# Free Offer Divided Discussion



## RamistThomist

*[Moderator Note]
Jacob started a thread asking a question about a matter of fact.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-non-free-offer-person-share-the-gospel.97200/

Despite efforts to the contrary, it kept straying from the subject matter. So this thread is made up of the off-topic posts from that thread. Will that help, you ask? Possibly not. But if in future someone is interested in the same question Jacob asked, they will find at the above link a brief thread with hopefully some helpful indications. 

And if someone is interested in debating the free offer, perhaps this thread below will convey some wisdom.
*
*py3ak*
*[/Moderator]*


How would someone who doesn't believe in the free offer of the gospel share the gospel in a witnessing encounter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

"God might love you and He might want to save you! So maybe come to Christ! (and by the way, I am telling you to repent because it is a mere command but not an invitation or an offer)."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Non-free offer Preacher: "Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a great feast prepared for all who will come!"

Atheist: "Does that mean God actually wants me to come."

Preacher: "Um...I'm not sure..."


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Pergamum said:


> Non-free offer Preacher: "Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a great feast prepared for all who will come!"
> 
> Atheist: "Does that mean God actually wants me to come."
> 
> Preacher: "Um...I'm not sure..."



Do you believe that God wants everyone [even the decretally reprobate] to come to Him?

I'm asking sincerely, because I struggle with the idea of the "Well Meant Offer" in the context of Calvinism.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes. 

I agree with RC Sproul here: 




God takes no delight in the death of the wicked. There is a general good will of disposition in God towards all of his creatures. God loves all of his creation in a certain way. There is a judicial satisfaction at the judgment of sinners, yet God's nature is such that He loves all He has created.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Clark shows the long tradition of the reformed believing in the "free or well-meant offer" (notice he counts it as two names for the same thing). We need not create some weird PuritanBoard Mutant Hybrid of a free offer that is not well-meant. 

https://heidelblog.net/2013/12/the-reformed-tradition-on-the-free-or-well-meant-offer-of-the-gospel/

See also,

https://heidelblog.net/2018/05/resources-on-the-free-or-well-meant-offer-of-the-gospel/

"In the high orthodox period, Herman Witsius (1636–1708) and Peter van Mastricht (1630–1706) used the same categories and language about the relations between the external “common call,” and the efficacious call by the Holy Spirit of the elect through it.87 In the latter’s _Theoretico-practica theologia_ (1699), in his chapter on “The Love, Grace, Mercy, Longsuffering and Clemency of God,” van Mastricht wrote at length about God’s “universal benevolence and beneficence” toward creatures. In his chapter on calling, he defended the sincerity and genuineness of the well-meant offer of the gospel. He made the invitation to trust in Christ of the essence of the call. From this brief survey of the Canons and just a few classic Reformed theologians, it appears that Synod Kalamazoo was right to say that, in substance, if not in absolute verbal identity, well-meant offer was the teaching of the “writers of the flowering period of Reformed theology” (_schrijvers uit de bloeitijd der Gereformerde Theologie_).

According to Dort and both early orthodox theologians such as Olevianus and early Reformed dogmatic theologies such as the _Synopsis purioris_ and the high orthodox theologian Peter van Mastricht, the praxis of the free and sincere offer of the Gospel is not controlled by the knowledge of archetypal theology (e.g. the decree), but by _theologia ectypa_. In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

If the Gospel ministry is not an offer of Christ, why are we even using the terminology of "free offer"?

I once had a non-WMO pastor tell me that the gospel is not an offer or invitation at all, but a command. I asked him then why he hung on to the phrase "free offer" if he did not believe it to actually be a well-meant invitation. He did not have an answer. But he was adamant that Christ was to be "proclaimed" and repentance was to be "commanded" but Christ was not to be "offered" as something that could be rejected or refused.

Semantically, most people (except those with a theological ax to grind) would consider an offer an invitation and not merely a command. And are we to suppose God's invitations are insincere? Does God offer something that he does not want us to take? No, the evangelist can tell the sinner that heaven rejoices for every sinner who repents!

Yes, evangelists go and proclaim and command, but they also offer and invite people to Christ.

2 Cor. 5:20: _Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God._

Sounds like an offer to me... and shockingly, When we plead with sinners, "be ye reconciled to God" it is as though GOD IS BESEECHING THE SINNER by us!

BESEECHING!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

John Duncan said it this way:
"Hyper-calvinism is all house and no door: Arminianism is all door and no house."

Just a Talker, pg. 6

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Pergamum said:


> If the Gospel ministry is not an offer of Christ, why are we even using the terminology of "free offer"?
> 
> I once had a non-WMO pastor tell me that the gospel is not an offer or invitation at all, but a command. I asked him then why he hung on to the phrase "free offer" if he did not believe it to actually be a well-meant invitation. He did not have an answer. But he was adamant that Christ was to be "proclaimed" and repentance was to be "commanded" but Christ was not to be "offered" as something that could be rejected or refused.
> 
> Semantically, most people (except those with a theological ax to grind) would consider an offer an invitation and not merely a command. And are we to suppose God's invitations are insincere? Does God offer something that he does not want us to take? No, the evangelist can tell the sinner that heaven rejoices for every sinner who repents!
> 
> Yes, evangelists go and proclaim and command, but they also offer and invite people to Christ.
> 
> 2 Cor. 5:20: _Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God._
> 
> Sounds like an offer to me... and shockingly, When we plead with sinners, "be ye reconciled to God" it is as though GOD IS BESEECHING THE SINNER by us!
> 
> BESEECHING!



It is an offer of Christ. The best illustration is what Christ used himself in John 3:14-15, Moses lifting up the bronze serpent. That serpent was the only appointed cure God provided for Israel's snakebites. They had to look to it and live or refuse and perish. And in the same way Christ is lifted up before the world by God as the only Savior of sinners. And we as the appointed messengers point all men to Christ as the only Savior, and state the plain fact, that in Christ alone is found full and free salvation. That fact is true whether you are elect or reprobate. If you have the Son you will have life. If you refuse him, you will perish. Christ is offered to all truthfully and sincerely by the messengers. But God also chooses how he will secretly deal with men. To some he chooses to deal with them as they are in their lost condition. To others he chooses to show mercy and grant regeneration. As the judge, he is free to deal with men as he sees fit. But that is not our business as the messengers to delve into God's secret work. We simply offer Christ out of love to our fellow man, and let the Spirit do the rest.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum

Puritan Sailor said:


> It is an offer of Christ. The best illustration is what Christ used himself in John 3:14-15, Moses lifting up the bronze serpent. That serpent was the only appointed cure God provided for Israel's snakebites. They had to look to it and live or refuse and perish. And in the same way Christ is lifted up before the world by God as the only Savior of sinners. And we as the appointed messengers point all men to Christ as the only Savior, and state the plain fact, that in Christ alone is found full and free salvation. That fact is true whether you are elect or reprobate. If you have the Son you will have life. If you refuse him, you will perish. Christ is offered to all truthfully and sincerely by the messengers. But God also chooses how he will secretly deal with men. To some he chooses to deal with them as they are in their lost condition. To others he chooses to show mercy and grant regeneration. As the judge, he is free to deal with men as he sees fit. But that is not our business as the messengers to delve into God's secret work. We simply offer Christ out of love to our fellow man, and let the Spirit do the rest.


You wrote:
"Christ is offered to all truthfully and sincerely by the messengers."

To be Godly is to be like God. Therefore, if the messengers are to offer the gospel in a sincere and well-meant manner and they are godly, we'd expect God's offers also to be sincere and well-meant as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Turretin is helpful on this question. It is important to distinguish between God's natural knowledge and knolwedge of decree from what He has prescribed for men. In part, the issue of whether or not God "really means" that all who come to Jesus will be saved can only be answered by us (creatures) not according to God's natural knowledge but by what He has revealed to us...

Turretin:



SECOND QUESTION: THE CALLING OF THE REPROBATE

Are the reprobate, who partake of external calling, called with the design and intention on God’s part that they should become partakers of salvation? And, this being denied, does it follow that God does not deal seriously with them, but hypocritically and falsely; or that he can be accused of any injustice? We deny


Statement of the question.

I. This question lies between us and the Lutherans, the Arminians and the patrons of universal grace, who (to support the universality of calling, at least as to the preaching of the gospel in the visible church) hold that as many as are called by the word are called by God with the intention of their salvation. For otherwise God would trifle with men and not deal seriously but hypocritically with them, offering them grace which, nevertheless, he is unwilling to bestow.
II. Now although we do not deny that the reprobate (who live in external communion with the church) are called by God through the gospel; still we do deny that they are called with the intention that they should be made actual partakers of salvation (which God knew would never be the case because in his decree he had ordained otherwise concerning them). Nor ought we on this account to think that God can be charged with hypocrisy or dissimulation, but that he always acts most seriously and sincerely.
III. To make this more distinct, we must remark: (1) the external call is extended to the reprobate as well as to the elect; but in a different manner—to the elect primarily and directly. For their sake alone the ministry of the gospel was instituted to collect the church and increase the mystical body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). They being taken out of the world, preaching would no longer be necessary because the word of God cannot return unto him void (Is. 55:11). But to the reprobate, it is extended secondarily and indirectly because, since they are mingled with the elect (known only to God, 2 Tim. 2:19), the call cannot be addressed to men indiscriminately without the reprobate as well as the elect sharing in it (in order that the end ordained by God may be obtained); as a fisherman in casting his net intends only to catch good fish, but indirectly closes in his net the bad also mixed with the good.
IV. (2) The end of calling can be considered in two ways: either on the part of God or on the part of the thing (which is called the end of the worker and the end of the work). Although each is conjoined in the elect, yet in others they are separated (as in the legal proclamation, the end of the thing is life by the law, but the end of God after man’s fall cannot be the happiness of man, which through sin has become impossible to him by the law; rather the conviction of man’s weakness and leading of him to Christ is the end of the law; so in the gospel call, the end of the thing is the salvation of man because by its nature it tends to the bringing of him to salvation by faith and repentance; but not at once with respect to all the called is it the end of God, but only of those to whom he decreed to give faith and salvation).
V. Further, that end on the part of God is either common to all the called or special with respect to the elect or the reprobate. And as to the common, we ought not to doubt that it is the demonstration of the mode and way of salvation and the promise of salvation to those who profess the prescribed condition. But the special with respect to the elect proceeds further (viz., to the actual bestowal of salvation upon those whom on that account he calls not only imperatively but also operatively; not only by prescribing duty, but by performing that very duty, working within us by his Spirit what he externally enjoins by his word). However with respect to the reprobate, his end is their conviction and inexcusability.
VI. Now as this calling springs from a threefold principle, so it obtains a threefold end. (1) It springs from the authority of a legislator who has the right to prescribe to man his duty. (2) It springs from the goodness and grace of a Lord who does not cease to bless the creature (although unworthy and guilty) by showing him the way of salvation and showering upon him various blessings. (3) It springs from the justice of a Judge who wishes to convict the stubborn and rebellious and to render them without excuse. Hence a threefold end flows. The first is the prescription of duty that he may know what God demands from him and what he owes to him (namely, to believe and repent). The second is the promise of blessing on the condition that he knows what God has determined to give to believers and penitents. The third is the detection of the wickedness of the heart (Lk. 2:35) and its inexcusability (Jn. 15:22), its stubbornness being supposed, so that both the man himself in his conscience and others may really know that the vengeance of God against that servant is just (who while he knows his master’s will and ought to do it, still neither does nor wishes to do it, Lk. 12:47).
VII. Hence it appears that the question does not (in general) concern the end of calling on the part of the thing (which we do not deny to be salvation); but on the part of God; not whether God wills to bestow any grace upon reprobates above those who are destitute of this blessing (such as the heathen and other infidels), but whether he intends to give saving grace or salvation to them and calls them with this purpose, that they may really become partakers of it (and if it happens otherwise, it is beyond God’s intention and accidentally). This our opponents maintain; we deny. Again, the question is not whether the event of external calling is the same with respect to all and whether all the called are affected in the same manner. For they, with whom we argue, confess that it is widely different and that those indeed who spurn the heavenly call (or do not proceed as far as saving repentance) are thus made inexcusable; that others, however, who obey, obey by the special grace of God (the power and efficacy of his Spirit turning their minds and souls to obedience—hence it appears that the salvation which they obtain was destined for them). Rather the question is whether the disparity of the event does not prove a disparity of intention in the caller. Or whether all are called with the intention and purpose that they should partake of salvation. This they assert; we deny.


Proof that God acts seriously in the calling of reprobates, although he does not intend their salvation.

VIII. The reasons are: (1) God cannot in calling intend the salvation of those whom he reprobated from eternity and from whom he decreed to withhold faith and other means leading to salvation. Otherwise he would intend what he knows is contrary to his own will and what he knew in eternity would never take place (and that it would not take place because he, who alone can, does not wish to do it). This everyone sees to be repugnant to the wisdom, goodness and power of God.
IX. (2) God does not intend faith in the reprobate; therefore neither does he intend salvation (which cannot be attained without faith). Now that he does not intend faith is gathered from the fact that he does not give it to them, nor did he decree to give it; nay, he determined to withhold it. It is of no avail to reply that God did not intend to produce it in the reprobate, but still he intends and wills that it should be possessed by them. That intention either respects the very futurition of the thing (in which sense God cannot be said to intend it because since it is not to be given to the reprobate, he would fail in his intention) or it respects only the will to give them this command (in which sense we do not deny that God intends this); but thus it is reduced under the approving and preceptive will of God (of which we do not treat here).
X. (3) Christ, in calling the reprobate Jews, testifies that he had as his proposed end their inexcusability (anapologian). It is said, “He came for judgment, that they which see might not see” (Jn. 9:39) (i.e., who profess that they see, still do not see and are more and more blinded). “If I had come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin” (Jn. 15:22). Nor ought it to be said that Christ does not speak of the intention of God calling, but concerning the event of the call for God might have a most holy intention to which nevertheless the event would not at all answer. Nothing can happen to God accidentally and beyond his intention. Hence such an event ought to be intended by God from eternity. What is added—that they had not had sin, if Christ had not come—must not be understood absolutely and simply, but relatively (to wit, as to a despised and rejected gospel not announced to them—as was the case on that account to be guilty of sins committed against the law).
XI. (4) They who are called with the intention of salvation are “called according to purpose” (kata prothesin) because that intention is the act of election and the effecting of the purpose (protheseōs). Now it is certain that no reprobates are called according to purpose (kata prothesin) because thus they would both love God (Rom. 8:28) and be necessarily justified and glorified—for whom he called, them he also justified, etc. (v. 30), which cannot be said of them.
XII. (5) Salvation according to the intention of God is promised to none others than those having the prescribed condition: such as are weary and heavy laden (Mt. 11:28), thirsty (Is. 55:1), believing and penitent (Acts 2:38). Since this cannot be said of the reprobate, it cannot equally be said that they are called by God with the intention that they should be saved.
XIII. (6) It can no more be said that God calls each and every man with the intention that they should be saved, than that they should be damned. For a conditioned promise includes the opposite threatening, so that every unbeliever will be condemned as every believer is to be saved. Therefore as it is absurd to say with respect to the elect that God calls them with the intention that they should be damned (since he had decreed to fulfill the condition in them), so it is no less absurd to say that he calls the reprobate with the intention that they should be saved (since God knew they would never have that condition; nay, he, who alone can give, has decreed to withhold it from them). It can no more be concluded that God wills all to be saved for the reason that he promises pardon of sin and salvation to all promiscuously (if they repent), than that he nills the salvation of all for the reason that he denounces a curse and death upon all (unless they repent and believe).


Sources of explanation.

XIV. Although God does not intend the salvation of the reprobate by calling them, still he acts most seriously and sincerely; nor can any hypocrisy and deception be charged against him—neither with respect to God himself (because he seriously and most truly shows them the only and most certain way of salvation, seriously exhorts them to follow it and most sincerely promises salvation to all those who do follow it [to wit, believers and penitents]; nor does he only promise, but actually bestows it according to his promise); nor as to men because the offer of salvation is not made to them absolutely, but under a condition and thus it posits nothing unless the condition is fulfilled, which is wanting on the part of man. Hence we cordially embrace what is said on this subject by the fathers of the Synod of Dort: “As many as are called through the gospel are seriously called. For God shows seriously and most truly in his word, what is pleasing to him, to wit, that the called should come to him. He also seriously promises to all who come to him and believe rest to their souls and eternal life” (“Tertium et Quartum: De Hominis Corruptione et Conversione,” 8 Acta Synodi Nationalis … Dordrechti [1619–20], 1:[302]).
XV. He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, if it is understood of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the will of decree and yet does not will it; or by the will of precept and yet does not will it). But if it refers to diverse wills, the reasoning does not equally hold good. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, there is no simulation or hypocrisy here (as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.
XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.
XVII. An absolute promise cannot be serious unless founded upon the will and intention of the promiser to give what is promised. But it is different with a conditioned promise. It suffices for the preservation of his sincerity that there be the intention in God to connect most certainly the thing promised with the condition, so that the latter nowhere occurs without the former attending it. Hence it happens that on account of this connection and dependence, the offer of salvation made to believers is most serious, for no one will have faith who will not most surely obtain salvation.
XVIII. The word of external calling ought to be the sign of some decree upon which it is founded; but not forthwith of a decree concerning the saving of individuals, but concerning the means and their connection with salvation. The foundation of calling in general (inasmuch as it is directed indiscriminately to men) is the decree concerning the collecting of a church by the word. The foundation of calling with respect to the elect is the special decree concerning the bestowal of the salvation acquired for them by Christ upon some certain persons. The foundation with respect to reprobates is the decree concerning the order and connection of the means of salvation and concerning the proposal and enjoining of these means upon men. Therefore the word of calling is the sign of that decree by which he made an indissoluble connection between faith and salvation (which because the word proposes, no simulation can be ascribed to God, since he proposes nothing which is not most true).
XIX. Since faith in Christ (which is prescribed to us in calling) is not prescribed to us as to all its acts together and at once, but by degrees and successively (and as to general and direct acts before the special and reflex acts; as to the acts of assent and refuge before the act of acquiescence in Christ as having died for me; nay, neither are these commanded except the antecedents being exercised), it is false to say that the promise of salvation with respect to us is made under a condition which cannot be fulfilled without falsehood. For that Christ is a true and perfect Savior of all flying to him seriously by faith and repentance (which is prescribed to be believed by men in the direct act of faith) can be believed without falsehood, even by those for whom Christ has not died.
XX. The promises and threatenings added to God’s commands express nothing more concerning the mind and intention of God than the commands themselves (which show what is his preceptive will, but not what is his decretive will—which ought properly to be called the will of God). Therefore as the Holy Spirit employs these towards the elect as motives suitable to the human mind to bring about their conversion, so in no other way does he will they should serve with those whom God does not intend to convert and actually to bring to salvation than partly to exhibit the necessary connection between faith and salvation, partly to render them inexcusable.
XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1–14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Lk. 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.
XXII. Although the intention of pastors who call ought to be conformed to the intention of God (by whom they are sent to call men) in this—that they are bound from the order of God to invite all their hearers promiscuously to repentance and faith as the only way of salvation; and that they ought to intend nothing else than the gathering of the church or the salvation of the elect (in bringing about which they are co-workers [synergoi] with God). Still in this they also differ—the omniscient God distinctly knows who are the elect among gospel hearers and who are the reprobate. The former alone he wills to save individually, not the latter. However, ministers (being destitute of such knowledge) do not know to whose salvation their ministry will contribute, not being able to distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, charitably hoping well for all, nor daring to decide concerning the reprobation of anyone. Thus they address all the called promiscuously and indiscriminately even by God’s appointment, still intending the salvation of no others than the elect (like God). Thus they do nothing in this ministry which does not answer both to the command and intention of God, although God (conscious of his decree) proceeds further than they and distinctly intends the conversion and salvation or the inexcusability of particular persons.
XXIII. The foundation of consolation is not weakened in the preaching of the gospel, although there is a certain diversity between the intention of God and that of the minister. However it suffices for its foundation that they agree in the general intention and primary object of gathering a church to God which he may sanctify and glorify and of calling all who repent and believe for that end to salvation. Now the diversity which occurs about the knowledge of individual reprobates or elect persons (whom God alone knows and not ministers) cannot overthrow consolation or furnish just cause of despair, no more than the particularity of election and the immutable decree of reprobation. For as the intention of God is not (the decree of reprobation being rescinded) to admit the reprobate by calling into communion with him; so neither ought that to be the intention of the ministers, who ought to intend properly the salvation of no others than the elect (although in accordance with charity, they can also wish for the salvation of others and to promote it as far as in them lies).
XXIV. It is one thing for God to indicate in his word (even to those who will not believe) that faith and repentance are the most sure and infallible means of obtaining salvation; another for God to make this internal declaration of his word with those who will not believe for this purpose—that they may actually believe and be saved. For if he seriously intended this end, he would add to the external preaching the internal power of the Spirit, without which it remains always inefficacious.
XXV. It is not indeed repugnant to the wisdom of God to will to command and to command actually what nevertheless he certainly knew would not be done by those whom he commanded. In such a command, he wills to unfold his right and man’s duty, no less than his own goodness and justice. But it is repugnant for God simply and absolutely to will and intend what nevertheless he not only knew would never happen, but even what he himself decreed should never happen.
XXVI. Although God offers the word to the reprobate for this end—that by their obstinacy they may be rendered inexcusable—he does not therefore offer it that they may reject it, for this is a sin which God neither intends nor does. Rather he offers it that the latent perversity of their hearts may be manifest (Lk. 2:35) and that by this rejection of the word (arising from man himself), he may have the occasion of displaying his justice in the infliction of punishment. Now although man could not receive the word without grace (which God does not will to bestow upon him), he must not therefore be considered as calling in order that he may reject him. Rejection does not follow of itself from the nature of calling, but accidentally from the depravity of the man himself. For although he could not receive the word without grace, still the rejection springs from no other source than his stubborn wickedness.
XXVII. Man does not cease to be inexcusable although he does what God intended because he does not do what God commanded; as Herod and Pontius Pilate are nonetheless inexcusable although they did nothing but what the hand of the counsel of God had decreed before to be done (Acts 4:28). The decree is not the rule of our actions, only the precept.
XXVIII. To render man inexcusable, it is sufficient to take away from him the pretext of ignorance, not however to take away inability. For man is accustomed to plead ignorance, but never inability. For man (such is his pride) always persuades himself that he can do what is prescribed and is sufficiently convinced that he sins through stubborn depravity when he fails in his duty. The pretext of ignorance certainly ought to be allowed because it excuses, provided it is not affected and voluntary. However it is not so with regard to impotency, when it is voluntary and brought on (epispastos). A man is not bound to know what is not revealed. But he is bound to perform even that which through sin he is made unable to do; and consequently it can be exacted from him.


Turretin, F. (1992–1997). Institutes of Elenctic Theology. (J. T. Dennison Jr., Ed., G. M. Giger, Trans.) (Vol. 2, pp. 504–510). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Also, I ought to note that what is above is what the Reformed typically note as the "free offer" of the Gospel. As noted by Turrerin above, Lutherans and Semi-Pelagians and other errorists insist that, in order for the Gospel to be offered freely, there needs to be an attendant "will" or "grace" in God that is also freely offered to all. Hence, the grace available to all is the same in their schema.

They don't think the preaching of the Gospel is free to all unless *we* know how God eternally "feels" about each individual. I think a lot of bad theology stems from assuming that whatever we know as creatures about something is how God thinks about that issue. Yet, God has decreed eternally, based on His natural knowledge, to effect the salvation of the elect. That means that He grants faith in the elect when the Gospel call is offered. This He does not do for the reprobate but that does not mean that the offer itself (as man understands it) is any less free.

It is as if we convince ourselves that, unless _I_ know the decree for this person, then I cannot freely offer the Gospel. That is the source of error. It is sufficient to know that God has offered salvation to all sinners by the Gospel for any who have faith. The offer is real and not duplicitous. God does supply the condition of faith for the elect but the reprobate are not _forced_ by God to reject the offer but reject the call by their own will.

Thus, I believe in this free offer and am liberal to preach to all people that all who put their trust in Christ will be saved.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

Rich, 

I think you meant reprobate instead of elect in this sentence.


Semper Fidelis said:


> This He does not do for the elect but that does not mean that the offer itself (as man understands it) is any less free.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Goodcheer68 said:


> Rich,
> 
> I think you meant reprobate instead of elect in this sentence.


