, is saying the same thing as that He died for all.



Boston never said it.

The Marrow said, "for him." The context in the Marrow makes it clear that it is speaking of the conditional promise of the gospel; hence the "dead for you" statement must be understood conditionally also -- if you will believe.

Boston clarifies the meaning: "that a Saviour is provided, that there is a crucified Christ for him." This is the same teaching as is found in the Larger Catechism, answer 32, "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator."


----------



## Iconoclast

Jon 316 said:


> Hi, I'm new to 1) This forum 2) Reformed thinking...
> 
> My background is evangelicalism (the modern version) I'm also an evangelist. The concept of not telling people that Jesus died for them is new to me. I embraced the L of T.U.L.I.P about a year or so ago. In the light of limited atonement, what you all are saying, makes sense to a point. But like I say, the scripture I quoted came to me today and I've been chewing it over.
> 
> I have a copy of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, I think I have a copy of the westminster shorter chatichism. I have read them in the past. But it has been a while. I'll spend some time looking into them again, to help me see where you all are coming from.
> 
> John



Hello John,
What might be helpful in considering this question and how to refine our presentation of the gospel is to be mindful of the Intercession of our Great High Priest in Jn.17 and a description of this work in Hebrews 2.
What most of the posts on this thread point to is the reality that the love of God is primarily spoken of as being In Christ , not apart from Him.
You can always be on safe ground by proclaiming that God loves sinners In Christ. All the promises of God are found exclusively In Him.
When the unsaved are cast into second death the seperation from God that they knew in this life will be sealed eternally;


> 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still


 If a seperation exists in time, it will exist in eternity. The OT.priests sinned by not maintaining this distinction


> 26Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.


 , 
but Jesus as our Great High Priest is perfect in His work and love. His love is holy and specific in it's object,the church. All of the texts describing God's redemptive love are speaking of those who become justified. 
Just look to follow the apostolic teaching being mindful of the contexts of the love verses and you will see the consistency of the confessional language used to describe the content of the gospel.


----------



## brandonadams

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I just came across it and have read a little ways into it:
EPC of Australia - The Offer of the Gospel


----------



## Jan Ziska

One of the pastors in my church wrote it, most likely Chris Connors.


----------



## discipulo

brandonadams said:


> I'm not sure who wrote this, but I just came across it and have read a little ways into it:
> EPC of Australia - The Offer of the Gospel



Thank you brother, I am about to conclude that not just the expression Well meant Offer, but the doctrine itself may be very wrong in some implications.

In my humble opinion Well meant Offer may in fact introduce an unnecessary contradiction between the 
the Preceptive Will of God, revealed in His Word, and the way we can understand by God’s Word, His Decretive Will.

Yet it’s good to be cautious in avoid throwing around names like Hyper Calvinism or Amyrauldism, or any kind of heresy for the same matter

I believe we are still in the boundaries of sound Reformed Orthodoxy.


----------



## BertMulder

The issue of the wellmeant really came into play in the split between the CRC and the PRCA, when Rev. Hoeksema was deposed from office in the CRC, as he would not sign the three points of common grace. In the 3 point they married the idea of Kuyperian common grace to the proclamation of the Gospel, and made man, in his natural state, capable of accepting the Gospel offered in the preaching.

And that is the historical reason why the PRCA is so dead set against any idea of a wellmeant offer. Granted that not all people when they speak of a wellmeant offer, conceive of it as such.

Common Grace


----------