Probably. I have a lot of typos because I don't see so good.


----------



## Pergamum

*Francis Turretin also wrote the following:*

XIX. Although God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign[the revealed will] and to nill it by the beneplacit will [of decree], yet there is no contradiction here. Besides the fact that the universal proposition is to be understood not so much of the singulars of the genera as of the genera of the singulars, the former will relates to the mere approbation of God and the command of duty, while the latter is concerned with its futurition and fulfillment. The former denotes what is pleasing to God and what He has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God Himself has decreed to do. But these two are not at variance: to will (i.e., to command man to believe) and to nill (i.e., to decree not to give him faith in order that he may believe).

_Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 1, Third Topic: The One and Triune God; Question 15, ‘May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose and pleasure, signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.’ p. 224

*He also then explains that this revealed will is not false or deceptive, but is according to the internal will of God, which loves his image:
*
_Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 1, Third Topic: The One and Triune God; Question 15, ‘May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose and pleasure, signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.’ p. 224

XX. The will of sign [the revealed will] which is set forth as extrinsic ought to correspond with some internal will in God that it may not be false and deceptive; but that internal will is not the decree concerning the gift of salvation to this or that one, but the decree concerning the command of faith and promise of salvation if the man does believe (which is founded both upon the connection established by God between faith and salvation and the internal disposition of God by which, as He loves Himself, He cannot but love his image wherever He sees it shining and is so much pleased with the faith and repentance of the creature as to grant it salvation).

_Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 1, Third Topic: The One and Triune God; Question 15, ‘May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose and pleasure, signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.’ p. 224

This is similar to the explanation given by RC Sproul in this short video clip: 




*Finally, Turretin affirms that God loves all of his creation, and then explains the distinctions of this love:*

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates Himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite Himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love:

the first, that by which He follows creatures, called “love of the creature” (_philoktisia_);

the second, that by which He embraces men, called “love of man” (_philoanthropia_);

the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called “the love of the elect” (_eklektophilia_).

For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (_aporroen_) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which He wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

_Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 1, Topic 3, Question 20, ‘The Goodness, Love, Grace, and Mercy of God; How do they differ from each other?’ p. 241.

[from Travis' site www.reformedbooksonline.com] 

---

*My comments on evangelism in light of Turretin:*

Therefore, (1) all evangelists can tell sinners that it is pleasing to God for them to repent, and (2) that God sincerely desires such a thing. 

Several non-free offer preachers I talked to have denied this. They told me, (A) "You cannot tell a sinner that God desires their salvation or is pleased to do it" and (B) "There is no manner in which you can tell the sinner that God loves them...God hates, and only hates the reprobate...He has no love for them at all." 

Several non-free offer pastors have further explained that: (C) while "you cannot tell an individual these things [but you can, however]...tell a large crowd these things because it is very likely that at least one of the elect is in there." [a real quote]. But with 7 billion people in the world and many of them surely not to be saved, this seems to be a dubious claim, since in a crowd of 100-200 it is possible that there is at least one elect person in that crowd, but we cannot know for sure, and we run into the same problems of telling an individual that God would be pleased with their salvation. 

---

We don't know what "feelings" God has about each sinner, nor is that expression even approrpriate, but we know that God has a kind will of disposition towards all of his creation, and that the call is sincere, and that the call does not go out to the reprobate to "fatten them up the sinner for slaughter." We are told "what is pleasing to God" and to assert that some things are pleasing to God is not to attribute feelings to him, but only to repeat what God has himself said in His Word. 

The crux of the issue for many non-free offer preachers is that they deny that there is any difference between God's Revealed Will and His Decretive Will. One non-free offer pastor told me, "There is no Revealed will or decretive will...there is only God's will...singular....and all of God's will - 100% - will be accomplished." When I quoted to him I Thess, "For this is the will of God, _even_ your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication..." he replied that he was sure then that none of those Thessalonians committed fornication then.

But most of the Reformed have affirmed that, though God may reveal something in His revealed will that is pleasing to him and that this is truly pleasing to him and not merely a show of it, and that God is said to want (sincerely, I would assume) the things He commands in Scripture, that not all of His decreed will, however, is ordained to come to pass. All that is in His Revealed will does not come to pass in his Decretive will. We must ask then: Is the will of sign (the revealed will of God) insincere then? No, it is not. It is sincere and springs from God's good will of disposition towards all His creation. But for greater purposes, God chooses to reveal some things that He chooses not to ordain to come to pass.


----------



## Pergamum

In short, the evangelistic methodology of some pastors who deny the free offer of the gospel tries to peer into the Decretive (Secret) will of God. Their methodology is limited by their focus on the secret will of God. Therefore many are hesitant to be generous in their inducements to come to Christ.

But we should go forth gladly according to the Revealed will of God and beseech sinners to come, just as if God were besseching them through us, Be ye Reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Pergamum said:


> *We don't know what "feelings" God has about each sinner, nor is that expression even approrpriate, but we know that God has a kind will of disposition towards all of his creation, and that the call is sincere, and that the call does not go out to the reprobate to "fatten them up the sinner for slaughter."* We are told "what is pleasing to God" and to assert that some things are pleasing to God is not to attribute feelings to him, but only to repeat what God has himself said in His Word.



We don't? I mean, we don't know if someone is elect or not, sure. But Psalm 11 clearly says that the Lord hates the wicked.

Also, I am not sure I agree with your statement about fattening up sinners for slaughter, either. God's call to repent is sincere - he is sincerely calling all to repent - *but that in no way means that he intends all to repent* - for if he intended for all to repent, they would repent. There is a definite purpose in preaching the gospel in all situations - for the elect, it is the means to bring them to salvation; _for the reprobate, it is a stumbling stone, a rock of offense, and a deliberate one at that._

Think about a crowd of 100 people - say 10 are elect - if a preacher preaches the gospel, God uses that for the good of those 10 (Romans 8:28) but to the other 90, it is foolishness, or a stumbling stone - they reject it, and they will be held accountable for that rejection - for those 90, God uses the preaching of the gospel as the means by which harden their hearts - and in fact, the more someone sits under the gospel preaching, and the more they reject, the severer their punishment (think of Jesus' pronouncement of woes against Chorazin and Bethsaida).

-------------------------------------------------------
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

*7 *Therefore, to you who believe, _He is_ precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

*8 *and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

*They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.*

----------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that we don't indiscriminately preach the gospel? No. For as Spurgeon said, we can't ask people to lift up their shirts and reveal the 'E' stamped on their back. So the gospel must be preached indiscriminately, and God will use it to his intended purpose - for the elect, that is salvation. For the reprobate, that is condemnation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> We don't? I mean, we don't know if someone is elect or not, sure. But Psalm 11 clearly says that the Lord hates the wicked.
> 
> Also, I am not sure I agree with your statement about fattening up sinners for slaughter, either. God's call to repent is sincere - he is sincerely calling all to repent - *but that in no way means that he intends all to repent* - for if he intended for all to repent, they would repent. There is a definite purpose in preaching the gospel in all situations - for the elect, it is the means to bring them to salvation; _for the reprobate, it is a stumbling stone, a rock of offense, and a deliberate one at that._
> 
> Think about a crowd of 100 people - say 10 are elect - if a preacher preaches the gospel, God uses that for the good of those 10 (Romans 8:28) but to the other 90, it is foolishness, or a stumbling stone - they reject it, and they will be held accountable for that rejection - for those 90, God uses the preaching of the gospel as the means by which harden their hearts - and in fact, the more someone sits under the gospel preaching, and the more they reject, the severer their punishment (think of Jesus' pronouncement of woes against Chorazin and Bethsaida).
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
> 
> “Behold, I lay in Zion
> A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
> And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
> 
> *7 *Therefore, to you who believe, _He is_ precious; but to those who are disobedient,
> 
> “The stone which the builders rejected
> Has become the chief cornerstone,”
> 
> *8 *and
> 
> “A stone of stumbling
> And a rock of offense.”
> 
> *They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.*
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Does this mean that we don't indiscriminately preach the gospel? [you]No.[/you] For as Spurgeon said, we can't ask people to lift up their shirts and reveal the 'E' stamped on their back. So the gospel must be preached indiscriminately, and God will use it to his intended purpose - for the elect, that is salvation. For the reprobate, that is condemnation.



This is straying from the narrow question asked by Jacob, but in the Turretin quote you will see that there is a creaturely love to be admitted. The answer is not simply that God either loves absolutely or hates absolutely everybody and it is as simple as that. Most theologians speak of a 3-fold love of God. He loves all of His creation, and all men, but loves his elect in a special way. And thus we affirm the concept of Common Grace; and this common grace is borne out of love rather than a desire to fatten the wicked for the slaughter (a good gift misused is still a good gift).

Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: ".._.God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is *pleasing *to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do._"

Therefore, an evangelist may say that it is pleasing to God for all who hear to be saved and that God truly wants it.


----------



## De Jager

Pergamum said:


> This is straying from the narrow question asked by Jacob, but in the Turretin quote you will see that there is a creaturely love to be admitted. The answer is not simply that God either loves absolutely or hates absolutely everybody and it is as simple as that. Most theologians speak of a 3-fold love of God. He loves all of His creation, and all men, but loves his elect in a special way. And thus we affirm the concept of Common Grace; and this common grace is borne out of love rather than a desire to fatten the wicked for the slaughter (a good gift misused is still a good gift).
> 
> Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: ".._.God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is *pleasing *to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do._"
> 
> Therefore, an evangelist may say that it is pleasing to God for all who hear to be saved and that God truly wants it.



I realize that I have strayed from the original post.

You quoted a lot of Turretin but not much of the scriptures (I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, just pointing something out)

I just want to push back a little bit - and ask this question: Is a gift good in and of itself? Is it not the disposition of the giver that matters? God sends rain on the just and the unjust - but is the rain on the unjust a sign of his love for them? Scripturally, how does one prove that?

Is it really gracious to let a person live a long life on this earth and yet not be saved? Does not such a person simply accrue more and more guilt every day they are alive? Jesus said "to whom much is given, much will be required", and we know that those who receive more revelation (and reject more revelation) will face stricter punishment. The punishment for Chorazin and Bethsaida will be greater than that of Sodom and Gomorrah - yet Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, yet God spared Chorazin and Bethsaida and let those people lead normal lives as far as we know - was it gracious for him to do so?

I am currently studying common grace and the various positions and find it pertinent to this topic.

God Bless,
Izaak

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Non-free offer Preacher: "Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a great feast prepared for all who will come!"
> 
> Atheist: "Does that mean God actually wants me to come."
> 
> Preacher: "Um...I'm not sure..."



I don't know of many atheists who would say that.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> To be Godly is to be like God. Therefore, if the messengers are to offer the gospel in a sincere and well-meant manner and they are godly, we'd expect God's offers also to be sincere and well-meant as well.



You have it backwards. Godliness proceeds from God, not the other way round.

There is nothing insincere about our holy God justly requiring all men to repent and believe on Jesus Christ.

Consequently there is nothing insincere about a preacher preaching to repent and believe on Jesus Christ.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

God is no respecter of persons. I’m actually offended by men who believe they have cornered the market in grace/salvation. 

I would hope we share the gospel with all hope and confidence in the power of God’s word.


----------



## Tom Hart

A.Joseph said:


> God is no respecter of persons. I’m actually offended by men who believe they have a corner on the market in grace and salvation. Talk about a god complex.....



What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## A.Joseph

Tom Hart said:


> What does that have to do with anything?



just a general statement against hyper Calvinism....


----------



## Tom Hart

A.Joseph said:


> just a general statement against hyper Calvinism



Pardon me, then. I thought you were suggesting someone had expressed such an idea here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Tom Hart said:


> Pardon me, then. I thought you were suggesting someone had expressed such an idea here.


Oh, no, no..,. Nothing of the kind.... sorry for the misunderstanding


----------



## Goodcheer68

A.Joseph said:


> Oh, no, no..,. Nothing of the kind.... sorry for the misunderstanding


Hyper Calvinism rejects the Free-offer, while its not Hyper to reject the supposedly Well-Meant offer. They are two different things whether some people conflate the two or not.


----------



## A.Joseph

Goodcheer68 said:


> Hyper Calvinism rejects the Free-offer, while its not Hyper to reject the supposedly Well-Meant offer. They are two different things whether some people conflate the two or not.


I don’t understand your distinction.... I think if we come to this from a cage stage perspective we are preoccupied with hidden things and decrees. If we let it play out in real time then the offer is free and well meant, no? From our finite perspective how could it be anything more? The power lies not in us but rather Word and Spirit. The offer is indiscriminate and well intentioned......that’s the Good News unto sinners.


----------



## De Jager

A.Joseph said:


> I don’t understand your distinction.... I think if we come to this from a cage stage perspective we are preoccupied with hidden things and decrees. If we let it play out in real time then the offer is free and well meant, no? From our finite perspective how could it be anything more?



No one should presume to know anything of God's secret decree.

In fact, it is BECAUSE the decree is secret that a minister can simply proclaim the gospel indiscriminately, beseeching the hearers to repent and believe. If the minister actually knew who was elect, he could start being discriminatory in his preaching.

What I do _not_ believe is that a minister can say "_God wants to save you!_ _Believe in him_!" I don't think that is really keeping in line with the thrust of the proclamation of the gospel found in scripture. It makes God seem to be at the mercy of the hearer's decision, which on the face of it, should raise some questions as to the validity of that approach. If it makes God look small and man look big, there might be something wrong with it.

What I do believe a minister can say is this: _"Believe in Christ and God will save you! That's guaranteed! Repent and trust in Christ today!_"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

De Jager said:


> No one should presume to know anything of God's secret decree.
> 
> In fact, it is BECAUSE the decree is secret that a minister can simply proclaim the gospel indiscriminately, beseeching the hearers to repent and believe. If the minister actually knew who was elect, he could start being discriminatory in his preaching.
> 
> What I do _not_ believe is that a minister can say "_God wants to save you!_ _Believe in him_!" I don't think that is really keeping in line with the thrust of the proclamation of the gospel found in scripture. It makes God seem to be at the mercy of the hearer's decision, which on the face of it, should raise some questions as to the validity of that approach. If it makes God look small and man look big, there might be something wrong with it.
> 
> What I do believe a minister can say is this: _"Believe in Christ and God [you]will[/you] save you! That's guaranteed! Repent and trust in Christ today!_"


Ok, I just read from Engelsma about the distinction, which is a theological and consistently Calvinistic one. I agree on that point as part of the Effectual Calling. So we are saying, how can the gospel offer be well meaning if it is not universal in intent? We know God does not intend, as per his hidden decree, that all will repent and be converted. Whereas the free offer has more to do with what has been revealed, a mandate for sinners to hear, repent, and be converted..... God does not desire that men would perish, but he does decree that it would be so as per the hardness of their hearts (they are at enmity with God)


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> I realize that I have strayed from the original post.
> 
> You quoted a lot of Turretin but not much of the scriptures (I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, just pointing something out)
> 
> I just want to push back a little bit - and ask this question: Is a gift good in and of itself? Is it not the disposition of the giver that matters? God sends rain on the just and the unjust - but is the rain on the unjust a sign of his love for them? Scripturally, how does one prove that?
> 
> Is it really gracious to let a person live a long life on this earth and yet not be saved? Does not such a person simply accrue more and more guilt every day they are alive? Jesus said "to whom much is given, much will be required", and we know that those who receive more revelation (and reject more revelation) will face stricter punishment. The punishment for Chorazin and Bethsaida will be greater than that of Sodom and Gomorrah - yet Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, yet God spared Chorazin and Bethsaida and let those people lead normal lives as far as we know - was it gracious for him to do so?
> 
> I am currently studying common grace and the various positions and find it pertinent to this topic.
> 
> God Bless,
> Izaak


This is straying from the narrow question asked by Jacob, but in the Turretin quote you will see that there is a creaturely love to be admitted.

The answer is not simply that God either loves absolutely or hates absolutely everybody and it is as simple as that. Most theologians speak of a 3-fold love of God. He loves all of His creation, and all men, but loves his elect in a special way.

And thus we affirm the concept of Common Grace; and this common grace is borne out of love rather than a desire to fatten the wicked for the slaughter (a good gift misused is still a good gift).

Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: ".._.God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is *pleasing *to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do._"

Therefore, an evangelist may say that it is pleasing to God for all who hear to be saved and that God truly wants it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Herald

We know that the Elect is a group of individuals predestined to eternal life by God the Father (Ephesians 1:3-4). Only God knows who is elect. We also know that the Gospel is the means of salvation (Romans 1:16). So, from our perspective, we can confidently proclaim the Gospel to all knowing that God will use it to call in His elect. From God's perspective, is it truly proclaimed freely to all, even the reprobate? It is one of the questions where we want to grit our teeth when answering. We have less problem with definite atonement (a term I prefer over limited atonement), but the Gospel is the core of our message to a lost world. After reading most of the commentators on this topic, I tend towards the belief that the sincere or free offer of the Gospel is not dependent on whether the hearer is elect. Perhaps it is a judgment on the reprobate that they will not believe? Just like my view on Amillennialism, I am holding on to this with a loose grip. I remain teachable.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: ".._.God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is *pleasing *to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do._"



I think this is the crux of the issue. The free offer is based on Revelation and not what we might wish to believe about God's "intention". God is not like man where we sort of learn things or evolve in our thinking. We can get in a lot of trouble trying to "reach backward" from what is revealed about God and trying to inquire into His natural knowledge as if we have any fruition there. 

God never reveals the fact that election and reprobation exist as categories to then permit us to inquire into his "emotional state" regarding this or that person when we're commanded to preach the Gospel to sinners.

The knowledge of election is given to us as a comfort but we turn it into an object of curiosity. The knowledge that reprobation exists is given to show us that God will one day demonstrate His justice but we think we're wise enough to determine things.

It is not so much that God has a "divided opinion" on something but His natural knowledgte and what He decrees will come to pass by that knowledge belong to Him alone. What He has revealed to us belongs to us that we might live by it. The only "will" we can live by is that which God has condescended, as a father talks to a baby, what His will is for us to live by. It is an analogy of His natural knowledge and not a "I now know exactly what its like to think as God does on this topic".

We need to be bound by what the Word reveals. Preach the Gospel to all men and let God be God.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## timfost

I think people on both sides often forget to make a proper archetypal/ectypal distinction. Scripture is absolutely clear that:

1. All things are decreed by God (Eph. 1:11)
2. God loves righteousness (Psalm 11:7)
3. God hates wickedness (Psalm 5:5, 11:5)

Does God decree that which He hates? Yes. Even what men use for evil God uses for good (Gen. 50:20). Does that translate to God loving the evil _itself_? No. Simply put, God's decree is good because it is the _means which He brings about the greatest good_.

With this in mind, we cannot derive from Scripture that God takes equal pleasure in every aspect of His decree. Rather, He is pleased that every aspect of His decree will bring about the greatest good.

Applying to the subject at hand, we cannot say that God is equally pleased with the _obedience_ of the elect in coming to faith in Christ as He is with the _rejection_ of Christ by the reprobate, though both are decreed. To illustrate the point, I think about my adopted children. Am I pleased that God would decree that their biological parents would fornicate and proceed to not properly care for their children? No. Am I pleased that they are now my children by adoption? Yes. I can hold these two seemingly contradictory views because I believe that though God decrees evil, he then uses it for good (Rom. 8:28). This is God's own witness about His own works! We know that God is displeased with the sin that brought my children into the world, though He is pleased that we exercise "pure and undefiled religion" in bringing these children in our family (James 1:27).

Sometimes those who reject the WMO do this on account that since a) God is pleased with his decree and b) He decrees the rejection of the gospel by the reprobate, then c) the offer cannot be well-meant. There are some basic flaws with this. 1. It assumes that God is equally pleased with every aspect of His decree. 2. It assumes that God can only be pleased, not displeased (and sometimes displeasure is equated with lack of control). 

If we make the argument that God can only be pleased, not displeased, we both deny God's own witness about Himself in the Word, and we channel an ectypal pleasure to the archetype. When we are pleased with something, that which pleased us is often out of our control. Likewise when we are displeased, the event is often out of our control. If we see God's pleasure/displeasure through the human lense, we also attribute our own limitations to God. Some have effectively explained this simply by attributing God's displeasure with anthropomorphic language. However, these same people often do not do the same with God's pleasure, only displeasure, arguing that God can only be pleased. The fact is, a proper evaluation should affirm the whole counsel of God and try its best to remove the imperfections of our own limitations when we weigh what God reveals about Himself.

Because God loves obedience, I am confident that the call to faith and repentance is well-meant (Ez. 18). Men are called "unfeinedly" (Dort 3&4, Art. 8). We can rightly say that insofar as God desires obedience and loves mercy, God desires them to obey (Jer. 36:3, 44:4, Lam. 3:33-36, Ezek. 3:6, 18-19, Hosea 6:4-6, 11:8, Zech. 1:3-4, Matt. 23:37, Luke 7:30). God has decree that the reprobate would not obey, but to then logically conclude that the offer was not well-meant does not account for all of the biblical data.


----------



## timfost

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think this is the crux of the issue. The free offer is based on Revelation and not what we might wish to believe about God's "intention". God is not like man where we sort of learn things or evolve in our thinking. We can get in a lot of trouble trying to "reach backward" from what is revealed about God and trying to inquire into His natural knowledge as if we have any fruition there.
> 
> God never reveals the fact that election and reprobation exist as categories to then permit us to inquire into his "emotional state" regarding this or that person when we're commanded to preach the Gospel to sinners.
> 
> The knowledge of election is given to us as a comfort but we turn it into an object of curiosity. The knowledge that reprobation exists is given to show us that God will one day demonstrate His justice but we think we're wise enough to determine things.
> 
> It is not so much that God has a "divided opinion" on something but His natural knowledgte and what He decrees will come to pass by that knowledge belong to Him alone. What He has revealed to us belongs to us that we might live by it. The only "will" we can live by is that which God has condescended, as a father talks to a baby, what His will is for us to live by. It is an analogy of His natural knowledge and not a "I now know exactly what its like to think as God does on this topic".
> 
> We need to be bound by what the Word reveals. Preach the Gospel to all men and let God be God.



Rich,

I really appreciate your concern to not try to understand God's "emotional state." I do hear what Perg is saying, though. I detailed some considerations in my last post. There are many passages (many of which I listed) that detail not simply a call to repent, but a desire on God's part that they do repent. I've heard too many of these passages glossed over as anthropomorphic and therefore don't teach us a positive truth about God's disposition. But we have to hold true that these passages teach us something about God, even if we cannot fully comprehend it. I'm not suggesting we just wrap it all in mystery as we should seek to understand it to the fullest possible extent, but I would also caution about neglecting these passages as those that don't really teach us about God's disposition toward the lost, since they are God's own self description.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh out the concern, as I believe that both you and Perg have a proper concern.


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Rich,
> 
> I really appreciate your concern to not try to understand God's "emotional state." I do hear what Perg is saying, though. I detailed some considerations in my last post. There are many passages (many of which I listed) that detail not simply a call to repent, but a desire on God's part that they do repent. I've heard too many of these passages glossed over as anthropomorphic and therefore don't teach us a positive truth about God's disposition. But we have to hold true that these passages teach us something about God, even if we cannot fully comprehend it. I'm not suggesting we just wrap it all in mystery as we should seek to understand it to the fullest possible extent, but I would also caution about neglecting these passages as those that don't really teach us about God's disposition toward the lost, since they are God's own self description.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh out the concern, as I believe that both you and Perg have a proper concern.


Tim and Rich,

Me and Rich might (maybe) be almost agreed. Both of us are appealing to God's revealed will. This seems to be keeping in line with Dordt. Rich keeps referring to "emotional states" within God, something I've never stated, but I think he would agree with me that God has "dispositions" which are pleasing to him. And we can know these dispositions from Scripture.

In God's Revealed Will He plainly tells us that His disposition is that He desires us to repent and believe. Not knowing God's Decretive Will, and assuming that God is not a liar, I believe that God is thus pleased to save and that when He tells us to "Come" that He is actually sincere in doing so.

After all, we cannot think of God being insincere in what He reveals, so why the problem with calling the offer a sincere one?

The crux of the issue is whether God can be said to desire (in any manner) that which He (for His higher purposes) chooses not to ordain to come to pass.

I affirm that YES, God is said to desire some things in Scripture that He chooses not to ordain. If I need to, I will prove it below in my next post.

God sometimes ordains in His Decretive Will to bring about some things that are said not to be pleasing to Him in His Revealed Will.

This is not to say God has two wills, but merely that we cannot see God's Decretive Will and must trust in His Revealed Will alone. And we trust that this Revealed Will is a trustworthy (i.e. sincere) guide to the true nature of God.

Therefore, when an evangelist tells a sinner, "God tells you to come. This means God wants you to come. It is a thing pleasing to God if you do come." Then this is perfectly Scriptural. We are beseeching the sinner, just as if God were beseeching the sinner through us, to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Pergamum said:


> I affirm that YES, God is said to desire some things in Scripture that He chooses not to ordain. If I need to, I will prove it below in my next post.


I listed many of the passages to which you may be referring in Post #34.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

We need to remember we are stuck in the realm of the ectypal and can never reach the world of Archetypal theology (theology as in the mind of God). BUT...the ecytpal is NOT a false portrait of the archetypal.

And therefore, the Revealed Will of God is a faithful guide to the disposition and nature of God. Therefore, if God says He is not pleased with the death of the sinner and loves all of His creation in at least some manner, We must believe this is a true description of God's nature.

To quote R. Scott Clark:

"According to Dort and both early orthodox theologians such as Olevianus and early Reformed dogmatic theologies such as the _Synopsis purioris_ and the high orthodox theologian Peter van Mastricht, the praxis of the free and sincere offer of the Gospel is not controlled by the knowledge of archetypal theology (e.g. the decree), but by _theologia ectypa_. In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us."

https://heidelblog.net/2013/12/the-reformed-tradition-on-the-free-or-well-meant-offer-of-the-gospel/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think the issue is what the Scriptures reveal about God's disposition to men as sinners with respect to the Gospel and we always want to change the equation to answer the question: "What is the relatiosnip of God towards the reprobate?"

I think the issue may seem subtle but one deals with what we can know about the revealed will of God for sinners and that HIs kindness and intention are seen toward sinners in the Gospel.. That's something that we, as creatures, can apprehend. We err when we start trying to draw some sort of line from that to the issue of election or reprobation and then start to speculate on whether God can seriously care about sinners if *He* knows that some are elect and some are reprobate. We then conclude that we know enough to say that the reason why _I_ should care about sinners is because I have some knowledge of how God feels about the reprobate and I then trace that back to my concern for sinners.

It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.

The hyper-Calvinist errs in thinking that he needs to withold the free offer bcause the "reprobate" might be present. The semi-Pelagian convicnces Himself that unless there is no category of election and reprobate then God can't reveal a free offer to sinners. Both think that we have to know the mind of God for the free offer to be true.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the issue is what the Scriptures reveal about God's disposition to men as sinners with respect to the Gospel and we always want to change the equation to answer the question: "What is the relatiosnip of God towards the reprobate?"
> 
> I think the issue may seem subtle but one deals with what we can know about the revealed will of God for sinners and that HIs kindness and intention are seen toward sinners in the Gospel.. That's something that we, as creatures, can apprehend. We err when we start trying to draw some sort of line from that to the issue of election or reprobation and then start to speculate on whether God can seriously care about sinners if *Hew* knows that some arelect and some are reprobate. We then conclude that we know enough to say that the reason why _I_ should care about sinners is because I have some knowledge of how God feels about the reprobate and I then trace that back to my concern for sinners.
> 
> It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.
> 
> The hyper-Calvinist errs in thinking that he needs to withold the free offer bcause the "reprobate" might be present. The semi-Pelagian convicnces Himself that unless God sees all sinners the same (and the way He does) that it's not possible to offer the Gospel freely.



Yes, both the Hyper-Calvinist and the Semi-Pelagian both err. 

However, if I read the verse: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?" I have to believe that God, in fact, actually prefers that the wicked turn from His ways and live. 

That is what His Revealed Will says, after all. God tells me he has a preference. I believe, therefore, that He has a preference.

I've heard several High Calvinists state that God has no such preference, because He wills some to go to heaven and some to go to hell (and therefore, He must prefer some to NOT turn rather than to turn). He desires and only desires their damnation and has absolute hatred for them. These deny that God may be said to be pleased by anything but that which He has decretively willed. I believe they rationalize the texts to avoid the paradoxical nature of God. God is said to be pleased by some things that He chooses not to ordain to come to pass and the High Calvinist does not like this and wants a way out of this paradox. But my job is not to rationalize texts away, but to only follow the text where it leads. 

We cannot know whether God has elected or will reprobate a sinner in His Decretive Will. But His Revealed Will tells us His preference. Therefore, I want to stick to His Revealed Will and tell the sinner that God prefers that He turns and lives.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Yes, both the Hyper-Calvinist and the Semi-Pelagian both err.
> 
> However, if I read the verse: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?" I have to believe that God, in fact, actually prefers that the wicked turn from His ways and live.
> 
> That is what His Revealed Will says, after all. God tells me he has a preference. I believe, therefore, that He has a preference.
> 
> I've heard several High Calvinists state that God has no such preference, because He wills some to go to heaven and some to go to hell (and therefore, He must prefer some to NOT turn rather than to turn). He desires and only desires their damnation and has absolute hatred for them. These deny that God may be said to be pleased by anything but that which He has decretively willed. I believe they rationalize the texts to avoid the paradoxical nature of God. God is said to be pleased by some things that He chooses not to ordain to come to pass and the High Calvinist does not like this and wants a way out of this paradox. But my job is not to rationalize texts away, but to only follow the text where it leads.
> 
> We cannot know whether God has elected or will reprobate a sinner in His Decretive Will. But His Revealed Will tells us His preference. Therefore, I want to stick to His Revealed Will and tell the sinner that God prefers that He turns and lives.


Keep in mind that some have historically made the objection that God could never "will" evil in His decree that good may come. In other words, He could not both will the Christ should die by the hands of the wicked and will the prohibition of murder.

The resolution to the apparent problem is the same. It's not to be found in treating God as a creature and assuming we have a solution that meets our standards.

I agree that Scripture reveals that God takes no delight in the wicked. The sinner qua sinner needs to hear and understand that. No equivocation. It's inappropriate at that moment for he or the pracher to start thinking about "well, what if I'm reprobate".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Semper Fidelis said:


> It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.



I think Perg has a good point here. A Christian is called a _Christian_ because they imitate Christ. Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Is our disposition toward the lost godly? Yes (Col. 1:28-29). If our desire is good, doesn't it then come from God Himself, the source of good? If we _work_ this righteousness, isn't it because Christ merited it for us through His life? Is He not the image of the invisible God? Don't we love our enemies as those emulating God (Matt. 5)? I would argue that our desire for the salvation of "every man" is only good because it proceeds from God Himself.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Keep in mind that some have historically made the objection that God could never "will" evil in His decree that good may come. In other words, He could not both will the Christ should die by the hands of the wicked and will the prohibition of murder.
> 
> The resolution to the apparent problem is the same. It's not to be found in treating God as a creature and assuming we have a solution that meets our standards.
> 
> I agree that Scripture reveals that God takes no delight in the wicked. The sinner qua sinner needs to hear and understand that. No equivocation. It's inappropriate at that moment for he or the pracher to start thinking about "well, what if I'm reprobate".


I think I agree with you fully here, perhaps. 

Here is a good article by R Scott Clark which says almost the same things as you say: https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...e-atonement-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

"Ironically, the Remonstrants and that small, noisy minority among the Reformed who deny the free or well-meant offer of the gospel ultimately agree. Both reject the distinction between the way God knows theology and the way we do. On this see “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., _The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple_ (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–80. What we do know is that when a person is given new life and true faith, that person is one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died. We know it after the fact (_a posteriori_)."

And:

"The gospel is to be offered freely, sincerely, to all. It is not ours to guess who is or is not elect. That is not our business. Ours is to offer Christ and free salvation to all in the confidence that God the Spirit sovereignly and mysteriously uses that offer to draw his elect to himself. We call “all men” and “every man” to repent (acknowledge the greatness of one’s sin and misery) and to believe, to trust in Christ and in his finished work. That good news is to be “published” to all nations “without distinction.” The gospel is not merely for some but for all. Christ must be offered freely and sincerely wherever God, “in his good pleasure” sends it."

And his conclusion:

"We need not choose between definite atonement and the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. We rejoice in both."


----------



## Smeagol

This discussion reminded me of how simply the WLC speaks to at least some of the angles here expressed. WLC # 61-69 speak to some of this.

1 example:

WLC # 68:
Q. 68. _Are the elect only effectually called?_
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt *of the grace offered to them*, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.


----------



## De Jager

Can a minister say this:

"God loves you and desires that you be saved"?


----------



## timfost

De Jager said:


> Can a minister say this:
> 
> "God loves you and desires that you be saved"?



Theologically, I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement. God gave His Son to the world in love to offer salvation to all (John 3:16-18). However, the passage teaches us the way in which God loves the world, not that He is unfulfilled until the sinner accepts the invitation.

We should avoid language like "God loves you and wants to save you but cannot do so without your permission." If we stick to biblical examples and that which is derived from scripture, we can't go wrong.


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> Can a minister say this:
> 
> "God loves you and desires that you be saved"?



Yes. You could. But should you? In most cases, I would answer no. 

Yes, God is pleased and prefers that sinners turn to him, that much is in his revealed will. Yes, God has a general beneficent love towards all of His creatures and especially men, whom are made after His image (the 3-fold love of God). God's disposition is that He is pleased to save sinners and desires it.

And Yes, telling God's dispositions and preferences is not the same as speaking of God's Decretive Will towards that person (which we cannot know anyway). For instance, the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that, "this is the will of God, _even_ your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" and I need not believe that all the Thessalonians continually stayed 100% free from all sexual sin after that point. 

But in many cases, NO, you should not tell sinners that God loves them, especially if you lead with that, and especially if they are not willing to repent. 

Telling all people indiscriminately that God loves them no matter that sinner's willingness to turn may lead them to belittle their sin or believe God's mercy is inexhaustible. But God's patience will run out for many sinners and He will end their lives. Because God does not love all people in the same manner. 

Yes, God loves all of his creatures and desires their good. But God also hates the sinner as well. 

His general beneficence is there, yes, but his judgment is upon them as well. Therefore, many reformed preachers urge us not to stress the love of God part, but say that it is better to stress the part about the sinner being under the wrath and curse of God. We show the need for Christ and the appropriateness of wrath and only in THAT context do we reveal the love of God in Christ to sinners.

I believe it does the entrenched sinner more good to focus upon their sinfulness. However, if there is a doubting sinner who cannot believe that God would recieve or love them, in that case I believe you can tell that sinner that, yes, God does, indeed, care for you and will take pleasure in your salvation and sincerely desires it.

Some might say I am being contradictory because I believe we MAY say that God desires the salvation of all who hear, but in most cases I then say we SHOULDN'T (at least until the context of sinfulness is laid). Some others might also say I am being contradictory in that I say God both loves and hates the sinner at the same time (having a general beneficence and common love towards all even while putting the sinner under his judicial hatred). But even earthly examples may show us how we may possess both general love and judicial hatred in the same breast at the same time. For instance, (1) a judge may love the criminal and delight in His duty well done, but yet grieve the judgment rendered and hate it for the person who is judged, and (2) a FBI sniper may both delight in a job well done in shooting a villain to free hostages, and yet not delight in the death of the villain. 

Some may also fault me for my inability to give a simple answer. But I don't believe a simple answer here can be given. A "sound-bite" that is strongly worded would attract more applause, bit this is an extremely nuanced doctrine.


----------



## De Jager

timfost said:


> Theologically, I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement. God gave His Son to the world in love to offer salvation to all (John 3:16-18).
> 
> We should avoid language like "God loves you and wants to save you but cannot do so without your permission." If we stick to biblical examples and that which is derived from scripture, we can't go wrong.



Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:

John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.

I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

De Jager said:


> Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:
> 
> John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.
> 
> I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".



The gospel is suitable to all and is to be proclaimed to all. Not all will hear as you said. However, natural revelation also in some ways calls all to faith and repentance, though it is not revealed to them that there is pardon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:
> 
> John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.
> 
> I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".


I believe John 3:16 is instructive in how we view God's disposition and general beneficence towards all the world. In that passage I really believe it is the world as a whole that is in view. God loves mankind so much He sent His Son. 

The baptist Erroll Hulse writes:

"By selective use of Reformed Confessions it is possible to claim to be reformed but at the same time hide the fact that you are a hyper-Calvinist. *The hyper-Calvinist denies that God loves all mankind* and that the gospel is good news to be declared to all without exception. *That is the very essence of hyper-Calvinism*. Calvin, the great organiser of the evangelisation of France, writes on John 3:16: 'For although there is nothing in the world deserving God's favour, he nevertheless shows he is favourable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ.' 

Rev. H Hoeksema, in a booklet entitled The Gospel, denies that the gospel can be offered since fallen man is unable to repent. Hoeksema says that the promise of the gospel is not given to all but only to the seed of Abraham (that is, to the elect). 

It is typical of hyper-Calvinism to rationalise. By rationalising I mean that the hyper takes the doctrine of total depravity and reasons that because man's will is crippled by the fall it is futile to offer the gospel. Moreover it cannot be sincere of God to offer the gospel to all if he does not intend to save all. In other words this rationalisation effectively emasculates the gospel so that it is not good news for the sinner at all. 

It is impossible for the hyper to proclaim the love of God for sinners. What he can proclaim is that out there in the world are God's elect and God loves them but he hates the rest! That is hardly good news! 

The good news is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life. Rightly did Calvin understand that it is this fallen, perishing world that God loved. 

The gospel that came to me as a sinner was the gospel of God's love, that he loved me and found no pleasure that I should perish in hell. The good news was conditional. To be saved I had to repent and believe on Christ. That I had to do my very self. But in the event I could not because of my slavery to sin, yet I knew that to be saved I would have to repent and believe. There was only one thing to do and that was to look to Christ to do for me, and in me, what I could not do myself. When I looked to him in my hopeless state he saved me. Hallelujah! It was the love of God for lost sinners that drew me. It was the love of God that held before me Christ, crucified on the cross for me. The exact order of John chapter three applied: God's love for sinners and God's love expressed in the cross for sinners. 

This is the love of God that we must take to all without exception. The conditions must be set before all sinners that to be saved they must repent and believe. If they discover the enormity of their sinful depravity then let them not despair. Point them to Christ. Do what the Methodist preacher did to the young Spurgeon when he exhorted him personally from the text from Isaiah" 'Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other' (Is 45:22)."


----------



## A.Joseph

De Jager said:


> Can a minister say this:
> 
> "God loves you and desires that you be saved"?


Whenever this topic comes up my theological side says that goes a bit too far, is a misrepresentation of gospel truth and ultimately may not be effective, especially if there is nothing more said/elaborated upon.... however, I also can’t help but think of the Cross & the Switchblade and see no greater message for a place and time such as that....






But ultimately I think it best to present Christ as savior from sin.... me thinks, love and charity is inherently applied to this proper presentation anyway without dropping a personalized/individualistic ‘L’ word. I think the message is a general truth, an offer to all sinners and this message comes with power; however, it is in the response (and it may take many attempts) that we see the personal love of the spirit of God at work in the heart of the believer.

I remember watching something on Billy Graham where Bill Clinton said something very ‘positive’ about him in that he didn’t make him feel guilty or judged.... well, maybe that was part of the problem


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timfost said:


> I think Perg has a good point here. A Christian is called a _Christian_ because they imitate Christ. Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Is our disposition toward the lost godly? Yes (Col. 1:28-29). If our desire is good, doesn't it then come from God Himself, the source of good? If we _work_ this righteousness, isn't it because Christ merited it for us through His life? Is He not the image of the invisible God? Don't we love our enemies as those emulating God (Matt. 5)? I would argue that our desire for the salvation of "every man" is only good because it proceeds from God Himself.


Yes, we have a disposition to the lost as _sinners_. Am I correct in inferring that you think our disposition toward sinners is somehow based on an issue of whether or not they are reprobate? That seems to be the assumption you keep importing: that the basis for compassion for the lost and sinners is based (somehow) on some answer to how "genuine" that can be if we suspect there might be some reprobate among the lost. The term "lost" or "sinner" is not coextensive with the idea of reprobation and that's what I keep seeing imported here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor

De Jager said:


> Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:
> 
> John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.
> 
> I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".



It is better to read John 3:16 in light of what Jesus said immediately before it, comparing himself to the bronze serpent. The bronze serpent was lifted up before all Israel, though the word would certainly need to be spread by messengers to let the huge camp of people know that fact. The same can be said with Jesus being lifted up and given to the world. The offer is made to all. The reason many perish without hearing is that no messengers have made it there yet to announce the good news that is available to them. Yes, we could look back into the decree and reason that God decreed the ignorant not be saved in his providence, but that is not the guide for our conduct. Their lost state should motivate us to go to the nations and spread the word so that some are saved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> I think I agree with you fully here, perhaps.
> 
> Here is a good article by R Scott Clark which says almost the same things as you say: https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...e-atonement-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/
> 
> "Ironically, the Remonstrants and that small, noisy minority among the Reformed who deny the free or well-meant offer of the gospel ultimately agree. Both reject the distinction between the way God knows theology and the way we do. On this see “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., _The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple_ (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–80. What we do know is that when a person is given new life and true faith, that person is one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died. We know it after the fact (_a posteriori_)."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The gospel is to be offered freely, sincerely, to all. It is not ours to guess who is or is not elect. That is not our business. Ours is to offer Christ and free salvation to all in the confidence that God the Spirit sovereignly and mysteriously uses that offer to draw his elect to himself. We call “all men” and “every man” to repent (acknowledge the greatness of one’s sin and misery) and to believe, to trust in Christ and in his finished work. That good news is to be “published” to all nations “without distinction.” The gospel is not merely for some but for all. Christ must be offered freely and sincerely wherever God, “in his good pleasure” sends it."
> 
> And his conclusion:
> 
> "We need not choose between definite atonement and the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. We rejoice in both."


I agree with what you quoted but it just depends upon what is meant by "well-meant". 

I think that when we restrict our understanding of the Gospel as offered to sinners then we're good. We, as creatures, ought to be confident in the idea that God's revealed will to sinners is that they repent of their sins and receive Christ by faith. We should never fail to proclaim that command.

Taht's a free offer. It is, as God revealed it, true that (as we are offering the Gospel): God takes no delight in the wicked but desires repentance and faith in His Son as He is freely offered in the Gospel.

Where the problem arises is when we start trying to ask the question: "Well, how "sincere" or "well meant" can that free offer be unless I stop and start thinking about the fact: "What if the reprobate are here?"

As Revelation goes, it's a question we're never commanded to ask. In fact, it's against the prohibition to peer into things hidden.

We don't heed this and so we start to speculate that the offer of salvation cannot be truly "well-meant" unless God has some sort of "concern" for people not as they are considered sinnners but as they are considered reprobate and so we try to come up with some sort of solution.

The semi-Pelagian finds evil in God as he looks at it and concludes that God could never be so unjust as to offer salvation to people who, by the Fall, have disposed themselves incapable of responding. They'll go to impious lengths to demonstrate that God's offer is not "free" or "well meant" because some people are spritually dead. So they not only try to get God "off the hook" for this "unrighteous" act (as they see it) but they then conceive of election as us disposing ourselves to eternal life by cooperating with a freely spread grace that is offered to all.

Maybe a person doesn't go that far and wants to conclude that he still believes in election and reprobation but he's still convinced that there's just something "not right" about it being a "real" and "genuine" offer unless God, in His decree, somehow meets some sort of sense that we would find acceptable toward the reprobate. It's sort of like: "I just can't see this to be a free offer unless God has this natural knowledge about the reprobate in the decree. As long as He fulfills that condition of "concern" then I'll feel OK in my mind that this is a real, no-kidding, free offer of salvation. Not the "sort of" free offer because God has to somehow think about this in a certain way.

I'm just trying to teaase this out because I think we ought to just be comfortable with what is revealed about God's disposition to sinners. If you really start speculating about why God decreed this or that you're always going to find some point at which you wonder: "Huh, that just doesn't seem right..." if we're judgin it by man's standards. The kids at the youth group I hosted admitted they found the whole election and reprobation thing to just be unfair. They also wondered: Why does God impute Adam's sin to me?

We kid ourselves that we have answers to those questions. Some decided they just can't stomach what the Scriptures decalre on this subject and make free will into an idol to which even God Himself must bow.

I don't see how any schema that tries to speculate beyond God's free offer to sinners _as sinners_ makes the offer any more free or sincere than what we know from Revelation. We don't need to speculate at all about the "what if they're reprobate, how can that be a 'well-mean' free offer?" I'm satisfied with the fact that God reveals His compassion for sinners and it never occus to me to start looking out at the Church gathered and see any as "potentially reprobate so this may not be a free offer to you..."


----------



## Goodcheer68

Some keep conflating the free offer with the well meant offer. The quote below is from Matthew Winzer. I think it answers quite forcefully that the well meant offer is fictitious. Its all good but I bolded certain parts that I think are excellent.


“How does this so-called "well-meant offer" persuade any one that what God desires has any bearing on his own salvation? If God desires the salvation of all, and all are not saved, it is obvious that this "desire" is no warrant for, or object of, saving faith.

The gospel call reveals that God desires the salvation of all who believe. This gives suitable and sufficient warrant to believe, and a sure persuasion that the believer shall be saved.

What is the chaff to the wheat? The gospel was never designed to save a reprobate person because a reprobate person is one who by definition will continue in unbelief. It is foolish to redesign the gospel so as to make it fit the condition of one who will never believe it.

Those who continue in unbelief will suffer the righteous vengeance of God. The gospel reveals this. So-called well-meant offer advocates ignore the plain facts of revelation. *If the offer of salvation implies that God desires the salvation of all men, what does the threatening of judgment imply? If they were honest they would have to say that God desires the damnation of all men; and their honesty would demonstrate that their universalist "desire" is not sincere and serious afterall. Their use of the term "well-meant" is meaningless*.

*The gospel of a non-saving love of God for the reprobate is a fiction of man's own creating. When so-called Calvinists affirm this doctrine they end up with two wills of God, two gospels, two Christs. They know not what they affirm.*

*A genuinely sincere, serious offer of salvation is maintained when it is proclaimed that God offers salvation to sinners as sinners INDEFINITELY.* It is the office of faith to appropriate the promises of the gospel by laying hold of them for oneself; and the promises are only sealed where faith is exercised.”


----------



## A.Joseph

On a somewhat related note...

Q. “How many wills does Christ have?”

A. “Only a two-willed Christ could save; and to understand why, they needed a firm grasp of the development of theological arguments over time.”

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...ent-of-doctrine-some-thoughts-on#.XEoYW6ROmEc


----------



## timfost

Semper Fidelis said:


> Yes, we have a disposition to the lost as _sinners_. Am I correct in inferring that you think our disposition toward sinners is somehow based on an issue of whether or not they are reprobate? That seems to be the assumption you keep importing: that the basis for compassion for the lost and sinners is based (somehow) on some answer to how "genuine" that can be if we suspect there might be some reprobate among the lost. The term "lost" or "sinner" is not coextensive with the idea of reprobation and that's what I keep seeing imported here.



No. I am saying that our concern for all of the lost is because God has the same disposition towards all the lost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the hang-up is that you've introduced reprobation into the equation. Is this assessment incorrect?

Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## Pergamum

If we are to beseech sinners as if God were beseeching them through us and we are called his ambassadors and representatives in this task (2 Cor 5:20), then we rightly mirrior God's own dispositions when we genuinely desire the salvation of all who hear...

...unless we are more sincere than God in our offers of salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

A person who invites one to attend their feast is assumed to desire the presence of that one at the feast. Sure, it is possible for human hosts to be insincere in their invitations, but we should not assume this of God, who seems to call sinners to come quite ardently. If the invitation of the gospel cannot be called sincere and well-meant, then what can we call it? We then have an insincere call. A charade. And proper messengers of the King, when they go out and preach this invitation can honestly say, "The King desires your presence at the feast."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timfost said:


> No. I am saying that our concern for all of the lost is because God has the same disposition towards all the lost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the hang-up is that you've introduced reprobation into the equation. Is this assessment incorrect?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying!


I inferred that you saw "the wicked" or "the lost" or "sinners" as some need to coinser that class.

You see what I've been trying to note is that God's revealed will, as sinners hear the Gospel, is that He bids sinners to believe. As I look out and see sinners I can honestly and sincerely let them know that the Gospel is offered to them. Believe on Christ.

What you are saying is that God has the same disposition toward all the lost and that is our basis for our concern for the lost.

I believe the idea that God bids sinners to come to Christ and ought not doubt that He can save them can be sustained by revealed theology while the idea that God has the same disposition toward all the lost cannot be demonstrated and can't be the basis for our own concern for the lost.

Romans 8-9 and John 6 make plain that there are those whom He foreknew (loved) and, as sinners ourselves, I hope you actually don't believe that God has the exact same disposition to you as He does to those who are not "in Christ". The Son clearly has a Bride and our very confidence is that God is for us (we who are still corrupt united to His Son).

But that knowledge is not a basis for any creature to consider the lost according to the way God may conceive of them by HIs natural knowledge. As far as we're concerned, they're lsot and God has a real, genuined offer of salvation for all who believe upon His Son. Whether God, in His hidden decree may not grant the condition of faith is of no consequence to us or our motivation. Even if we don't see faith exercised we don't have any warrant but to be patient and long suffering toward all hoping that God may grant them repentance. Our "hope" or "concern" for people isn't that God has some sort of undifferentiated love for all but that He is strong to save and we know that those Whom He calls He justifies and glorifies.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## py3ak

Perhaps Vos will help (_Reformed Dogmatics, _3:145-148, emphasis added):

_64. To what do the opponents of particular satisfaction appeal?_

Mainly to three things:

a) To the universal offer of the gospel, concerning which all agree.
b) To a series of Scriptural passages that speak of bearing the sins of the entire world and of dying for all.
c) To some passages that make mention of a death of those for whom Christ has already died.

_65. How should the first of these (the universal offer of the gospel) be judged?_

The objection is that the presentation of the gospel becomes a meaningless form for those who do not share in the satisfaction of Christ. If we look more closely, this general objection involves three specific objections that are usually not sharply distinguished from each other, yet are essentially different.

a) It is irreconcilable with the truthfulness of God that He would offer the gospel and the merits of Christ in it to those for whom He Himself did not intend them. God would thereby give the impression that He wills to do something that in fact He does not will.
b) On our position, ministers of the gospel, one thinks, lose the right to direct a general invitation to people.
c) The hearers of the gospel could not have confidence to rely on the suretyship and the satisfaction of Christ as long as they have not received infallible assurance that they personally belong to the elect. My confidence in believing can only rest on the fact that Christ has suffered for me. If He has not suffered for all, then I will first need to know whether I belong among those for whom He has surely suffered before I can have solid ground under me.

_66. What may be said to counter the first form of this objection?_

a) That the offer of the gospel is not and does not present itself to be a revelation of God’s secret will or of the will of His decree. If this were so, a contradiction would in fact exist that would detract from God’s love of truth. If the following had to be concluded: God has the firm intention to bring them personally to salvation and now it depends on A or B whether you will meet God’s purpose or disappoint Him—if this was the content of the gospel—then particular election and satisfaction would indeed be excluded. This, however, is not the content of our gospel or of the gospel of Scripture. This gospel does not express itself concerning the secret will of God but speaks of His revealed will. We understand this revealed will to include the command of God that comes to man and in each particular instance is determined by the specific relationship of man to God. Now, there is no doubt that it is the obligation of man to accept the possibility of redemption that is offered to him in the gospel, hopefully and gratefully. God can make that demand, and the gospel comes with that demand to all men.
* b) That the content of the gospel, as it is presented to all without distinction, is a declaration of the will of God that A and B, etc., may personally be saved, but that still in this regard should always be considered a conditional will. It is not only that we are not dealing with God’s secret will; we are also dealing with His revealed will under a specific condition. In God there is no unsatisfied desire that has silence imposed on it by His secret will. The desire of God can be understood as follows: If you believed, then the good pleasure of God would rest upon this act of faith. This conditional character is thus always to be kept in view and kept in the foreground.*
c) It is true that in the sense just described the gospel comes to many for whom Christ has not died. But at the same time it is true that these are precisely those who willfully despise the sacrifice of Christ. It may never be portrayed as if countless sinners who, eager for salvation, are seeking a ransom [and] now have to be dismissed with the explanation, “This ransom was not meant for you.” In doing that, one would be entertaining purely abstract possibilities that under the present circumstances could never become reality. The truth is that not a single instance of this kind can occur. God’s ordaining is such that all those for whom Christ in His purposing has not died are precisely the same as those who reject Christ by their unbelief. Even if satisfaction were universal, this can make no difference regarding their personal attitude toward it. In reality, they would no more share in it then than now.
d) As noted above, the gospel is intended to deprive man of every excuse and to place the magnitude of his corruption in the clearest light. That is why God does not let the gospel be proclaimed only to the elect but also brings it indiscriminately to all men (as far as it in fact reaches them and, in principle, as far as we can bring it to them). Now a sifting takes place. But now, too, sin in its inner essence comes to full flowering because it becomes unbelief in the face of grace. It belongs to God’s righteousness toward sin that it will also reveal its true character to sinners themselves. The preaching of the gospel contributes to this. This came out most clearly at the time of the appearance of the Mediator on earth in the flesh. Unbelief reacted against Him, the incarnation of grace, in the most decisive way. Naturally, aggravation of guilt is inseparable from this reaction of sin and its related development. However, no one can dispute God’s right to bring man into contact with the gospel, even if by that his judgment becomes more severe. Whoever disputes this right takes an Arminian standpoint and tacitly assumes that God owed satisfaction to man. It is the obligation of man to accept in faith everything that God presents to him. And once this obligation is present, God cannot act unjustly when He punishes the failure to meet this obligation, regardless of whether man is able to fulfill his duty.
e) Preaching has as its goal to call everyone it reaches: “If you will, take freely from the water of life” [Rev 22:17]; and “If you come, He will by no means cast you out” [John 6:37]. But it has neither the calling nor the right to make of this “willing” something other than Scripture means by it. It is not to be presented in a Methodistic manner as a sudden, uncaused act of will, a kind of experiment that can be independent of all antecedent conditions. The willing to which Scripture alludes is the willing of faith, of saving faith, the deepest act a person can do, in which his entire being shares and concurs—an act that becomes entirely impossible and incomprehensible without a prior attitude of repentance, to which it is linked and from which it in part results. Thus to will, along with putting aside all confidence in one’s self, is to have such a delight in the work of Christ and such an inner conviction of its sufficiency that we reach out for it with all the strength that is in us.
Now, the freest preaching of the gospel must make clear that such a willing is the only means by which we can become partakers of Christ. If one will not be untruthful, then the significance of faith may never disappear. And the preventive against this difficulty is a preaching of the law accompanying the preaching of the gospel. Whoever does not first bring the sinner to an awareness of his lost condition will also not elicit true faith in his heart by preaching. It is simply not true that everyone has a right to Christ who just chooses to believe at whim. The faith to which the recent methods of evangelism incite is something irrational. The faith of Scripture is a faith supernaturally wrought by the Spirit of God but still not an unnatural faith.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## A.Joseph

I guess for me it’s terminological and contextual confusion. What was Pastor Winzer referring to specifically in his response? What is the origin of the term well meant offer? How does the free offer differ if some are predestined by nature and decree to reprobation? If it is Gods revealed will that none should perish, even though some do, is that not a different will or a different attribute of God at play? Can’t the Christian be well meaning in sharing the gospel? What does one believer receive that another has not? Who can boast? Just cause we label an offer ‘free,’ is it truly for the reprobate? There are some who will receive a well meant offer and fall away as per his/her true spiritual reprobate state...... so this becomes a semantic issue. I was seeing well meant as meaning sincere from the finite human side. You would have to provide an origin of the term for me to wholly comprehend it


Goodcheer68 said:


> Some keep conflating the free offer with the well meant offer. The quote below is from Matthew Winzer. I think it answers quite forcefully that the well meant offer is fictitious. Its all good but I bolded certain parts that I think are excellent.
> 
> 
> “How does this so-called "well-meant offer" persuade any one that what God desires has any bearing on his own salvation? If God desires the salvation of all, and all are not saved, it is obvious that this "desire" is no warrant for, or object of, saving faith.
> 
> The gospel call reveals that God desires the salvation of all who believe. This gives suitable and sufficient warrant to believe, and a sure persuasion that the believer shall be saved.
> 
> What is the chaff to the wheat? The gospel was never designed to save a reprobate person because a reprobate person is one who by definition will continue in unbelief. It is foolish to redesign the gospel so as to make it fit the condition of one who will never believe it.
> 
> Those who continue in unbelief will suffer the righteous vengeance of God. The gospel reveals this. So-called well-meant offer advocates ignore the plain facts of revelation. *If the offer of salvation implies that God desires the salvation of all men, what does the threatening of judgment imply? If they were honest they would have to say that God desires the damnation of all men; and their honesty would demonstrate that their universalist "desire" is not sincere and serious afterall. Their use of the term "well-meant" is meaningless*.
> 
> *The gospel of a non-saving love of God for the reprobate is a fiction of man's own creating. When so-called Calvinists affirm this doctrine they end up with two wills of God, two gospels, two Christs. They know not what they affirm.*
> 
> *A genuinely sincere, serious offer of salvation is maintained when it is proclaimed that God offers salvation to sinners as sinners INDEFINITELY.* It is the office of faith to appropriate the promises of the gospel by laying hold of them for oneself; and the promises are only sealed where faith is exercised.”


----------



## Jeri Tanner

In my simpleton mind it's not complicated- when men preach the gospel to sinners, it's ok to be well-meant on our part, ok that we earnestly desire every hearer to come to Christ and be saved, without concern over God's decretive will. We are to love our enemies and pray for them; but for the ones of those who are reprobate, Christ isn't praying for them and never will. So, men can and should have the sincere desire to see a man saved; men can and should pray for a man to be saved; even though it will often turn out that Christ was not praying for that one.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A.Joseph

I think the confusion lies in attributing the term free offer to men and well meant offer to God.... this is a very strange internal debate since I cant see any Calvinist believing well meant offer to mean a universal and man dependent condition of salvation. I see the term ‘well meant’ as meaning conditional as per Gods elective decree.... but if there is this much confusion should there not be at least a summary of examples of what not and what to say when preaching and witnessing.....

But the real crux of this issue is does God love the reprobate? That’s the starting point. I will go out on a limb and say God did not love Charles Manson

https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html


----------



## Jeri Tanner

You may find this older thread interesting. A good bit was discussed and hashed out. https://puritanboard.com/threads/pastoral-and-practical-implications-of-the-well-meant-offer.90486/


----------



## Puritan Sailor

A.Joseph said:


> I think the confusion lies in attributing the term free offer to men and well meant offer to God.... this is a very strange internal debate since I cant see any Calvinist believing well meant offer to mean a universal and man dependent condition of salvation. I see the term ‘well meant’ as meaning conditional as per Gods elective decree.... but if there is this much confusion should there not be at least a summary of examples of what not and what to say when preaching and witnessing.....
> 
> But the real crux of this issue is does God love the reprobate? That’s the starting point. I will go out on a limb and say God did not love Charles Manson
> 
> https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html



Perhaps the best instruction regarding how to proclaim and offer Christ is to look at the preaching of the apostles to unbelievers in the book of Acts. They do not say "God loves you". They do say that God is patient, long-suffering, and kind. But always there is an emphasis upon impending judgment against sin and the truthful offer of mercy to escape it through Christ. Granted, those sermons are probably only summaries of the actual sermons, but the high-points are there for our instruction.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jeri Tanner said:


> You may find this older thread interesting. A good bit was discussed and hashed out. https://puritanboard.com/threads/pastoral-and-practical-implications-of-the-well-meant-offer.90486/


Yes.

See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/john-3-16-and-gods-love-for-the-world.83941

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Thank you for this thread. I’ve leaned some things..... I understand why these are important matters and clarifications. So many slippery slopes and paths toward heresy and apostasy in our day....we can learn from the past as we stand on the shoulders of giants


----------



## Pergamum

"[God] does not leave us in suspense when he says, that he wishes all to be saved. Why so? for if no one repents without finding God propitious, then this sentence is filled up. But we must remark that God puts on a twofold character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. [That is,]...the Prophet ... wishes to keep our attention close to God‟s word. Now, what are the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all without exception; meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual...."

-- Calvin, Lectures Ezek. 18:23 [1565], CTS, 248.

Notice that we are to rest our assumptions upon God's Revealed will, for we do not know God's Secret Decrees.

and again, more plainly, Calvin writes:

"[T]he will of God as mentioned here must be judged by the result. Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God (arcanum Dei consilium)—just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man‟s outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God‟s will (duplicem in Deo voluntatem fingi), I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election (ad profundam acranae electionis abyssum) to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double (bifariam)."

---Calvin, Comm. Matt. 23:37 [1555], CNTC, 69.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak

Clearly, one of the reasons these discussions become interminable is because in the same quote, both sides see support for their own position. What seems like it ought to be a slam dunk argument, then, simply confirms the other side in its view.

This could be because one side or another (or both) are not grasping what the other is trying to argue; it could be that historical sources are being appealed to anachronistically; or that they are being cited without first understanding them on their own terms. Or, of course, it could be some combination of those options.

What's the solution? Probably not to have the identical conversation every two or three years, with the same quotes, videos, etc. posted. Rather, a patient attempt at listening seems called for. For instance, it is essential to bear in mind that distinctions about the will of God are _correlative contrasts_. In other words, "preceptive" vs. "decretive" has meaning. "Revealed" vs. "secret" has meaning. "Revealed" vs. "decretive" is not a correlative contrast, and thus distorts the nature of the distinction. God's desires for the salvation of sinners are certainly revealed, rather than secret; they are also preceptive, rather than decretive.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost

Semper Fidelis said:


> I inferred that you saw "the wicked" or "the lost" or "sinners" as some need to coinser that class.
> 
> You see what I've been trying to note is that God's revealed will, as sinners hear the Gospel, is that He bids sinners to believe. As I look out and see sinners I can honestly and sincerely let them know that the Gospel is offered to them. Believe on Christ.



Agreed.



> What you are saying is that God has the same disposition toward all the lost and that is our basis for our concern for the lost.



Not quite. God certainly commands all to repent and believe. We could say the basis of the free offer is God's law. As far as God's disposition, this is our _example_ of concern for the lost.



> I believe the idea that God bids sinners to come to Christ and ought not doubt that He can save them can be sustained by revealed theology while the idea that God has the same disposition toward all the lost cannot be demonstrated and can't be the basis for our own concern for the lost.



Revealed theology is based, obviously, in what God reveals about Himself. 

Jer. 36:3 "It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."

44:4 "However I have sent to you all My servants the prophets, rising early and sending _them,_ saying, 'Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!'”

I listed many other biblical texts that go beyond simply a command but a _desire_ of God for repentance of those who never repented (many more texts in post #34). Since the bible is our source for understanding God's revealed will, I cannot concede that attributing to God a disposition of concern for the lost is unbiblical, nor can I say the passage teaches nothing by assigning anthropomorphic language that would deny the concern that God communicates.



> Romans 8-9 and John 6 make plain that there are those whom He foreknew (loved) and, as sinners ourselves, I hope you actually don't believe that God has the exact same disposition to you as He does to those who are not "in Christ". The Son clearly has a Bride and our very confidence is that God is for us (we who are still corrupt united to His Son).



No, nor do I believe that for me to love my wife and my enemies takes the exact same expression in both parties.



> But that knowledge is not a basis for any creature to consider the lost according to the way God may conceive of them by HIs natural knowledge. As far as we're concerned, they're lsot and God has a real, genuined offer of salvation for all who believe upon His Son. Whether God, in His hidden decree may not grant the condition of faith is of no consequence to us or our motivation. Even if we don't see faith exercised we don't have any warrant but to be patient and long suffering toward all hoping that God may grant them repentance. Our "hope" or "concern" for people isn't that God has some sort of undifferentiated love for all but that He is strong to save and we know that those Whom He calls He justifies and glorifies.



Rich, we have so many examples of the all-knowing God demonstrating the patience you call Christians to (Rev. 2:21 says He gives them time to repent, though they would not). I feel as if you are glossing what God reveals about his own character in relation to the lost while suggesting that I am prying into God's unsearchable nature and "coming up with this" on my own apart from revelation. God reveals to us His disposition towards sinners even when He knows they will reject Him. Is it our system that is muddying the waters?

Again, I think we largely agree, but I'm having difficulty understanding why there are issues talking about God's disposition towards the lost when He reveals His disposition concerning the lost...


----------



## De Jager

Pergamum said:


> "[God] does not leave us in suspense when he says, that he wishes all to be saved. Why so? for if no one repents without finding God propitious, then this sentence is filled up. But we must remark that God puts on a twofold character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. [That is,]...the Prophet ... wishes to keep our attention close to God‟s word. Now, what are the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all without exception; meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual...."
> 
> -- Calvin, Lectures Ezek. 18:23 [1565], CTS, 248.
> 
> Notice that we are to rest our assumptions upon God's Revealed will, for we do not know God's Secret Decrees.
> 
> and again, more plainly, Calvin writes:
> 
> "[T]he will of God as mentioned here must be judged by the result. Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God (arcanum Dei consilium)—just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man‟s outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God‟s will (duplicem in Deo voluntatem fingi), I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election (ad profundam acranae electionis abyssum) to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double (bifariam)."
> 
> ---Calvin, Comm. Matt. 23:37 [1555], CNTC, 69.



Regarding Matthew 23:37

I am not sure Calvin is right here. First of all, Jesus addresses this to "Jerusalem" - the question is: who is he referring to? This passage mentions nothing of each individual person. In fact, it speaks of "Jerusalem" resisting Christ's gathering of her (Jerusalem's) children. So is Jesus talking here of all individual people in Jerusalem or is he addressing this to the religious elite? It seems as though this is similar to the parable of the tenants.

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40223

Just some food for thought.


----------



## timfost

I think Ruben has gives helpful wisdom against quote wars. Certainly there are great minds on both sides of the debate.

For my part, I'm trying to stick to scriptures rather than prove that some strong men agree with me. I can't help but think having a scripture-based discussion is the best way forward.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Goodcheer68 said:


> *INDEFINITELY*



The problem is, I've never met an indefinite sinner. I've only met actual sinners. We should be careful not to use words that have no meaning.

Additionally, there are many passages where God Himself pleads with sinners who do not repent. He gives time for those to repent even knowing that they never will. These are definite people who are addressed by God. There is nothing indefinite about them. If our system of doctrine cannot account for all biblical data, we have not used "all scripture" for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

timfost said:


> For my part, I'm trying to stick to scriptures rather than prove that some strong men agree with me. I can't help but think having a scripture-based discussion is the best way forward.


 Sometimes in discussions we need to do more than quote Scripture to be helpful. As Reformed we are not Biblicist and we use other sciences/sources to help explain the Sriptural data. The bottom line is that to say God gives a well meant offer and wants all to be saved, including Reprobates is to posit Two wills in God. It makes God one who has unfulfilled desires. That is impossible. All that God desires comes to pass. 
The Lord Almighty has sworn,
“Surely, as I have planned, so it will be,
and as I have purposed, so it will happen. Isaiah 14:24

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

In the end, it is important for both sides to agree that the gospel should be proclaimed to all indiscriminately. God's ultimate purpose in that proclamation for each individual (salvation vs. hardening) can never be known so we do not try to discern that.

The question of God's _attitude_ or _disposition_ towards each individual person at any given moment is the only thing we can really debate.

As for any evangelist - I think it is safest to simply evangelize as we see in scripture. Call people to repentance - talk about God's mercy, his promise of salvation to all _who will believe_ and _all who will come_. Getting into God's "feelings" toward any specific person is not wise, in my opinion. But of course, we can talk about it in a scriptural way if we are careful.

We can say, from scripture that God's soul hates the sinner (Psalm 11).

We can also say, from scripture that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18).

These two things are not contradictory - the passage in Ezekiel, as far as I can tell, is simply telling what God has pleasure in, and what he doesn't. It's like when you are cleaning the house to prepare for guests - you don't particularly take "pleasure" in cleaning the house, but it must be done in order to prepare the house for the guests. Do you take pleasure in cleaning the house? No. Do you _desire _to clean the house? Yes - it is necessary.

The same is true with a judge - does a judge get "pleasure" in sentencing someone to life in prison - do they get their kicks from condemning someone to prison for life? No - probably not, but they do take pleasure in meting out justice. Does he take pleasure in throwing a man in jail? No - but it must be done, and the judge _desires_ to do it.

I just want to also recognize that this is a sensitive issue and this deals with real people with real souls, and real eternal destinies. So let's be gracious and kind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> I think Ruben has gives helpful wisdom against quote wars. Certainly there are great minds on both sides of the debate.
> 
> For my part, I'm trying to stick to scriptures rather than prove that some strong men agree with me. I can't help but think having a scripture-based discussion is the best way forward.



Three observations about that, Tim (and thank you for the kind words). 1) It's not just that there *are* great minds on both sides; it's that some great minds are appealed to by both sides as definitely lining up with them. 2) It would probably be easier to take a text or series of texts and discuss them on a different thread, where hopefully greater focus would be allowed. 3) Any discussion of texts inevitably includes a discussion of hermeneutical principles, perhaps in this case particularly the issue of anthropopathisms. 

Now on that score, in my view, it does not help the discussion when people's statements seem to indicate that they view the category of anthropopathism as intrinsically a way to dismiss a text. Of course it can be used in such a way, but that is not its proper purpose or function.

But that then gets you back from the issue of hermeneutics to the issue of classical Christian theism, under assault in so many ways in the current day. Teasing out those inter-related strands is no simple matter, but one of the reasons the discussions don't progress is because it frequently bounces from one of these three areas to another, with no consensus established on any of them, sadly.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timfost said:


> Rich, we have so many examples of the all-knowing God demonstrating the patience you call Christians to (Rev. 2:21 says He gives them time to repent, though they would not). I feel as if you are glossing what God reveals about his own character in relation to the lost while suggesting that I am prying into God's unsearchable nature and "coming up with this" on my own apart from revelation. God reveals to us His disposition towards sinners even when He knows they will reject Him. Is it our system that is muddying the waters?
> 
> Again, I think we largely agree, but I'm having difficulty understanding why there are issues talking about God's disposition towards the lost when He reveals His disposition concerning the lost...



The difficulty is not exegetical but more broadly theological. You assume that _your_ system of doctrine is not in _your_ way of properly conceiving what is a difficult issue - namely, trying to sort out what is a very difficult issue for men to apprehend.

I read through the entire Scriptures every year (more really as I often use the M'Cheyne reading plan. I'm very familiar with God's revealed compassion as wel as the revelation of all his other attributes.

I suppose it depends upon what desires to focus upon because, if we really try to press some of the language too hard we can come to the conclusion that God has a divided mind on an issue or (like some) that he really don't know the future or any other number of things.

I don't know how often you read the prophets but, if we are just to "count verses", it actually seems like God is going to destroy His people and that they have totally blown it and that they're going to get their just desert but then He suddenly "breaks" and starts saying things like: "How could I ever judge you, I taught you to walk by holding up your arms..."

We could conclude that God is an awful like us - parents so mad at our children that we want to ring their necks and then sort of "cool off" and realize that we would be devestated if anything ever happend to them.

We also need to put a lot of Biblical language into perspective that God is largley addressing people in the Covenant of Grace under the dispensation of Moses and David. It's why people also argue about whether it's a true administration of the CoG because of the seeming "you keep it or you die" and other ways in which God seems more judgmental and less yielding but we could also view this as "discipline" vs "punishment".

I personally find it to be a fruitless query to base my concern for sinners in some sort of "cumulative display of compassion" by God and conclude that His concern for all the lost (for all eternity) is of a certain character. If I'm commanded to determine God's "true disposition", from all eternity, based on His revealed will for all men then I'd need to consider all the other things that are revealed. He has compassion but also wants to utterly destroy them and He's even telling the glorified saints: don't worry I'm going to crush them. This is a recipe for actually conceiving of God not as simple but as the creature. It's not clear to me why you choose to "camp out" on compassion alone if that is your motivation on how you view the lost if you're taking in all Revelation.

So then we actually get to the Gospel - which is under the Mediation of Christ. Scripture reveals that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn because the world was already condemned.

Condemned by Whom? Not Satan or not by ourselves as some will conclude because they only want to conclude that all of what is revealed of God's disposition is only compassion or concern. The world was condemned by God.

But the ministry of the Covenant of Grace - the ministry of the Gospel - is the Revelation of forgiveness in the full view of the wrath of God for sinners. It is a message of reconciliation. It is the CoG that reveals the love of God and not us considering God's disposition abstractly based on every Scripture where we conclude some "overriding" disposition toward the wicked. It is only in the Gospel revealed that the compassion of God to sinners is revealed and that is what we herald. What we understand of God in the Gospel is Christ revealed and not our conception of God as more broadly conceived from Scripture.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Perhaps think of it this way. It is an act of compassion to offer Christ to sinners, both on our part and God's. But the compassion is measured. The way you explain God's love is to explain all the benefits believers experience when they are united to Christ and adopted into God's family. Explain the full feast of blessing and love to any kind of sinner who comes. But there is no assurance of such love from God if you remain outside the house. Yes, God is kind to the unthankful, and gives good gifts to his creatures, and is patient and long-suffering while extending the offer of pardon, but there is no assurance of safety from such blessings to lost sinners. Just because God is kind does not mean he will fail to judge. Until you come to Christ, the only guarantee you have from God is judgment against your sin. So the stress upon God's love in the offer should not be speculating what God's feelings are while the offer is made, but instead "look at how God pours out his love to ANY sinner who comes; look at how Christ answers every true need of the sinner; and he has promised that this too can be yours IF you come." The assurance of God's love comes only through faith. You cannot ever hope to enjoy it without faith. If you continue to reject Christ, the best you can enjoy from God is kind treatment on your way to the execution. 

Again, this is focusing on how the offer is made on our level. It's not dealing with God's secret purposes which he accomplishes through our activity.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well noted Patrick.

The problem I have with the notion of conceiving of God's attitude toward the lost as a cumulative case of Revelation is that the sphere in which we encounter God's mercy is in the Gospel and in the ministry of Christ. It's not as we consider all the actions of God toward sinners - because He does judge sinners with great fury.

But it is in the ministry of the Gospel that God's patience and kindness toward sinners is revealed in tangible, historical ways.

Consider my tagline - 2 Tim 2:24-25. What is the motivation that Paul enjoins upon us for compassion toward sinners? Is it God's generic compassion toward sinners? No, it is rooted first that we once walked in darkness of thinking (hence we understand what it is to be fuitle in our thinking) and that God _might grant them repentance_. It is in the notion that Today is that day when God's offer of salvation is present. 

We really need to be careful here to divorce God's compassion from the grace of the Gospel - the work of Christ - because it otherwise causes a division within God. He is just and justifier in Christ. The compassion toward sinners and the offer of salvation comes only because the Son has redeemed people from the curse of God. Step outside the "boundary" of the offer of the Gospel - the work of Christ - and you are under wrath. There is no hpe of a man to think of God as kindly disposed toward him as a sinner apart from the work of Christ on the Cross. He only has the expectation of wrath.

To conceive of the Revelation of God as having a compassionate disposition toward sinners as just a general rule actually undermines the very substrate of the Covenant of Grace. The very reason why judgment is forestalled is not a generic compassion of God toward the lost but a forestallment on the grounds of the work of Christ proleptically in the garden but now seen in full view.

We preach Christ and Him crucified for sinners and not God's generic compassion for sinners.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

One way in which God's general compassion and common grace can be enlisted for evangelism is as follows:

In the writings of many of the Puritans and especially Jonathan Edwards, he often reminds the hearer that it is only by the mere mercy of God that the hearer has not already dropped into hell. God's compassion is upholding them and preventing their immediate judgment. We read this theme time and again. It is God's mere compassion which prevents every sinner from slipping into hell in the very next moment. See the mercy of God and close now and embrace that gracious God through the work of Jesus Christ.

The disposition of God is holy and desires holiness. Therefore, God's disposition delights in all of His Creation glorifying God. God's Dispositional Will is that all creatures will glorify God. God then reveals the same thing in His Revealed Will, that He desires all who hear to come and repent. But for reasons of higher glory, God ordains things that are contrary to His holy Dispositions to occur and which do not conform to His Revealed Will and so not all sinners are elected.

Again, we may deny that God's has a two-fold aspect to His will, but it is plain in Scripture. We being humans cannot fully understand God and so we cannot see how God is said to allow some things which He states plainly are displeasing to him, but plenty of examples abound in Scripture.

Though we cannot ascertain God's Decretive will, we are given plenty of Scriptures to show God's Disposition and His Revealed Will. These things are analogical, but not untrue. The ectypal is a faithful copy of the archetypal. God's disposition is to desire holiness in all of His Creation, and His Revealed Will states the same thing. He tells us plainly that He prefers sinners to turn, even though He stands ready to punish sinners.

Love and hate in God are in God both in different ways. Strictly speaking wrath is not an attribute of God if we define attribute as God in Himself. Wrath is displayed in relation to His creation and is a result of His holiness. But love is more basic and is within God even before the Creation.

Sinclair Ferguson explains it thusly:

“Strictly speaking, wrath is not an attribute of God. *For something to be an attribute of God, it has to be something that God exercises before all worlds.* It would be more appropriate to say that the wrath of God is the manifestation of the holiness of God in the context of the sinfulness of man. So, within the Trinitarian relationship, that holiness is expressed among the members of the Trinity, but not wrath.”

Whatever is not expressed between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Trinity before Creation is NOT an attribute of God under this strict definition. Thus wrath and anger derive from Holiness and are not "in" God the same way that love is in God. We are told that God is love, but we are never told that God is hate. He is wrathful due to a fallen creation.

Therefore, it is not as simple as saying that either God either loves or that He absolutely hates a sinner...100% ...totally...end of story. God loves all of His creation, and especially men who are made in His image, and especially the elect (the 3-fold love of God). But due to sin, He judges some of those men that He loves and thus places them under judicial hatred despite His creaturely love towards them. With this in mind, we can see that God's compassion and love are universal in some respects, though His decretive will to save is not universal due to human sin.

You might say it makes no difference to speak of God's general compassion because it does not save anyone, but only God's special electing love saves the elect. But this doctrine of common grace and general beneficence DOES, indeed, make a difference in how we view God and how we view other souls. We are to be imitators of Christ, who loved souls, and He was the perfect image of God upon the earth - and so we may conclude that we are to have compassion upon the souls of men and desire the salvation of all as well, because Christ and God have compassion upon all.

I believe our view of the love and compassion of God is linked closely to the intensity and manner by which we ourselves evangelize. 

We don't throw the gospel out there indifferently and say "Take it or leave it, because God has elected some of you and reprobated others from eternity past anyway." NO, We beseech (beg) sinners and show the mercy and compasson of God. Judgment awaits and yet God has graciously provided a way of escape due to His love.

The doctrine of the love of God warms our heart towards the world. I believe our love of souls is related to how we view God loving all souls.

When a sinner repents, the Bible doesn't say, "Most of heaven rejoices but God sits silent as a stoic and is inidfferent" but rather that all of heaven rejoices over every sinner who repents. If God is said to take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, we must somehow believe that, in some analogical manner, God takes pleasure in every sinner saved. His Disposition and His Revealed Will desire it.

Unless of course we accuse all of heaven of having "mood swings" or being "emotionally unstable" by rejoicing when one sinner repents. God has chosen to reveal heaven's response in such a way, and so I am not ashamed of it. I believe there is joy in heaven over every sinner who repents. God wants it and is glad for it. It is pleasing to both His Disposition as well as in Conformity to His Revealed Will.


----------



## Pergamum

Does the doctrine of the Sincere or Well-meant Offer of the Gospel lead us to conclude that God has unfulfilled desires?:

-The problem with this question is that it confuses God's Disposition and Revealed Will with his Decretive Will. 

Every jot and tittle of God's Decretive Will comes to pass. There is not any unfulfilled Decree in God. 

Regarding His Revealed Will and precept, however, there are plenty of Scriptures which tell us that people have grieved the Spirit, resisted the Spirit, or have not done as God has told us that He desires. Is this an unfulfilled desire or not? Not in light of God's decrees, but yes in light of God's precepts. All of God's eternal decrees will come to pass precisely as decreed, and yet human rebellion and grieving the Spirit and disobeying God's precepts are all contained within those decrees. 

Therefore, this common objection against the WMO is a silly one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Perg,

It's really hard to interact with what you write because you're sort of all over the map with respect to the way you argue. You'll take a quote that relates to God's general care for creation and then extend that into the reason why He shows mercy with respect to the Covenant of Grace. You'll make general observations about a love for His creation and then use the parable of the lost sheep, coin, and son to tie those issues to "general benevolence".

It's really difficult to take the sting of argumentation very coherently.

Do you really believe that the basis for a sinner to draw near to Christ is on the basis that God has a "creaturely love" for him? Is that the hope that you re extending in the Gospel to Him?

Are the attributes of God as holy, just, loving, simple, etc the basis by which we apprehend His power to save when we are considering the lost?

It just doesn't have any real traction for me. Maybe it all connects in your mind in a way I can't understand but it does not make any sense to me how you move from general benevolence and "common grace" to what is actually offered in the Gospel itself to sinners. I'm not offering to sinners the idea that God has a general love or care for all creation but that His mercy is extended now unto them if they would believe. I believe in the power of God for salvation as it is found in Christ.

I also don't believe there is any real fruition or knowledge of God apart from Covenant and, more specifically, the Mediator, which is Christ. I think there are certain theological topics that are necessary in order for us to know who God is from a theological perspective but much of our confession of God is by way of negation and limited by our creaturely capacity to speak of Him. Athanasius and the early Church fathers and all Christians hence have always seen our fruition of God being bound up in Christ becoming Man and being the Mediator between God and Man.

I simply cannot conceive of my knowledge of God apart from the Son. I can't conceive of God's intention toward man in some abstract fashion of benevolence but would rather conceive of it through the Son as He has died for sinners and bids all to come to Him. That's the ministry to which I am not Mediator but only one who holds Him forth.

It's been made a lot of that the idea of this offer is "indefinite" but that's not indefinite in the idea that God "doesn't really care" or that it's somehow "faceless". In fact, the bare notion that God is merely benevolent toward all as a general rule of His "care for creatures" is (to my thinking) quite sterile and useless to me as a preacher. There's no "power to save" in a general benevolence. I'm not willing to lay down my life for a general benevolence. I am able to see all men as sinners to whom the offer of salvation goes out.

Somebody wrote here that "we know this person was reprobate". Really? I've never met a person that I knew that about. I only have met sinners. I've only met people to whom the power of God for salvation is extended: Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perg,
> 
> It's really hard to interact with what you write because you're sort of all over the map with respect to the way you argue. You'll take a quote that relates to God's general care for creation and then extend that into the reason why He shows mercy with respect to the Covenant of Grace. You'll make general observations about a love for His creation and then use the parable of the lost sheep, coin, and son to tie those issues to "general benevolence".
> 
> It's really difficult to take the sting of argumentation very coherently.
> 
> Do you really believe that the basis for a sinner to draw near to Christ is on the basis that God has a "creaturely love" for him? Is that the hope that you re extending in the Gospel to Him?
> 
> Are the attributes of God as holy, just, loving, simple, etc the basis by which we apprehend His power to save when we are considering the lost?
> 
> It just doesn't have any real traction for me. Maybe it all connects in your mind in a way I can't understand but it does not make any sense to me how you move from general benevolence and "common grace" to what is actually offered in the Gospel itself to sinners. I'm not offering to sinners the idea that God has a general love or care for all creation but that His mercy is extended now unto them if they would believe. I believe in the power of God for salvation as it is found in Christ.
> 
> I also don't believe there is any real fruition or knowledge of God apart from Covenant and, more specifically, the Mediator, which is Christ. I think there are certain theological topics that are necessary in order for us to know who God is from a theological perspective but much of our confession of God is by way of negation and limited by our creaturely capacity to speak of Him. Athanasius and the early Church fathers and all Christians hence have always seen our fruition of God being bound up in Christ becoming Man and being the Mediator between God and Man.
> 
> I simply cannot conceive of my knowledge of God apart from the Son. I can't conceive of God's intention toward man in some abstract fashion of benevolence but would rather conceive of it through the Son as He has died for sinners and bids all to come to Him. That's the ministry to which I am not Mediator but only one who holds Him forth.
> 
> It's been made a lot of that the idea of this offer is "indefinite" but that's not indefinite in the idea that God "doesn't really care" or that it's somehow "faceless". In fact, the bare notion that God is merely benevolent toward all as a general rule of His "care for creatures" is (to my thinking) quite sterile and useless to me as a preacher. There's no "power to save" in a general benevolence. I'm not willing to lay down my life for a general benevolence. I am able to see all men as sinners to whom the offer of salvation goes out.
> 
> Somebody wrote here that "we know this person was reprobate". Really? I've never met a person that I knew that about. I only have met sinners. I've only met people to whom the power of God for salvation is extended: Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.



I will try to make it more simple then:

We don't offer God's general beneficence. We offer Christ.

But why do we offer Christ? Is it merely because it is our duty? No. We love mankind because God loves mankind. We desire sinners to be saved because God desires sinners to be saved. Our Saviour on earth was a perfect model and we are imitators of him when we desire all who hear to come. When God says Come it is an invitation, a sincere one, and so we are to give a sincere invitation. God is pleased to save. We are not saying that God has changing emotion, yet God's Word shows a preference that sinners turn from their ways. Thus I am free to tell sinners that God desires them to turn from their ways...any sinner.

Speaking to any sinner I may tell him that God desires His salvation and would be pleased to do it.

The WMO and Commmon grace connect because those High Calvinists who reject the WMO also usually reject Common Grace. The WMO and Common Grace connect to our own evangelistic zeal because, while a command to repent is good, a mere command without a sincere desire falls short.

I mention common grace and God's general love to all mankind because it is a complete packet with the WMO...these 3 doctrines cluster together. Those who believe the WMO also believe in common grace and God's general common love for all humanity. Those who reject the WMO often reject common grace and claim that God has no love at all for the reprobate. I believe they are wrong on all 3 related topics. Those who reject all 3 doctrines also have an inferior history of missions (though I am sure some on the PB can mention a scattered missionary here or there representing the High Calvinists, in general it dampens missionary zeal).

I may buy my wife roses out of mere duty and give them to her because it is my job; but it is much better if I buy her roses and give them to her as a sincere offer of my love. Historically we've seen the High Calvinists less involved in missions and evangelism and this is just what we would expect from the doctrine. The warmth of God's love for humanity warms our love to go out to all mankind with the Gospel.

To every human being that we meet with the Gospel we may say, "God desires your salvation."


----------



## Goodcheer68

It’s not High Calvinism to reject the well meant offer. High Calvinism rejects the free offer


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

In the administration of the covenant of grace, via the promiscuous preaching of the command for all to believe and the promise of salvation of all that do so, I would affirm that this fee offer of salvation to all who believe in Our Lord is sincerely offered by God. The condition of that offer, _faith_, is a vital component in that sincerity.

When the words "well-meant offer" (versus "free offer") are used, I have to pause and wonder what exactly is being claimed. 

Is "well-meant" the claim that God desires universally all to be saved, yet apparently is withholding the means for all to be saved? Does God really have any unfulfilled desires? I am all in when "well-meant offer" means a genuinely sincere offer is made in the Gospel, but I have to quibble with a view that "well-meant" implies God has unfulfilled desires.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> I will try to make it more simple then:
> 
> We don't offer God's general beneficence. We offer Christ.
> 
> But why do we offer Christ? Is it merely because it is our duty? No. We love mankind because God loves mankind. We desire sinners to be saved because God desires sinners to be saved. Our Saviour on earth was a perfect model and we are imitators of him when we desire all who hear to come. When God says Come it is an invitation, a sincere one, and so we are to give a sincere invitation. God is pleased to save. We are not saying that God has changing emotion, yet God's Word shows a preference that sinners turn from their ways. Thus I am free to tell sinners that God desires them to turn from their ways...any sinner.
> 
> Speaking to any sinner I may tell him that God desires His salvation and would be pleased to do it.
> 
> The WMO and Commmon grace connect because those High Calvinists who reject the WMO also usually reject Common Grace. The WMO and Common Grace connect to our own evangelistic zeal because, while a command to repent is good, a mere command without a sincere desire falls short.
> 
> I mention common grace and God's general love to all mankind because it is a complete packet with the WMO...these 3 doctrines cluster together. Those who believe the WMO also believe in common grace and God's general common love for all humanity. Those who reject the WMO often reject common grace and claim that God has no love at all for the reprobate. I believe they are wrong on all 3 related topics. Those who reject all 3 doctrines also have an inferior history of missions (though I am sure some on the PB can mention a scattered missionary here or there representing the High Calvinists, in general it dampens missionary zeal).
> 
> I may buy my wife roses out of mere duty and give them to her because it is my job; but it is much better if I buy her roses and give them to her as a sincere offer of my love. Historically we've seen the High Calvinists less involved in missions and evangelism and this is just what we would expect from the doctrine. The warmth of God's love for humanity warms our love to go out to all mankind with the Gospel.
> 
> To every human being that we meet with the Gospel we may say, "God desires your salvation."


Again, it's difficult to untangle what you write because it's hard to argue against the idea of love for neighbor or the fact that we desire/rejoice in all sinners coming to Christ but you're still, unwittingly, importing categories of their election/reprobation into the manner in which you argue for this.

I don't know my neighbor as reprobate or elect but as neighbor - as created int he image of God. I don't love sinners as reprobate or elect but as sinners.

I also think that it is problematic when we simply consider the matter of "common grace" with respect to God's love for mankind whenever the ministry of the Gospel comes forward.

It's the reason I have a problem with those whoattach to the Gospel some notion of "spcial justice". It's not that God's benevelonce to His creation is a "problem" taken by itself. We ought to love our fellow man and be concerned for injustice in society (that doesn't require the modern forms of the term "social ustice"). The point is that love of neighber is commanded because, yes, men and women are created in the image of God. Call it common grace if you like but God's image is borne by mankind and so he does remarkable things and we are to love in our fellow man the image of God. It is twisted and corrupted and mankind slaps God's face with the glory of the image but it is, nevertheless, an object that we ought to love and a kind of care and regard for His image is commanded by God.

But the Gospel is not in the "realm" of us keeping the law. The minister is not an agent of reminding us all of "neighbor love" and our failures/successes to do so. The minister is not a herald of God's "common grace" or regard for His image bearers.

Those image bearers, though an object of concern by their Creator, are also under His wrath because they are not thankful to Him and they are idolatrous. It is the very kindness of God toward His creation that mankind denies and we need not cast our kindness toward our fellow man off but the Gospel deals with the issue of the enmity between God and man that has been created by us who supress the knowledge of God.

When the Gospel goes forth it goes forth as if the sinner, guilty for his lack of love toard God and neighbor, has entered into a realm in which God is holding forth not a bare "I love my image" love but holding forth _His very Son_ crucified on a cross for sin. In this place He bids the sinner be reconciled not merely with a general benevolence but the offer of forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

If I may put it another way, what we have for our neighbors is a love that reflects God's love for His image - even if fallen - we still love and care for it.

But, in the Gospel, our concern and love for sinners _intensifies_ because the object being offered is the love of God shown in the giving of His Son. It is more intense, more glorious, more restorative, more unimaginably brilliant than any love we might be able to muster toward other creatures on the basis of our love for them as image bearers. 

This is what I believe the "free offer" holds forth to be distinguished from an important (but lesser) love of image or common grace. When the minister preaches and the Gospel is preached then the very Son of God is held forth and we plead with men as if for God, be reconciled to God.

I really could care less about high Calvinism vs low Calvinism debates. I just want to see the Gospel understood not as a place for "social justice" (the love of neighbor) but the placarding of Christ (the love of God toward sinners).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Goodcheer68 said:


> Sometimes in discussions we need to do more than quote Scripture to be helpful. As Reformed we are not Biblicist and we use other sciences/sources to help explain the Sriptural data.



I agree. I'm only saying that sending long quotes usually only proves that we believe someone agrees with our position. Certainly I would expect to use language that accounts for Reformed scholarship.



> The bottom line is that to say God gives a well meant offer and wants all to be saved, including Reprobates is to posit Two wills in God. It makes God one who has unfulfilled desires. That is impossible. All that God desires comes to pass.
> The Lord Almighty has sworn,
> “Surely, as I have planned, so it will be,
> and as I have purposed, so it will happen. Isaiah 14:24



The WMO does not deny Is. 14:24. Also, the idea that God desires the salvation of the reprobate is not exactly accurate. Reprobation proceeds from God's secret decree. This conversation concerns God's revealed will and it is better to not conflate the two.

It's one thing to say that God desires the salvation of those who He secretly decrees are reprobate. It is another thing entirely to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate. This conflates two carefully defined doctrines.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I think one problem is that many (all?) of the Scriptures used as proof texts for God desiring the salvation of the reprobate/ wicked are actually God speaking to or about his straying covenant people. Even the one often quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul’s beseeching that they would be reconciled to God, is addressed to church members. I’m not saying non-church members shouldn’t be appealed to to repent and believe, they should. But looking carefully at each text comports with Reuben’s suggestion earlier that these conversations should focus on specific texts.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Goodcheer68 said:


> It’s not High Calvinism to reject the well meant offer. High Calvinism rejects the free offer


Why do high Calvinists reject the free offer? What is it about the free offer that high calvinists take issue with? Does this also have to do with limited atonement, and if so, is that an extension of an issue with the ‘WMO’ due to God’s elective decree? It appears they take legitimate issue with the WMO to an extreme that affects the urgency of the mandate related to the free offer.....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree Jeri.

Sinner or Corrupt or Ungodly empasses both elect and reprobate. Imagine if we try to substitute the word "reprobate" every time we encounter God addressing the wicked. We wouldn't have any way of understanding who is being addressed. Also, we might conclude: "Wait, I'm still a sinner, am I reprobate."

It's not that I doubt that God shows a kind of love toward the reprobate but that love is not to the reprobate separately but to sinners as encompassing all of fallen image bearers among whom are the elect and reprob

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> I agree Jeri.
> 
> Sinner or Corrupt or Ungodly empasses both elect and reprobate. Imagine if we try to substitute the word "reprobate" every time we encounter God addressing the wicked. We wouldn't have any way of understanding who is being addressed. Also, we might conclude: "Wait, I'm still a sinner, am I reprobate."
> 
> It's not that I doubt that God shows a kind of love toward the reprobate but that love is not to the reprobate separately but to sinners as encompassing all of fallen image bearers among whom are the elect and reprob



So if you admit a general love of God towards all mankind, do you also admit that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all sinners? To every person to which the Gospel says COME, do you believe that God is sincere in that invitation? Does God, in any manner, sincerely desire the salvation of all?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

A.Joseph said:


> Why do high Calvinists reject the free offer? What is it about the free offer that high calvinists take issue with? Does this also have to do with limited atonement, and if so, is that an extension of an issue with the ‘WMO’ due to God’s elective decree? It appears they take legitimate issue with the WMO to an extreme that affects the urgency of the mandate related to the free offer.....


"High Calvinists" (whatever that means) don't necessarily take issue with the "free offer". As I tried to explain earlier, the issue has to do with what some insist must be in the "benevelonce of God" toward the reprobate that determines whether or not they believe the offer is genuine. I don't want to have to re-type what I already typed earlier.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> So if you admit a general love of God towards all mankind, do you also admit that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all sinners? To every person to which the Gospel says COME, do you believe that God is sincere in that invitation? Does God, in any manner, sincerely desire the salvation of all?


Did you read what I just wrote?

What was confusing about dividing the issue between the love of God for His creatures as revealed vs what it soffered to sinners by the preaching of the Gospel?

The sinner, when He is hearing the offer of the Gospel, should _never_ doubt whether the offer of salvation is for him. The preacher of the Word should never doubt in His mind whether the offer of salvation is for the person or that, as the Gospel is preached, that God _sincerely bids them to believe._ The "love of creature" is not the operational issue when the Gospel is preached but the love of God for siners by the sacrifice of Christ.

I know it sounds like I'm hedging but I'm trying to get you to stop thinking about God, in Himself, as He sees this or that reprobate in the preaching of the Gospel. That simply can never be the basis for how the preacher acts as a minister of the message of reconciliation. Let the hearer know God desires their repentance as far as the Gospel is concerned. Let your own heart be moved to compassion for all. You simply don't need to know any more than that.

I really see the act of preaching as a "realm" in which Christ is placarded bidding sinners to come and what "value" do you actually think you or I are adding to that divine act? If I _really believe_ that Christ is truly offered to sinners in preaching then what am I doing standing by and saying: "Oh, in case you don't think that's enough, I also care for you." I'm not saying we ought not have compassion and love but it's almost like: compared to what Gos is offering in my preaching, what does my own concern compare to the majestic love now being placarded to sinners?


----------



## A.Joseph

Goodcheer68 said:


> It’s not High Calvinism to reject the well meant offer. High Calvinism rejects the free offer


 “But a denial of the free offer does not automatically place one in the hyper-Calvinist camp. We who deny that the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant or free offer, emphatically assert both that the gospel is preached to all who hear and must be preached to all who hear.” http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/pamphlets/item/1597-the-history-of-the-free-offer


----------



## A.Joseph

Semper Fidelis said:


> "High Calvinists" (whatever that means) don't necessarily take issue with the "free offer". As I tried to explain earlier, the issue has to do with what some insist must be in the "benevelonce of God" toward the reprobate that determines whether or not they believe the offer is genuine. I don't want to have to re-type what I already typed earlier.


Sorry, I thought I quoted somebody else who made a distinction that high calvinists do, in fact, reject the free offer.....


----------



## De Jager

Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.

Did God _want_ Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?

_For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills._ (Romans 9:17-18)

To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:

_If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. _*23 *_He who hates Me hates My Father also. _*24 *_If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. _*25 *_But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ _(John 15:22-25)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

timfost said:


> It's one thing to say that God desires the salvation of those who He secretly decrees are reprobate. It is another thing entirely to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate. This conflates two carefully defined doctrines.



_"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."_

_"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."
_
Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> _"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."_
> 
> _"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."
> _
> Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.



Same here. Explain the distinction to a clever unbeliever who genuinely wants to know.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Did you read what I just wrote?
> 
> What was confusing about dividing the issue between the love of God for His creatures as revealed vs what it soffered to sinners by the preaching of the Gospel?
> 
> The sinner, when He is hearing the offer of the Gospel, should _never_ doubt whether the offer of salvation is for him. The preacher of the Word should never doubt in His mind whether the offer of salvation is for the person or that, as the Gospel is preached, that God _sincerely bids them to believe._ The "love of creature" is not the operational issue when the Gospel is preached but the love of God for siners by the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> I know it sounds like I'm hedging but I'm trying to get you to stop thinking about God, in Himself, as He sees this or that reprobate in the preaching of the Gospel. That simply can never be the basis for how the preacher acts as a minister of the message of reconciliation. Let the hearer know God desires their repentance as far as the Gospel is concerned. Let your own heart be moved to compassion for all. You simply don't need to know any more than that.
> 
> I really see the act of preaching as a "realm" in which Christ is placarded bidding sinners to come and what "value" do you actually think you or I are adding to that divine act? If I _really believe_ that Christ is truly offered to sinners in preaching then what am I doing standing by and saying: "Oh, in case you don't think that's enough, I also care for you." I'm not saying we ought not have compassion and love but it's almost like: compared to what Gos is offering in my preaching, what does my own concern compare to the majestic love now being placarded to sinners?


Rich, 

You wrote, "Let the hearer know God desires their repentance..."

Okay, amen to that. I have read all you have written and appreciate your interaction and we are fairly agreed. Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.
> 
> Did God _want_ Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?
> 
> _For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills._ (Romans 9:17-18)
> 
> To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:
> 
> _If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. _*23 *_He who hates Me hates My Father also. _*24 *_If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. _*25 *_But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ _(John 15:22-25)



Jonathan Edwards in Volume II of his collected works brings up Pharoah and Abraham: “We and they know it was God’s secret will, that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but yet his command was, that he should do it. We know that God willed, that Pharaoh’s heart should be hardened; and yet that the hardness of his heart was sin.”

So did God want Abraham to kill his son, or not to do it? It depends on what we mean by want or will. Since we don't know God's secret decrees we must say that God wants what he tells us to do and doesn't want what he tells us to avoid. Because of this I can tell anyone confronted with the Gospel that God wants their salvation. Because I cannot know God's secret decrees, I must stick to His revealed will.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

De Jager said:


> Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.


Izaak,

The very fact that the Gospel is being preached to a sinner from someone who is a minister of the Gospel it is actually true that no sinner should have any doubt in his mind: "Does God desire me to repent and receive eternal life."

You're mixing up issues by bringing Roman 9 into this. As far as the proclamation of the Gospel and the visible ministry of the Covenant of grace goes, there is a _real_ offer of salvation for all who believe upon the Gospel.

Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.

Do not be confused by the issue of whether or God has or has not decreed election or reprobation. That's none of your business. It's not the business of the Church to say: "If you are elect then believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you will be saved from your sins."

In fact, think of the implications for yourself if you want to determine if God desires your salvation and you ground that desire in the knowledge that "surely He must because I'm one of the elect!"

Really? What makes you sure of that reality? Was that the way you proceeded to respond to the Gospel?

The Gospel offered Christ on the Cross crucified for sinners.
I am one of the elect.
Therefore I know that I should believe.

No. In fact, our assurance of salvation is tied not to our knowledge of hidden things but to things revealed. It rather proceeds like this:

Christ crucified is offered for the salvation of sinners.
I am a sinner.
I trust in Christ.
I am assured that I have salvation in Christ.

The testimony of the Spirit helps but it is grounded not in God giving us a peek at His decree but a grounding in Revelation that gives us assurance of salvation.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the theology of Particular Baptists and a notion of baptism that is tied to a sort of "assurance of election" and "God doesn't want the reprobate baptized in His Church".

The reason is tied to my conviction on the nature of revealed or creaturely knowledge and the fact that the Church's knowledge of God's decree is not the basis for our proclamation or the signifying/sealing of the Sacraments of the Kingdom.

Being a Christian and an elder for as long as I have I have moved from seeing faith as a "Bang, it's there!" to a sort of "flowering, obscuring, tossing to and fro, seeming to get covered up, re-flowering, travail, progrees, etc." Not only may we be totally confident one day that someone we walk beside is "surely with God" only to see the same man totally repudiate the faith but we see our own trust in God wax and wane and wane and wane and then wax. We may go through days, weeks, months, years of seemingly dry ministry or prayer and grow frustrated at people who seem to lose interest in the Kingdom who need regular admonitions to press in.

Thus, the "free offer" is not something we reserve (in our thinking) for those outside the Church but is true for how we view the Ministry of Word and Sacrament for those weary on the way. 

Men struggling with p0rnography, conviced they are going to hell and never believed.
Dads and Moms thinking they're failing their kids and yelling at them.
Mothers who are weary and worn down by the ingratitude of their children.
Pastors and elders weaery of ministry and the people who leave unexpectedly.

The Gospel has to come to each of us and remind us that Christ is for sinners. If we thought for a second that the Gospel is for only for "the elect" then we would camp out all day long asking ourselves if we're the elect and, if not, what's the point?

As it is, the Gospel is for sinners and even we weary travelers never need doubt that God desires my salvation and sanctification. Today is a day to hear the foice of God, turn from my sin, and turn to Christ - either for the first time or time and again.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Rich,
> 
> You wrote, "Let the hearer know God desires their repentance..."
> 
> Okay, amen to that. I have read all you have written and appreciate your interaction and we are fairly agreed. Thanks.


Grateful we could agree on this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Rich,

We may disagree on some of the specifics, but overall I agree with what you've been articulating. I'm very thankful for your concern for the lost and how you bring the gospel to sinners.

I only want to clarify a couple things. 

1. As far as how the gospel is presented to the lost, what you and I would say is about identical. I don't believe that it is God's disposition that is presented in the gospel. The disposition only gives us an example. 

2. I didn't mean to say that anthropomorphisms are not a helpful tool when understanding the God's self revelation. I only want to be careful that we don't effectively infer that these passages teach us nothing positive about God.

Again, I'm thankful for what you wrote and grateful that we are comrades together in the same Christian walk, working toward the same goal.

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## timfost

Tom Hart said:


> _"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."_
> 
> _"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."
> _
> Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.



My only point is that reprobation properly belongs to the secret decree. Since this conversation concerns what God has revealed, it conflates the revealed and decretive will of God by using terminology specific to both. The product necessarily results in a contradiction and does not fairly represent the careful distinctions we are making.

Hope that helps...


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think one problem is that many (all?) of the Scriptures used as proof texts for God desiring the salvation of the reprobate/ wicked are actually God speaking to or about his straying covenant people. Even the one often quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul’s beseeching that they would be reconciled to God, is addressed to church members. I’m not saying non-church members shouldn’t be appealed to to repent and believe, they should. But looking carefully at each text comports with Reuben’s suggestion earlier that these conversations should focus on specific texts.



I see your point. However, our argument proceeds from the doctrine that God desires obedience to that which He commands. Since all are commanded to repent, we believe that God desires the salvation of all insofar as He desires that His law be obeyed.

I understand the common objections to 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9, but I believe these to be true statements of God concerning all men according to His revealed will. (Not trying to open a can of worms with these texts, though...)

I hope this clarifies even if we end up disagreeing.


----------



## timfost

De Jager said:


> Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.
> 
> Did God _want_ Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?
> 
> _For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills._ (Romans 9:17-18)
> 
> To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:
> 
> _If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. _*23 *_He who hates Me hates My Father also. _*24 *_If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. _*25 *_But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ _(John 15:22-25)



As Rich said, bringing Rom. 9 doesn't really help the discussion at hand. I would also encourage you to look at Rom. 9 in the context of chapters 10-11. Paul makes a continuous argument in these chapters.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> I see your point. However, our argument proceeds from the doctrine that God desires obedience to that which He commands. Since all are commanded to repent, we believe that God desires the salvation of all insofar as He desires that His law be obeyed.
> 
> I understand the common objections to 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9, but I believe these to be true statements of God concerning all men according to His revealed will. (Not trying to open a can of worms with these texts, though...)
> 
> I hope this clarifies even if we end up disagreeing.


Thanks Tim. I will leave the can of worms alone! I do disagree with your take on those texts, and well other things. But not on the fact that the gospel is to be preached and Christ set forth as the savior of sinners to all men.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> My only point is that reprobation properly belongs to the secret decree. Since this conversation concerns what God has revealed, it conflates the revealed and decretive will of God by using terminology specific to both. The product necessarily results in a contradiction and does not fairly represent the careful distinctions we are making.



I appreciate the sincere and well-meant intent to be cautious in distinction, but _revealed _and _decretive_ are not a proper contrast, with terminology specific to each one. Has any part of God's decree been revealed? Certainly: to some extent we know the contents of God's decree up to the present time, in light of what has happened. Every day, in that way, the decree is unfolded more and more. But more significantly, God's promises, such as every knee bowing to Christ or the new heavens and the new earth reveal not primarily what God requires of us, but what God has decreed to do himself. I understand that the confusion can easily arise, because in the nature of the case precepts don't apply until they are revealed, so we never speak of the preceptive will as hidden. But since the decree is partly revealed and partly hidden, we can't put revealed and decretive in opposition.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

py3ak said:


> I appreciate the sincere and well-meant intent to be cautious in distinction, but _revealed _and _decretive_ are not a proper contrast, with terminology specific to each one. Has any part of God's decree been revealed? Certainly: to some extent we know the contents of God's decree up to the present time, in light of what has happened. Every day, in that way, the decree is unfolded more and more. But more significantly, God's promises, such as every knee bowing to Christ or the new heavens and the new earth reveal not primarily what God requires of us, but what God has decreed to do himself. I understand that the confusion can easily arise, because in the nature of the case precepts don't apply until they are revealed, so we never speak of the preceptive will as hidden. But since the decree is partly revealed and partly hidden, we can't put revealed and decretive in opposition.



Ruben,

I don't mean to contrast the revealed and decreed as if they were two separate wills, but rather a singular will of God that appears manifold to weak, finite minds. Surely you believe that scripture speaks about the will of God in different manners.

Now if we assign the revealed will farther than what the law reveals as God's desire as his own righteous reflection, then yes, many other aspects of His decree are revealed. But I cannot look at the Holocaust and explain that God was pleased with this event in the same manner He is pleased with obedience to His law. It is possible that I can I use terminology such as "preceptive" to better distinguish, though with proper distinctions we often use "revealed" to describe His precepts as many theologians do.

In the end, "revealed" and "decreed" are not in opposition in the infinite God, but from the finite perspective we cannot fully understand how God can, in different manners, will and not will the same event.

Since I do not have Archetypal knowledge of God, the language I use will inevitably need to speak about the sum of biblical data concerning His will and distinguish between the various aspects of that singular will. "Reprobation" concerns the decree and though He has revealed that He reprobates some, I cannot say that He is pleased that they reject Him offered in the gospel. I can emphatically say that He is pleased when men obey Him.

God does not desire the salvation of all apart from obedience to His law. If a sinner rejects the free offer and disobeys the command to repent and believe, God is pleased to demonstrate His Justice against them. But that demonstration is not a reward for their obedience, but a consequence of their disobedience which God hates.

God loves Justice, but does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18). This is contrasted to the salvation of Christ's bride, the church, whom He brings to a place of communion, intimacy and glory.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> It is possible that I can I use terminology such as "preceptive" to better distinguish, though with proper distinctions we often use "revealed" to describe His precepts as many theologians do.
> 
> In the end, "revealed" and "decreed" are not in opposition in the infinite God, but from the finite perspective we cannot fully understand how God can, in different manners, will and not will the same event.
> 
> Since I do not have Archetypal knowledge of God, the language I use will inevitably need to speak about the sum of biblical data concerning His will and distinguish between the various aspects of that singular will.



Tim, I am not sure I understand everything that you say in your post, and I think the part quoted is at the core of it.

In the first sentence, are you saying anything more than that God's precepts are revealed? Certainly that's true, but I don't know if it exhausts your meaning.

In the second sentence, I would understand if you said " 'preceptive' and 'decretive' are not in opposition in the infinite God" etc. That's certainly true, and Abraham's responsibility to sacrifice Isaac would be a case in point. However, I lose the train of thought when the contrast is revealed and decretive. _Preceptive_ and _decretive_ distinguish _what obligation God has determined to impose_ and _what events God has determined to effect_. There is a distinction based on the object God is willing. Revealed and secret relate to our knowledge. We may know what is revealed; we are not intended to know, and I suspect will rarely guess correctly, at what is not revealed. 

I agree with your third sentence, and that it is part of ectypal theology that it is necessary to distinguish various aspects of a will we ultimately know to be one. I am not objecting to the need for distinguishing in any way. God knows what he has and will revealed, as well as what will never be revealed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw

It is not a difficult distinction -in my estimation- between what men _*ought*_ to do (i.e. are commanded, those things revealed, Deut. 29.29b), and that decree which God has most wisely ordered in His secret providence (i.e. the secret things, Deut. 29.29.a) to His glory.

If the Lord has not revealed to us that He desires the salvation of John Doe, we are not free to tell John Doe that God desires your salvation. What we may say is that God has called all men everywhere to repent, and that it is every man's duty to turn in repentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. We may say that God desires, and will so cause, the salvation of the wicked man who turns from his ways, unto Jesus Christ. We may say, unequivocally, that God will in no wise cast out anyone -including John Doe- who comes to Him by faith, and that a broken and a contrite spirit God will never despise.

There is no need to proclaim that which is only the purview of God. There is every need, freely, promiscuously, indiscriminately, sincerely, earnestly, and affectionately to proclaim to the whole of God's creatures that what He has promised, He will most certainly do. And He has promised to save any and all who come to Him by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What the Lord "desires," the Lord has so decreed, and has so providentially ordered, and will so surely accomplish, having no "desire" of His unmet, frustrated, or hindered one fraction of scintilla of a wit of a bit.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Herald

Joshua said:


> If the Lord has not revealed to us that He desires the salvation of John Doe, we are not free to tell John Doe that God desires your salvation.


I understand and agree with this. The reality is that this view is exactly what those in broad evangelicalism rail against when they think of Calvinists. This was one of the last things I had to give up when I left Synergism. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" How can any Christian argue against that? Well, a Christian can if they understand scripture. Practically speaking, we seldom have the occasion to speak to this issue outside the confines of those with whom we are like-minded. But just because it doesn't make for everyday conversation, it doesn't mean it's relegated to forums like this. The knowledge that the Gospel call is effectual only to the elect has radically changed how I share Christ with people. When I was a Baptist fundamentalist I felt like I had to push for a decision. That's the way I was taught. As I began to understand the effectual call, I realized that is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring a sinner to repentance and faith. I am nothing more than a vessel of clay that has been given an opportunity to share the Gospel message. Instead of pushing for a decision, I can remain focused on the Gospel. Over the years the Lord has been gracious in granting me divine appointments to share the Gospel. While I have shared the Gospel in those situations with a sense of urgency, I have abandoned the tactic of pushing for a decision.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Herald said:


> I understand and agree with this. The reality is that this view is exactly what those in broad evangelicalism rail against when they think of Calvinists. This was one of the last things I had to give up when I left Synergism. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" How can any Christian argue against that? Well, a Christian can if they understand scripture. Practically speaking, we seldom have the occasion to speak to this issue outside the confines of those with whom we are like-minded. But just because it doesn't make for everyday conversation, it doesn't mean it's relegated to forums like this. The knowledge that the Gospel call is effectual only to the elect has radically changed how I share Christ with people. When I was a Baptist fundamentalist I felt like I had to push for a decision. That's the way I was taught. As I began to understand the effectual call, I realized that is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring a sinner to repentance and faith. I am nothing more than a vessel of clay that has been given an opportunity to share the Gospel message. Instead of pushing for a decision, I can remain focused on the Gospel. Over the years the Lord has been gracious in granting me divine appointments to share the Gospel. While I have shared the Gospel in those situations with a sense of urgency, I have abandoned the tactic of pushing for a decision.


Amen! And doesn’t your faith and deliverance mean so much more to you that God’s full counsel has been revealed....

‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life’ sounds so hollow... I’m sure it does even to the outside world, especially those who are struggling and hurting and desperately need to stake their lives on the miracle of Christ and His regenerative Word and power

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Even the most ardent opponent of the phrase, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan or your life" may say, instead, these phrases:

"There is always comfort available to you from God."
"If you go to Him, then He will receive you."
"Whatever cares you have, you may cast them upon God."
"Heaven would rejoice over your repentance."
"If you knock, it will be opened unto you."
"Jesus Christ receives sinners..."
"God will not reject you if you desire Him."
"Jesus Christ invites you by His Word to believe."

I believe that we can say a lot more than these phrases, but I don't believe there is any reason for any of you on the spectrum of High Calvinism to reject the above phrases. 

I have seen a few High Calvinists be needlessly harsh in evangelism as if God desires to damn those who hear the Word, and several have blatantly said that their job that day might be to "go harden up sinner's hearts" - but that is no way to think of evangelism. If the Word is an invitation then we should be inviting with it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw

I would be interested in seeing examples of folks here on the PB rejecting phrases that reflect God's promises to any sinner that comes to Him. Surely they misspoke or mistyped. Those are unequivocal promises pulled directly from the Scriptures, and what comforting promises they are to a sinner undone.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum

Joshua said:


> I would be interested in seeing examples of folks here on the PB rejecting phrases that reflect God's promises to any sinner that comes to Him. Surely they misspoke or mistyped. Those are unequivocal promises pulled directly from the Scriptures, and what comforting promises they are to a sinner undone.


Yes, I hope not. But I have personally met a few. These were baptists who had tired of Arminian churches and perhaps had over-reacted in the other direction. Ironically, 1 or 2 of these claimed to have been saved at "evangelical revivals" and one man claimed to have been saved at a Bill Graham rally and yet counted Graham as a heretic who would go to hell.


----------



## Tom Hart

@Pergamum, what is "High Calvinism"?


----------



## jw

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I hope not. But I have personally met a few. These were baptists who had tired of Arminian churches and perhaps had over-reacted in the other direction. Ironically, 1 or 2 of these claimed to have been saved at "evangelical revivals" and one man claimed to have been saved at a Bill Graham rally and yet counted Graham as a heretic who would go to hell.


But you said "any of you," which I took to mean the audience of the PB, which by deduction, would make me think you've seen instances of folks here rejecting the phrases. Did you mean any anywhere, or did you have PB instances in mind. I'd like to review them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> "There is always comfort available to you from God."
> "If you go to Him, then He will receive you."
> "Whatever cares you have, you may cast them upon God."
> "Heaven would rejoice over your repentance."
> "If you knock, it will be opened unto you."
> "Jesus Christ receives sinners..."
> "God will not reject you if you desire Him."
> "Jesus Christ invites you by His Word to believe."



I don't think you'll find many here who disagree with these statements.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Joshua said:


> But you said "any of you," which I took to mean the audience of the PB, which by deduction, would make me think you've seen instances of folks here rejecting the phrases. Did you mean any anywhere, or did you have PB instances in mind. I'd like to review them.



If I may join in, it seemed that way to me as well. It may be that @Pergamum is arguing against a perspective not even represented here.


----------



## jw

Tom Hart said:


> If I may join in, it seemed that way to me as well. It may be that @Pergamum is arguing against a perspective not even represented here.


That's what I'm hoping, otherwise we have some stranger sort of folk masquerading as Reformed on the PB that ought not be, at worst. At best, they're confused and haven't come around yet.  And -if per chance- it is some post of mine, I want to refute myself and give clarification, or altogether repent!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Pergamum said:


> Even the most ardent opponent of the phrase, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan or your life" may say, instead, these phrases:
> 
> "There is always comfort available to you from God."
> "If you go to Him, then He will receive you."
> "Whatever cares you have, you may cast them upon God."
> "Heaven would rejoice over your repentance."
> "If you knock, it will be opened unto you."
> "Jesus Christ receives sinners..."
> "God will not reject you if you desire Him."
> "Jesus Christ invites you by His Word to believe."
> 
> I believe that we can say a lot more than these phrases, but I don't believe there is any reason for any of you on the spectrum of High Calvinism to reject the above phrases.
> 
> I have seen a few High Calvinists be needlessly harsh in evangelism as if God desires to damn those who hear the Word, and several have blatantly said that their job that day might be to "go harden up sinner's hearts" - but that is no way to think of evangelism. If the Word is an invitation then we should be inviting with it.


I agree with everything you say here.... and you are absolutely right about high (nah, probably more hyper) calvinists in their very guarded presentation of a form of the gospel message.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> @Pergamum, what is "High Calvinism"?


Is this a serious question?


----------



## Pergamum

A.Joseph said:


> Personally, I think high Calvinism denotes faithful Christians with a strong obedience and appreciation to God and His sovereignty. I think it’s the HyperCalvinsm that we start to get into dangerous territory, even though they have their strengths as far as keeping Lords day, a form of piety, modest dress, etc.....but I think there is overlap in these areas obviously with other forms of Calvinism.... I don’t want to generalize with these too convenient labels


I believe the Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo (1924) and those churches who follow it are High Calvinists and in error in their rejection of common grace.


----------



## timfost

py3ak said:


> Tim, I am not sure I understand everything that you say in your post, and I think the part quoted is at the core of it.
> 
> In the first sentence, are you saying anything more than that God's precepts are revealed? Certainly that's true, but I don't know if it exhausts your meaning.



Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I'm using _revealed_ and _preceptive _will somewhat interchangeably. Bavinck explains thus:

"In all these passages, therefore, we are encountering not 'the will of God’s good pleasure,' which is unknown to us and neither can nor may be the rule for our conduct, nor an 'antecedent will,' which is anterior to the decision of our will and oriented to it, *but the 'revealed will;’ which tells us by what standard we are to conduct ourselves in the new covenant*."

I am fine to be precise and use _preceptive_, though I've often seen it used here divorced from God's good pleasure-- simply what God says _I ought to do_. God is certainly pleased to require of us something we "ought to do" because his law is a) a reflection of His own character and b) He loves righteousness and hates lawlessness. When men do not obey God, they do what displeases him. If God a) requires that man repent and b) is pleased when man obeys, does He not c) desire the salvation of all men _insofar as He desires His law to be obeyed_? My concern is that we would make God's law something that God only desires when He decrees obedience. This simply doesn't account for all biblical data and divorces God's desire from His law. I don't really think you do divorce it, though I'm not sure exactly how you reconcile it.

I don't want to get hung up on words. Hopefully this helps.



> In the second sentence, I would understand if you said " 'preceptive' and 'decretive' are not in opposition in the infinite God" etc. That's certainly true, and Abraham's responsibility to sacrifice Isaac would be a case in point. However, I lose the train of thought when the contrast is revealed and decretive. _Preceptive_ and _decretive_ distinguish _what obligation God has determined to impose_ and _what events God has determined to effect_. There is a distinction based on the object God is willing. Revealed and secret relate to our knowledge. We may know what is revealed; we are not intended to know, and I suspect will rarely guess correctly, at what is not revealed.



I understand the distinction if we are counting God's decree as it is made known. Again, I was using "revealed" more restrictively, in that God reveals His _desires_ in His law. The decree as it is made known does not reveal God's desires per se, otherwise, I would say that the sin I committed God desired since He revealed what He decreed in time.



> I agree with your third sentence, and that it is part of ectypal theology that it is necessary to distinguish various aspects of a will we ultimately know to be one. I am not objecting to the need for distinguishing in any way. God knows what he has and will revealed, as well as what will never be revealed.



Glad we agree. 

Hope this helps with clarification...


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> If I may join in, it seemed that way to me as well. It may be that @Pergamum is arguing against a perspective not even represented here.



I believe the Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo (1924) and those churches who follow it are High Calvinists and in error in their rejection of common grace. There are those on the PB who follow the PRCA and the Trinity Foundation and who deny common grace. 

Common grace is a biblical doctrine. Some deny that God has any manner of love whatsoever for any but the elect. This position has not been the majority Reformed position. This denial of common grace is one of the marks of High Calvinism. 

Some even state that the purpose God does any kindness to the wicked at all is to add to their guilt. That is God's motive (heaping coals on their head, as a motive and not merely a result). This impugns God's good nature and is a mark of Hyper-calvinism.

And those who reject common grace are often supralapserian, stating that God decreed the damnation of some prior to even the decree to create them, thus giving the impression that God created them to be damned. This is another mark of High Calvinism. To speak of God actively creating to damn or predestinating to hell instead of "reprobating" or "passing by" the wicked is erroneous and is a mark of Hyper-Calvinism. God does not predestine the Elect to heaven in the same manner that He passes by sinners so that they are condemned to hell.

Many reject the sincerity of the Gospel offer. While this is not necessarily a mark of hyperism some have gone further and stated that we are not to "offer" the Gospel at all but only demand repentance. They falsely state that the Gospel is not an invitation but a command. But this is wrong...it is both. These latter positions typify hypers.

Some further add on additional errant doctrines such as the doctrine of eternal justification (stating that God has actually justified the elect from all eternity instead of merely decreeing to justify the elect from all eternity). 

These are some of the traits of Hypercalvinism. Taken alone or in moderation some of these doctrines might merely typify you as a High Calvinist and not a Hyper-Calvinist. 

But sometimes a guy in a bar cannot identify himself as getting tipsy and many alcoholics would never admit as much to themselves. And NO church EVER admits to hypercalvinism, but many might as well be when you examine their manner and lack of intensity in evangelism and missions.


----------



## Pergamum

Much has been made of God's revealed will versus his decretive will.

For instance, it is His revealed will that: _God commands all men everywhere to repent._

If God commands all men everywhere to repent, I am certainly NOT going to say that God does NOT want all men everywhere to actually repent. Unless you want to say that He commands something that He does not want to happen. No parent tells his children, "I command and desire you to disobey me."

Those who reject the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel object that this doctrine causes God to desire something that He does not bring to pass (that God is internally conflicted), but even more conflicted is the one who says that God commands men to do many things that He doesn't want them to do. 

Further, if heaven rejoices over every sinner who actually does repent, I am not going to say that God does not want such a thing.

God's revealed will shows that He takes pleasure in His creatures obeying Him and that God's disposition is to bless and He only condemns when He must. To come to this conclusion is not prying into His secret will but just taking God to mean what he says.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

In Scripture we have passages both where God is said to desire sinners to turn and also where God expresses a satisfaction in the destruction of sinners.

One example:
Lam. 3:33 "For He [God] does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of man".

Other examples include Ezekial 18.

How do these Scriptures not contradict? It is because one set of passages is written from the standpoint of God's disposition to bless. He is a kind Creator and loves all of His creation and delights in their good. Yet because of the Fall we also see judicial language as well. Despite God's common grace and general love to all of mankind (a doctrine affirmed by many, if not most, of the Reformed theologians of the past) God "hates" some judicially. 

God is love. But God is not hate. The loving God sometimes hates. The love of God existed prior to Creation. Yet there was no wrath or judgment prior to Creation, only God's holiness. Thus properly speaking hate is not an attribute of God on the same level as love within God, for God always exercised love from eternity past, but did not always exercise hate. 

God can thus be said to love all and desire the good of all, even if He (due to sin) must judicially hate some of mankind.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Is this a serious question?



Yes. Care to give a definition?


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> Yes. Care to give a definition?


I outlined it above. #127.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> I outlined it above. #127.



By "High Calvinism" do you mean the same as "Hyper-Calvinism"?


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> By "High Calvinism" do you mean the same as "Hyper-Calvinism"?


No. They are not the same. 

All Hyper-Calvinists are High Calvinists. But not all High Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> No. They are not the same.
> 
> All Hyper-Calvinists are High Calvinists. But not all High Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists.



You'll need to define how you're using these terms. You've been throwing them around quite a lot as though they have widely understood and agreed-upon meanings.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> You'll need to define how you're using these terms. You've been throwing them around quite a lot as though they have widely understood and agreed-upon meanings.


Refer to post 127.

One thing that clearly makes one a Hyper-Calvinist is believing Justification from all eternity, a view that more than one PBer has believed in.

AV1611 has said before: "Neither holding to supralapsarianism or eternal justification makes one a hypercalvinist..."

Another PBer has said in the past (though I think he has since changed his mind): "I've been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in justification from eternity..."

The denial of "duty-faith" is also a clear earmark of Hyper-calvinism. That is mostly a Primitive Baptist error.

I believe the PRCA has Hyper-Calvinist "tendencies" but I cannot say strictly that they are Hyper-Calvinist. They are High Calvinists for sure. And in error. Engelsma, Hanko and Hoeksema are all very close to Hyper-Calvinism (and some count them as such). Of course, they would deny it and call everybody else a "hypo-Calvinist" - a clever ruse.

Some state that there is no offer of grace from the preacher, they believe that there is only an outward call (a command, not an invitation or "offer" as we would think of an offer to give someone a gift). This is errant. 

John Gill is counted as a Hypercalvinist by some, but even he spoke of a general love of God to all men (though some try to say this is only in reference to the Elect, but his words seem pretty clear below):

"1b. All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, "very good", (Gen. 1:31) he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to "rejoice in his works", (Ps. 104:31) he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9) and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called "elect angels", (1 Tim. 5:21) by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, (Col. 2:10) and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, (Matthew 18:10) yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, (Acts 17:28, 14:17; Matthew 5:45) but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his "great love", (Eph. 2:4) whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, (Eph. 1:3, 4) and which love is distinguishing and discriminating (Mal 1:1, 2; Rom. 9:11, 12)."

Aside from the errant doctrine of justification from eternity, the clear earmarks of Hypercalvinism are the big two: (1) Refusing to preach to all men until there is some evidence of them being Elect, and (2) denying duty-faith. And I don't know of anyone right now on the PB that denies those two things.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Refer to post 127.



How about "High Calvinism"? Still not sure what you meant by that. It seemed to me in earlier posts you relate it to "Hyper-Calvinism", although you did say afterwards they are different.

I just want to be clear on this because terms like "Hyper-Calvinism" are used by a lot of people to describe some quite different things. For instance, I don't think it is Hyper-Calvinistic to deny that God desires to save all men, but clearly others here disagree with me on that point. To me, "Hyper-Calvinist" is something of a loaded term, employed always negatively, yet very often vaguely defined.


----------



## Afterthought

Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey. I can see how repentance and believing is rightly made an object of the preceptive will; and obviously, salvation is connected with repenting and believing.



Pergamum said:


> If God commands all men everywhere to repent, I am certainly NOT going to say that God does NOT want all men everywhere to actually repent. Unless you want to say that He commands something that He does not want to happen. No parent tells his children, "I command and desire you to disobey me."
> 
> Those who reject the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel object that this doctrine causes God to desire something that He does not bring to pass (that God is internally conflicted), but even more conflicted is the one who says that God commands men to do many things that He doesn't want them to do.


You have probably heard this before, but those who reject the WMO would say that God desires all men to obey him as a _thing_ that is in and of itself pleasing to God, but as an _event_ that takes place he does not desire it (since he decreed otherwise), thus resolving the seeming conflict in God's will. See the distinction of Jonathan Edwards. The problem with using the language of "want" is that it is unclear whether it has to do with _volition_ (events) or with what is pleasing to God in and of itself (things). Oftentimes, people intend "want" to mean "volition" (using the language of "happen" starts to suggest it is desired as an event, creating a conflict in the will of God), so those who reject the WMO object to the language on those grounds.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey. I can see how repentance and believing is rightly made an object of the preceptive will; and obviously, salvation is connected with repenting and believing.
> 
> 
> You have probably heard this before, but those who reject the WMO would say that God desires all men to obey him as a _thing_ that is in and of itself pleasing to God, but as an _event_ that takes place he does not desire it (since he decreed otherwise), thus resolving the seeming conflict in God's will. See the distinction of Jonathan Edwards. The problem with using the language of "want" is that it is unclear whether it has to do with _volition_ (events) or with what is pleasing to God in and of itself (things). Oftentimes, people intend "want" to mean "volition" (using the language of "happen" starts to suggest it is desired as an event, creating a conflict in the will of God), so those who reject the WMO object to the language on those grounds.


Afterthought:

You wrote:
"Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey."

My answer:
God commands repentance to all men everywhere and yet you would say that repentance is still granted as a gift even though it is also a command. And such repentance always results in salvation.

Augustine: “Lord command what you will and grant what you command!”

Are you denying that faith is a duty of mankind? Do you deny duty-faith?


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey. I can see how repentance and believing is rightly made an object of the preceptive will; and obviously, salvation is connected with repenting and believing.
> 
> 
> You have probably heard this before, but those who reject the WMO would say that God desires all men to obey him as a _thing_ that is in and of itself pleasing to God, but as an _event_ that takes place he does not desire it (since he decreed otherwise), thus resolving the seeming conflict in God's will. See the distinction of Jonathan Edwards. The problem with using the language of "want" is that it is unclear whether it has to do with _volition_ (events) or with what is pleasing to God in and of itself (things). Oftentimes, people intend "want" to mean "volition" (using the language of "happen" starts to suggest it is desired as an event, creating a conflict in the will of God), so those who reject the WMO object to the language on those grounds.



Ramon,

You quoted Jonathan Edwards. This is what Edwards said on these topics:

“And all this will be aggravated by the remembrance, that God once loved us so as to give his Son to bring us to the happiness of his love, and tried all manner of means to persuade us to accept of his favor, which was obstinately refused.” (Misery of the Damned).

Notice he is talking of reprobates. He affirms that God loves the reprobate.


"...His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality. God inclines to excellency, which is harmony, but yet he may incline to suffer that which is unharmonious in itself, for the promotion of universal harmony, or for the promoting of the harmony that there is in the universality, and making it shine the brighter. And thus it must needs be, and no hypothesis whatsoever will relieve a man, but that he must own these two wills of God."

Notice that Edwards affirms the two-fold aspect of the will of God.

and:

“There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men. As for instance, there is a love to holiness absolutely considered, or an agreeableness of holiness to His nature and will; or in other words, to His natural inclination. The holiness and happiness of the creature, absolutely considered, are things that He loves. These things are infinitely more agreeable to His nature than to ours. There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection. All that is consistent with infinite knowledge, wisdom, power, self-sufficience, infinite happiness, and immutability. Therefore there is no reason that His absolute prescience, or His wise determination and ordering of what is future, should hinder His expressing this disposition of His nature, in like manner as we are wont to express such a disposition in ourselves, viz., by calls, and invitations, and the like.” (Banner edition, 2:528

Notice that Edwards affirms that God desires the salvation of all men.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Afterthought said:


> Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey. I can see how repentance and believing is rightly made an object of the preceptive will; and obviously, salvation is connected with repenting and believing.
> 
> 
> You have probably heard this before, but those who reject the WMO would say that God desires all men to obey him as a _thing_ that is in and of itself pleasing to God, but as an _event_ that takes place he does not desire it (since he decreed otherwise), thus resolving the seeming conflict in God's will. See the distinction of Jonathan Edwards. The problem with using the language of "want" is that it is unclear whether it has to do with _volition_ (events) or with what is pleasing to God in and of itself (things). Oftentimes, people intend "want" to mean "volition" (using the language of "happen" starts to suggest it is desired as an event, creating a conflict in the will of God), so those who reject the WMO object to the language on those grounds.


This is very helpful wording; I appreciate the distinction you made between ‘things’ and ‘events’ and get from it that we should be sure-footed when we speak of what God “wants” and “desires” in connection with events. In addition, what would you and others say about Paul’s use of the word “all”, such as in 1 Timothy 2:1-8; (God would have all men be saved and come to know the truth...); doesn’t that word have distinctions as well? I have always seen it as meaning all kinds of men: kings, those in authority, Gentiles.


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> Does anyone else here see a problem with making salvation an object of the preceptive will? Salvation is a gift of God, not a command that man must (and can never) obey. I can see how repentance and believing is rightly made an object of the preceptive will; and obviously, salvation is connected with repenting and believing.
> 
> 
> You have probably heard this before, but those who reject the WMO would say that God desires all men to obey him as a _thing_ that is in and of itself pleasing to God, but as an _event_ that takes place he does not desire it (since he decreed otherwise), thus resolving the seeming conflict in God's will. See the distinction of Jonathan Edwards. The problem with using the language of "want" is that it is unclear whether it has to do with _volition_ (events) or with what is pleasing to God in and of itself (things). Oftentimes, people intend "want" to mean "volition" (using the language of "happen" starts to suggest it is desired as an event, creating a conflict in the will of God), so those who reject the WMO object to the language on those grounds.



A lot of people quibble over the words "will" and "desire." I ask you to define what you mean by God's will or desire. Here is one example of what it means:

In I Samuel 2:22-25 we read:

"22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

23 And he said unto them, “Why do ye such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all this people.

24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear. Ye make the Lord’S people to transgress.

25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him. But if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?” Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord WOULD [HAPHEZ] slay them."


And in Ezekial 33:11 we read:
"Say unto them: ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?’" ["have pleasure' - HAPHEZ, the same word as in I Samuel 2:22-25]

John Piper concludes:

"Moreover, the word translated as “will” in the clause “it was the will of the Lord to put them to death” is the same Hebrew word (haphez) used in Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11, where God asserts that he does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked. The word signifies desire or pleasure. God (in one sense) desired to put the sons of Eli to death, but (in another sense) he does not desire the death of the wicked. This is a strong warning to us not to take one assertion, such as Ezekiel 18:23, and assume we know the precise meaning without letting other passages, such as 1 Samuel 2:25, have a say. The upshot of putting the two together is that in one sense God may desire the death of the wicked and in another sense he may not."


Therefore, I must affirm the two-fold aspect of the will of God.

That is how it can be said that God possesses a general love for all mankind and even a desire for their good (for God surely cannot delight in sin) while at the same time as He does not ordain the salvation of all and he judicially hates the reprobate and gains judicial satisfaction from their judgment (and thus delights in their judgment).

Many human judges have a similar disposition of both loving mankind and hoping the best and delighting in a job well done and rejoicing in seeing justice done. We are made in God's image, after all.

But the High Calvinist says that God either must absolutely love or He must absolutely hate a person and that God has no love at all for the reprobate or any disposition or desire to bless him at all.

--
If you reply that this is only God's revealed will and not God's decretive will shown in the passages above, then I must ask, "Is there no correspondence between God's law and God's nature? Is there no relation to the ectypal and the archetypal? These verses tell us something real about God's nature."


----------



## jw

The Ezekiel passages (Chs. 18, 33) referenced have necessary context, _The soul that sinneth, it shall die_.

One thing is that it is prophetic word to the covenant people (There may certainly be, however, application to mankind in general). In these passages, the covenant people of God's cry is that they're being judged for their father's sins, and that the way of the Lord is not equal.

The second thing to consider is that it is true the Lord desires that the wicked, _*who turns from his evil ways,*_ would be saved, and would take no pleasure in that turning wicked man's eternal destruction (_i.e._ it will not happen, because the Lord does not desire it).

The third thing to consider is that Ezekiel does not say, "Joe Israelite, the Lord desires thy salvation!" He says, "Tell the house of Israel that the wicked man who turns from his ways shall live," and -to the contrary- "The [so-called] righteous, who persists in wickedness, will die."

To proclaim that God desires of a certainty the salvation of an individual person, and yet has decreed that person shall die in his sins, and subsequently spend all of eternity separated from the comfortable presence of God, is a contradiction. It is not an _apparent_ contradiction, but _*truly*_ a contradiction, and then is unbefitting to ascribe to God Who is one, and accomplishes all His holy will, and is subject to none, nor in need of any, but has decreed all things according to the counsel of His own will, which shall not be frustrated. And yet, He has so condescended to say indefinitely to sinners as sinners, that He will in no wise cast any aside who come to Him by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We need not press to Individual 1, "God really really wants thee to be saved!" and Scripture does not call men to proclaim that. But we must, and may freely say and affirm that which the Scriptures say, which is God saves sinners. He does not despise a broken and contrite heart to any who come to Him. "Turn to him, Individual 1, cling to Christ! Go to God in faith, and believe His promises to sinners! Thou art without excuse if thou refuse Him. Be rid of thy sins and self righteousness and iniquities call upon His Name!"

It is not true to say _God wants everyone without exception to be saved_. It _*is*_ true to say _God will save to the uttermost any and all who come to Him by faith in Christ_.

Last word(s) are y'all's. I would only commend -for a closer look at this subject, and especially the passages that are often appealed to with regard to this subject- the following sermon series on the _Free Offer of the Gospel_:

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> A lot of people quibble over the words "will" and "desire." I ask you to define what you mean by God's will or desire.



An explicit teaching about the will of God and His desire:

Job 23:13
13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. (see also, Isaiah 46:10-11; Daniel 4:35; Psalms 135:6)

God has no unfulfilled desires. God need only wish this or that thing be or not be, and it is done.

Does God's "desire" concern _an event_ or _a thing_? Does God's desire refer to what _shall be_ or what _ought to be_?

If God's desire refers to an _event _that will never take place, this is unfulfilled desire, contrary to Scripture's teachings that God desires even that He does, and God does whatsoever pleases Him.

When speaking of the "desire" of God found in abundance in Scripture as _voluntas signi_, we must limit this to God's revealed (preceptive) will—_obligations _to the _thing_ in and of itself. For _events_ and _futurition_ found in Scripture as _voluntas beneplaciti_, we speak of the "desire" of God as limited to God's decretive will.

That said, The "will" of God, in a proper and undivided sense, is God's _volition_, decreeing what shall be done. In this strict sense, there is but a single will of God called _beneplaciti_, whereby God determines by Himself what He wills to do in and concerning the creature (see, Heinrich Heppe, _Reformed Dogmatics_, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, p. 87.) 

The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Matthew 22:1-14) teaches us that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 2:509). Which is to say there is no volitional content on the part of the king in his command/duty to come to the wedding. Therefore it would be quite inappropriate to claim the king willed all will come to the wedding. Why? The command of the king was an obligation/duty for all, yet not an expression of the king's volitional will as to the futurition of their actions (to come or not to come).

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Afterthought

Pergamum said:


> My answer:
> God commands repentance to all men everywhere and yet you would say that repentance is still granted as a gift even though it is also a command. And such repentance always results in salvation.
> 
> Augustine: “Lord command what you will and grant what you command!”
> 
> Are you denying that faith is a duty of mankind? Do you deny duty-faith?


I am not denying that faith is a duty of mankind that follows from the First Commandment to believe all that God says, do all he commands, and trust in him for one's life and happiness. However, there is a difference between faith and repentance--which is a duty of man--and saving faith and repentance unto life. The latter two are evangelical graces and so gifts of God. Indeed, the latter two are parts of the gift of salvation that was purchased. Making saving faith and salvation itself objects of the preceptive will makes these things duties of men; in other words, they have to obey a command of God in order to be saved. However, even the regenerate with their grace prompted and assisted good works have mixture. How can a man ever hope to obey enough so that they can be saved? The only answer is that God gives saving faith as an evangelical grace: although it is exercised imperfectly by the sinner, it is perfect in itself and therefore unites to Christ savingly. Making salvation (and all of its parts) an object of the preceptive will seems to lead to neo-nomianism. Do you see the concern?

At any rate, it appears Durham would agree with my concerns about salvation as an object of the preceptive will and explains the connection of salvation--an object of the decretive will--to faith and repentance as objects of the preceptive will.

"It will not follow, Christ willeth persons to repent, therefore he willeth their salvation: because he may be said to will them to repent, when he requireth it of them as their duty; and thus, their duty of repenting is the immediate object of his revealed and preceptive will: but a person’s salvation is the proper object of his will of good pleasure, or of his decreeing and purposing will. And no otherwise can he be said, to will such person’s salvation (because he commanded them to repent) than this, viz. that in his word he hath signified repentance to be such a person’s duty, and that he hath appointed a connection between repentance and salvation." (from here: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neonomianism-and-the-offer-of-the-gospel.83252/#post-1044439)


There have been a number of quotations from Edwards and then a number of other related topics. I don't want to turn this thread into another quote war and jump all over the place, although I'm not sure Edwards means what you have claimed him to mean. I merely quoted Edwards so he could explain the distinction between _thing_ and _event_ for me. It was said that those who deny the WMO run into their own contradiction, so I gave the distinction that relieves the contradiction. What problem do you see with this distinction (and AMR has helpfully clarified the distinction further; along with clarifying "will" and "desire")?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought

Jeri Tanner said:


> This is very helpful wording; I appreciate the distinction you made between ‘things’ and ‘events’ and get from it that we should be sure-footed when we speak of what God “wants” and “desires” in connection with events. In addition, what would you and others say about Paul’s use of the word “all”, such as in 1 Timothy 2:1-8; (God would have all men be saved and come to know the truth...); doesn’t that word have distinctions as well? I have always seen it as meaning all kinds of men: kings, those in authority, Gentiles.


I agree that it is referring to all kinds of men. Calvin has a useful argument on this, although I don't recall if the most useful treatment was in his Institutes, commentary, or some other treatise. If one takes "all" to have a universal reference, one ends up reading a universal reference into the rest of the "alls." See how John Collinges (the author of the comments in 1 Timothy for the Matthew Poole commentary) reads in an universal reference into the first "all" and cannot resist ending up with a universal reference throughout, If I recall correctly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> I am not denying that faith is a duty of mankind that follows from the First Commandment to believe all that God says, do all he commands, and trust in him for one's life and happiness. However, there is a difference between faith and repentance--which is a duty of man--and saving faith and repentance unto life. The latter two are evangelical graces and so gifts of God. Indeed, the latter two are parts of the gift of salvation that was purchased. Making saving faith and salvation itself objects of the preceptive will makes these things duties of men; in other words, they have to obey a command of God in order to be saved. However, even the regenerate with their grace prompted and assisted good works have mixture. How can a man ever hope to obey enough so that they can be saved? The only answer is that God gives saving faith as an evangelical grace: although it is exercised imperfectly by the sinner, it is perfect in itself and therefore unites to Christ savingly. Making salvation (and all of its parts) an object of the preceptive will seems to lead to neo-nomianism. Do you see the concern?
> 
> At any rate, it appears Durham would agree with my concerns about salvation as an object of the preceptive will and explains the connection of salvation--an object of the decretive will--to faith and repentance as objects of the preceptive will.
> 
> "It will not follow, Christ willeth persons to repent, therefore he willeth their salvation: because he may be said to will them to repent, when he requireth it of them as their duty; and thus, their duty of repenting is the immediate object of his revealed and preceptive will: but a person’s salvation is the proper object of his will of good pleasure, or of his decreeing and purposing will. And no otherwise can he be said, to will such person’s salvation (because he commanded them to repent) than this, viz. that in his word he hath signified repentance to be such a person’s duty, and that he hath appointed a connection between repentance and salvation." (from here: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neonomianism-and-the-offer-of-the-gospel.83252/#post-1044439)
> 
> 
> There have been a number of quotations from Edwards and then a number of other related topics. I don't want to turn this thread into another quote war and jump all over the place, although I'm not sure Edwards means what you have claimed him to mean. I merely quoted Edwards so he could explain the distinction between _thing_ and _event_ for me. It was said that those who deny the WMO run into their own contradiction, so I gave the distinction that relieves the contradiction. What problem do you see with this distinction (and AMR has helpfully clarified the distinction further)?



You state:

"...there is a difference between faith and repentance--which is a duty of man--and saving faith and repentance unto life. The latter two are evangelical graces and so gifts of God. Indeed, the latter two are parts of the gift of salvation that was purchased. Making saving faith and salvation itself objects of the preceptive will makes these things duties of men; in other words, they have to obey a command of God in order to be saved."

So you are, indeed, denying duty-faith. 

John 14, "...ye believe in God, believe also in me..." How is faith not a duty? 

Again I quote Augustine: “Lord command what you will and grant what you command!”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

God's precepts mirror/correspond with His nature/disposition. 

God says He delights in the law and when the law is followed. He commands us to believe and repent.


----------



## Afterthought

Pergamum said:


> So you are, indeed, denying duty-faith.
> 
> John 14, "...ye believe in God, believe also in me..." How is faith not a duty?
> 
> Again I quote Augustine: “Lord command what you will and grant what you command!”


No, I am denying duty-saving faith. How can an evangelical grace (Westminster Larger Catechism) be a duty? If you find my distinction difficult in my explanation of it, I mean nothing more than what the Marrow Men affirmed.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. this thread started when Jacob asked how a non-free offer preacher would evangelize. I insisted that it would impede evangelism, and others denied it. Eventually the discussion split off into two threads.

And here we are a long time later with the denial of duty-faith, the very issue in the time of William Carey and Andrew Fuller, which had dried up the baptists before their time.

Here is a quote about Andrew Fuller's work which paved the way for William Carey to become the Father of Modern Missions:

“Fuller maintained that the gospel was worthy of _all_ acceptation, from which Carey deduced that its acceptance ought to be pressed on _all _mankind.” 

(Watson, T.E., ‘Andrew Fuller’s Conflict with Hypercalvinism’, 1959, in Puritan Papers, vol. 1, 1956-1959 Buy edited by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2000, p. 276-281).

NOTE: Watson link's Fuller's work in helping bring about the mdoern missions movement.

Who was Andrew Fuller's enemy? Hyper-Calvinists who denied duty-faith...which led to deadening of the missionary spirit of the churches. Fuller helped revive that missionary spirit.


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> No, I am denying duty-saving faith. How can an evangelical grace (Westminster Larger Catechism) be a duty? If you find my distinction difficult in my explanation of it, I mean nothing more than what the Marrow Men affirmed.



Faith is the gift of God; faith is the duty of man.

This is no different than (1) God is one God; three person, or (2) Jesus is fully God; fully Man.

I will note that it is this discomfort at theological paradox that leads many Calvinists to deny duty-faith or the two-fold aspect of the will of God. They "rationalize" instead of taking the Word for what is says. This is why Luther called reason a "B____ Goddess."

See this excellent synopsis here: 
https://reformedreader.wordpress.co...creator-creaturearchetype-ectype-distinction/



My duty is not to explain it, but only to believe it. We are stuck in the ectypal and cannot know the Archetypal.

See R. Scott Clark's article, ""Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology,": https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

See also the Puritanboard's Matthew MacMahon's critique of Hyper-Calvinism here: https://www.apuritansmind.com/histo...s-of-hyper-calvinism-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

He says the following on faith:

"3. The Demand for Faith

This, then, leads us into the next problem of Hyper-Calvinism which is their denial that man is responsible to have faith as their duty before they are converted. Hyper-Calvinism neglects human responsibility in this manner because it is unsure how to explain the “apparent contradiction” between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. To deny Biblical texts which teach human responsibility is not the answer to this. [Scripture shown]

...These passages show that man has a responsibility to God even before he is converted. If this is not the case, then the law written on their hearts, the Gentiles being a law to themselves, and other like passages have no meaning whatsoever. To the Hyper-Calvinist, men are only wicked, dead corpses which cannot think about, nor give heed to the revelation of God, which is an unexegetical position to hold in light of special revelation.

The Hyper-Calvinist Objects: Hyper-Calvinism says this is logically inconsistent. How can fallen men be called to exercise faith without regeneration? This would seem as though God desires they repent while at the same time He does not give them the ability to repent. The Hyper-Calvinist thinks this is a contradiction, but it is not. What does the Hyper-Calvinist do when the Biblical passages are quoted? They enter into a “so-called” logical debate at the expense of being fair to the Bible’s statements about duty-faith."


----------



## timfost

Afterthought said:


> No, I am denying duty-saving faith.



Rebranding doesn't charge our concern. Although I would disagree with many other things about this thread, this is the most concerning thing I've heard as it is classically hyper-Calvinism with an added adjective. It was always saving faith that duty-faith encompassed. Do you need quotes?

If Christ merited faith for us, he merited it through the law. If he merited faith through the law that man is under, saving faith is man's duty, unless Christ kept a different law than fallen man was obligated to keep.


----------



## Herald

Charles Spurgeon spoke these words in a sermon he preached on May 8, 1864:

"Brethren, if it be so that God cannot lie, then it must be the natural duty of all his creatures to believe him. I cannot resist that conclusion. It seems to me to be as clear as noonday, that it is every man's duty to believe truth, and that if God must speak and act truth, and truth only, it is the duty of all intelligent creatures to believe him. Here is “Duty-faith” again, which some are railing at, but how they can get away from it, and yet believe that God cannot lie, I cannot understand. If it be not my duty to believe in God, then it is no sin for me to call God a liar. Will anyone subscribe to that—that God is a liar? I think not; and if to think God to be a liar would be a most atrocious piece of blasphemy, then it can only be so on the ground that it is the natural and incumbent duty of every creature understanding the truthfulness of God to believe in God. If God has set forth the Lord Jesus Christ as the propitiation for sin, and has told me to trust Christ, it is my duty to trust Christ, because God cannot lie; and though my sinful heart will never believe in Christ as a matter of duty but only through the work of the Holy Spirit, yet faith does not cease to be a duty; and whenever I am unbelieving and have doubts concerning God, however moral my outward life may be, I am living in daily sin; I am perpetrating a sin against the first principles of morality. If I doubt God, as far as I am able I rob him of his honour, and stab him in the vital point of his glory; I am, in fact, living an open traitor and a sworn rebel against God, upon whom I heap the daily insult of daring to doubt him."

Paul said these words to the men of Athens in Acts 17:30, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all _people _everywhere should repent,". We should not confuse the duty (command) to believe with the ability to believe. All men are commanded to believe. It is their duty before their Creator. We know only the Elect will believe but to determine who belongs to that group is well beyond our paygrade. In fact, to even dwell upon that question does not profit us. The fact that all men everywhere should repent provides one of the strongest reasons to proclaim the Gospel to whoever will listen.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

@Pergamum and @timfost, I am curious- do you guys hold to limited atonement, as classically defined, or no?


----------



## Pergamum

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Pergamum and @timfost, I am curious- do you guys hold to limited atonement, as classically defined, or no?


Yes. I believe in the L in TULIP.

There is a universal call and invitation, and a definite atonement. 

"In asserting, as he does repeatedly, the legitimacy of a universal, indiscriminate offer of salvation to any and to all, Calvin, they urge, presupposes a universal atonement as the logical necessary foundation for such a call.

To this we reply in acknowledging readily that Calvin does indeed assert the propriety of, yea, the divine mandate for an indiscriminate call to salvation addressed to any and all human beings that may be reached by language. We furthermore believe that Calvin was right in line with Scripture, and that those who would restrict the call to the elect are mistaken. But the proposition that the prerequisite for an indiscriminate call is a universal provision, which is the base of the whole argument, appears to us palpably and demonstrably false. Most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision! All that is really requisite for a well-meant offer is that, if the terms of the offer be complied with, that which was offered will in fact be delivered. This is precisely what occurs with the gospel (John 6:37), but no one fulfills the terms except those whom the Father draws (John 6:44, 65). Whether or or not God has made a provision for those who do not come has nothing to do with the sincerity of the offer. No solid argument can therefore be built in favor of universal atonement on this basis."

(Roger Nicole, _John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,_ Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 213-214. Available online at _A Puritan’s Mind_.)


----------



## Smeagol

Again, I think there is some sense in which the Westminster Standards themselves acknowledge a degree of grace being provided to those who will ultimately rebel against it. I am resolved to keep it as simply as expressed below as most of this thread seems to be a display of individual preference when it comes to certain lingo. Call all men to repent sincerely and trust the Holy Spirit to effectually call his elect.

WLC # 68:
Q. 68. _Are the elect only effectually called?_
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; *although others* may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some *common operations of the Spirit*; who, for their willful neglect and contempt *of the grace offered to them*, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant Jones said:


> Again, I think there is some sense in which the Westminster Standards themselves acknowledge a degree of grace being provided to those who will ultimately rebel against it. I am resolved to keep it as simply as expressed below as most of this thread seems to be a display of individual preference when it comes to certain lingo. Call all men to repent sincerely and trust the Holy Spirit to effectually call his elect.
> 
> WLC # 68:
> Q. 68. _Are the elect only effectually called?_
> A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; [you]*although others*[/you] may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some [you]*common operations of the Spirit*[/you]; who, for their willful neglect and contempt *of the [you]grace offered to them[/you]*, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.



I believe the "grace offered to them" above refers to the grace of God as given through the Word and sacrament, that which the Divines referred to when they used "common operations of the Spirit" in relation to the general call, distinguished from the effectual call.

So yes, the reprobate participates in this outward grace, and we can call this "common grace" as it is certainly common to all participating in the hearing of the Word and/or administration of the sacraments.

See Durham's _Christ Crucified or _"Concerning the Nature and Differences of Saving and Common Grace," in his _Commentary on Revelation_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> Yes. I believe in the L in TULIP.


I ask because using the language of God's "desire," or "longing," for the reprobate to be saved- using that language in pressing on any individual that God loves them, longs for them to be saved, etc.; is inconsistent with a definite atonement purchased, settled, by the blood of Christ; the recipients of whom are known only to God. Appeals by God in Scripture to men to be saved ("why will ye die?") and verses that speak of his appeals to return to him are limited to God's covenant people; you will find none that are addressed to heathen nations or to any individual. God is not fervently desiring the salvation of one for whom his Son's blood, by virtue of covenant, was not efficacious.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Smeagol

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I believe the "grace offered to them" above refers to the grace of God as given through the Word and sacrament, that which the Divines referred to when they used "common operations of the Spirit" in relation to the general call, distinguished from the effectual call.
> 
> So yes, the reprobate participates in this outward grace, and we can call this "common grace" as it is certainly common to all participating in the hearing of the Word and/or administration of the sacraments.
> 
> See Durham's _Christ Crucified or _"Concerning the Nature and Differences of Saving and Common Grace," in his _Commentary on Revelation_.


Agreed.


----------



## Tom Hart

Jeri Tanner said:


> I ask because using the language of God's "desire," or "longing," for the reprobate to be saved- using that language in pressing on any individual that God loves them, longs for them to be saved, etc.; is inconsistent with a definite atonement purchased, settled, by the blood of Christ; the recipients of whom are known only to God. Appeals by God in Scripture to men to be saved ("why will ye die?") and verses that speak of his appeals to return to him are limited to God's covenant people; you will find none that are addressed to heathen nations or to any individual. God is not fervently desiring the salvation of one for whom his Son's blood, by virtue of covenant, was not efficacious.



I have been troubled by this issue for a long time. But I keep coming back to this. God does not elect all, yet he desires all to be saved? Christ was not given for all, but God desires the salvation of all? How can those things be reconciled? It's possible it is simply beyond me, but I don't see any such thing in the Scriptures, and I know that God's mind is not divided.

The arguments of the other side seem to me to be quite insufficient to resolve the apparent contradiction.


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I'm using _revealed_ and _preceptive _will somewhat interchangeably. Bavinck explains thus:
> 
> "In all these passages, therefore, we are encountering not 'the will of God’s good pleasure,' which is unknown to us and neither can nor may be the rule for our conduct, nor an 'antecedent will,' which is anterior to the decision of our will and oriented to it, *but the 'revealed will;’ which tells us by what standard we are to conduct ourselves in the new covenant*."
> 
> I am fine to be precise and use _preceptive_, though I've often seen it used here divorced from God's good pleasure-- simply what God says _I ought to do_. God is certainly pleased to require of us something we "ought to do" because his law is a) a reflection of His own character and b) He loves righteousness and hates lawlessness. When men do not obey God, they do what displeases him. If God a) requires that man repent and b) is pleased when man obeys, does He not c) desire the salvation of all men _insofar as He desires His law to be obeyed_? My concern is that we would make God's law something that God only desires when He decrees obedience. This simply doesn't account for all biblical data and divorces God's desire from His law. I don't really think you do divorce it, though I'm not sure exactly how you reconcile it.
> 
> I don't want to get hung up on words. Hopefully this helps.
> 
> I understand the distinction if we are counting God's decree as it is made known. Again, I was using "revealed" more restrictively, in that God reveals His _desires_ in His law. The decree as it is made known does not reveal God's desires per se, otherwise, I would say that the sin I committed God desired since He revealed what He decreed in time.
> 
> Glad we agree.
> 
> Hope this helps with clarification...



Thank you for clarifying, Tim, and in general for bringing more light than heat to the discussion. Yes, the distinction of _beneplacitum _and _signi_ does tend to roll _revealed/preceptive_ into one, though when one wishes to speak about God's decree more broadly than with reference to election/reprobation I think it's helpful to distinguish a little bit more narrowly. 

I certainly appreciate your concern not to argue over words; if we are saying the same thing in substance, the exact language is not worth arguing about. In technical matters, it is helpful to speed communication if there's an agreed definition and consistent usage of technical language. You raise some important issues, but this thread is once again spiraling out of control, so it might not be possible to continue the discussion in a helpful way at this time. But in case we can continue, or should we take it up again later, I'd appreciate your input on a couple of questions.

What is the basis of our distinctions about the will of God? As I understand it, it is not because we are positing multiple wills or sorts of will in God, but we are distinguishing based on the content willed or the situation pertaining to that willed content. In other words, I distinguish what God wills to effect from what God wills to command because they have two different objects, not because there are two different wills. In the same way, I distinguish revealed and concealed, not with reference to a diversity in God's will, but with regard to what we may know of it. As Richard Muller has said:


> In our finite minds, we divide the will of God, as the Scripture itself does, "according to the diversity of its objects." [quoting from Pictet, _Theologia christiana, _II.vi.3] To make the point as forcefully as possible, the distinctions in the divine will serve the purpose, not of dividing the will, but, explicitly, of preserving the sense of its unity: it is the Arminian, not the Reformed theology, that argued two wills in God.



Secondly, when you speak of God's pleasure (and to some degree also of desire), sometimes that seems to be used in the technical sense of _beneplacitum/ευδοκια, i.e., _what God has actually determined to be done, Ephesians 1:11. Sometimes it seems to speak in the sense of what is pleasing to God in terms of moral approbation/ευαρηστια. Are you moving back and forth between the two for a reason, or do you see them as indistinguishable (or am I misreading your intention by attributing technical terminology when you were speaking more popularly)?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Jeri Tanner said:


> I ask because using the language of God's "desire," or "longing," for the reprobate to be saved- using that language in pressing on any individual that God loves them, longs for them to be saved, etc.; is inconsistent with a definite atonement purchased, settled, by the blood of Christ; the recipients of whom are known only to God. Appeals by God in Scripture to men to be saved ("why will ye die?") and verses that speak of his appeals to return to him are limited to God's covenant people; you will find none that are addressed to heathen nations or to any individual. God is not fervently desiring the salvation of one for whom his Son's blood, by virtue of covenant, was not efficacious.



You rationalize, but even then you have a problem, because not all within God's Covenant people in the OT were saved. If you apply Ezekiel 33:11 only to them...well, not even all of them were saved. Thus God pleads and appeals to some who are not atoned for, even under your definition.

W.G.T. Shedd writes the following:

“The universal offer of the benefits of Christ’s atonement springs out of God’s will of complacency, Ezek. 33:11…. God may properly call upon the non-elect to do a thing that God delights in, simply because He does delight in it. The divine desire is not altered by the divine decree of preterition.”

(Shedd's Dogmatic_ Theology, _II, page 484).


----------



## Pergamum

Jeri Tanner said:


> I ask because using the language of God's "desire," or "longing," for the reprobate to be saved- using that language in pressing on any individual that God loves them, longs for them to be saved, etc.; is inconsistent with a definite atonement purchased, settled, by the blood of Christ; the recipients of whom are known only to God. Appeals by God in Scripture to men to be saved ("why will ye die?") and verses that speak of his appeals to return to him are limited to God's covenant people; you will find none that are addressed to heathen nations or to any individual. God is not fervently desiring the salvation of one for whom his Son's blood, by virtue of covenant, was not efficacious.



Puritanboard's Matthew McMahon also says the following:

"V. Coextensive Provision

People often say that in order to have a well-meant offer there must be a provision coextensive with the needs or the desires of the people reached by the offer. This is precisely what appears to be asserted in connection with the scope of the work of Christ when opponents of definite atonement say, “In order that God may offer salvation to everyone in fairness, it is necessary that Christ should have absorbed the guilt of everyone and thus by his redemptive work secured salvation or at least salvability for everyone.”

Let us imagine an offer appearing in The Boston Sunday Herald Advertiser, issued by Sears, Roebuck and Company, illustrated and highlighted with large print. In it Sears offers a two-cycle Kenmore automatic washer at a cost of $157. Now The Boston Sunday Herald Advertiser is issued with a circulation of some 300,000 copies. Shall I conclude that Sears has gathered within its Boston area 300,000 washing machines of this type in order to make provision for the offers that it has issued, or shall I judge that it is guilty of unethical practice if it has failed to stock this number in its Boston warehouse? Undoubtedly not! Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that companies do not accumulate as many objects as they distribute advertisements. This is perfectly obvious in the case of Sears, Roebuck and Company because on that same page they may offer also some electric dryers, some refrigerators and some color television sets, and to imagine that they store 300,000 of each of these appears utterly ludicrous. We would assume of course that they have a considerable quantity of these since they go to the trouble of advertising them. How many of these they might stock is a matter of internal administration of the company, which is really not subject to the inquiry of the customers. Now of course if these are “come-ons”—that is, sample objects of which they have a very few specimens available and that they use to attract people into their stores, not meaning to sell them at the price stated but intending to use them simply as a lure—then a charge of sharp practice could probably be leveled at the company. But in the present situation there is no evidence whatever that this is the case. All that the customer really has the right to expect is that if he/she appears at any of the stores listed within the time stated and with the appropriate amount of cash he/she will be sold the object advertised at the price stipulated. No coextensiveness of provision applies here at all, and it is difficult to see why one should be prone to insist on coextensiveness in relation to the offer of salvation.

V. Coextensive Expectation

Even though the above point may be conceded, and coextensive provision need not be requisite for a well-meant offer, some opponents urge, an offer cannot be held to be sincere unless there is some expectation that it may be favorably answered. This expectation cannot be present if God has elected some of mankind and sent Christ to die for them only.

We need not spend much time on this objection, which, if at all valid, would be quite as damaging to the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutheran, and the evangelical Arminian as to the Calvinist, since all alike hold that God foreknows all things and would be unable to offer the gospel sincerely to those he knows will refuse.

Returning for a brief moment to the illustration given under the first point, we may indicate that the firm advertising the washing machine does not at all expect to receive several hundred thousand customers for it as a result of its ad. They probably will be quite satisfied if a hundred or more appear in response to it. If total expectation were necessary for a sincere offer, very few offers could be publicized. We conclude therefore without further discussion that a coextensive expectation is not an essential prerequisite for a sincere offer."

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/covenant-universal-call-and-definite-atonement/

Therefore, I am not inconsistent for believing in the sincere offer of the gospel and also believing in limited atonement.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> I have been troubled by this issue for a long time. But I keep coming back to this. God does not elect all, yet he desires all to be saved? Christ was not given for all, but God desires the salvation of all? How can those things be reconciled? It's possible it is simply beyond me, but I don't see any such thing in the Scriptures, and I know that God's mind is not divided.
> 
> The arguments of the other side seem to me to be quite insufficient to resolve the apparent contradiction.



Does the Trinity also appear to be an apparent contradiction? One God; 3 persons. Or the Person of Christ - fully God/fully man? Or even God's sovereignty/man's responsibility? This issue is no different.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> Does the Trinity also appear to be an apparent contradiction? One God; 3 persons. Or the Person of Christ - fully God/fully man? Or even God's sovereignty/man's responsibility? This issue is no different.



I am not sure this is true in that The Trinity will always be a mystery to us, even in Glory, and the appeals in Ezekiel 33 are referenced to those who repent, and not to those who do not turn.

http://www.dr-bacon.net/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm

Many people simply do not believe God desires His justice to displayed in people.

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least,by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Pergamum and @timfost, I am curious- do you guys hold to limited atonement, as classically defined, or no?



Hi Jeri,

I believe in "limited atonement" as classically defined according to the _Three Forms of Unity. 
_
Heidelberg 37:



> "Q. What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
> 
> A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the *wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race*; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."



I mention Heidelberg 37 because the classical definition would be the sufficient/efficient application. Not only was the price paid of infinite value, but Christ died sufficiently for all and efficiently/efficaciously for the elect. Ursinus qualifies:



> "Others… [make] a distinction between the sufficiency, and efficacy of the death of Christ… They affirm, therefore, that Christ died for all, and that he did not die for all; but in different respects. He died for all, as touching the sufficiency of the ransom which he paid; and not for all; but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof."



And:



> "Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved… Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof;.. [T]he satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is… two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us."





> "[T]he atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith."





> "[F]or the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but [condemnation] arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ."



Dort also echoes this distinction:



> "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly *sufficient* to expiate the sins of the whole world." (2:3)





> "And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, *this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross*, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves." (2:6)





> "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and *saving efficacy* of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, 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..."(2:8)



I'm carefully backing this up with the confessions because I suspect we apply "limited atonement" differently. I want to document that my understanding is confessionally sustainable and is not Amyraldian or Lutheran.

Furthermore, I affirm with Witsius, Hodge, Cunningham and many others that Christ's death is also the source of common grace. It is the source of the free offer and makes the free offer both true and legitimate.

I speak for myself. I don't know Perg's particular understanding of "limited atonement." I also am answering your question, not trying to kill this thread. I do not plan on debating these claims on this thread, although I'm sure our views on WMO do proceed, at least in part, out of our understanding of the atonement.

I hope this helps...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Hi Jeri,
> 
> I believe in "limited atonement" as classically defined according to the _Three Forms of Unity.
> _
> Heidelberg 37:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention Heidelberg 37 because the classical definition would be the sufficient/efficient application. Not only was the price paid of infinite value, but Christ died sufficiently for all and efficiently/efficaciously for the elect. Ursinus qualifies:
> 
> 
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dort also echoes this distinction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm carefully backing this up with the confessions, because I suspect we apply "limited atonement" differently. I want to document that my understanding is confessionally sustainable and is not Amyraldian or Lutheran.
> 
> Furthermore, I affirm with Witsius, Hodge, Cunningham and many others that Christ's death is also the source of common grace. It is the source of the free offer and makes the free offer both true and legitimate.
> 
> I speak for myself. I don't know Perg's particular understanding of "limited atonement." I also am answering your question, not trying to kill this thread. I do not plan on debating these claims on this thread, although I'm sure our views on WMO do proceed, at least in part, out of our understanding of the atonement.
> 
> I hope this helps...


I believe the same. 

Limited Atonement is not incompatible with the free and sincere offer of the Gospel.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

Pergamum said:


> Does the Trinity also appear to be an apparent contradiction? One God; 3 persons. Or the Person of Christ - fully God/fully man? Or even God's sovereignty/man's responsibility? This issue is no different.


The Trinity does not seem to be a contradiction. The 3 and 1 Essence and Persons are two different things. If we were to say that God is one in essence and Three in essence or 1 person and three persons that would appear to be a contradiction.


----------



## Pergamum

Goodcheer68 said:


> The Trinity does not seem to be a contradiction. The 3 and 1 Essence and Persons are two different things. If we were to say that God is one in essence and Three in essence or 1 person and three persons that would appear to be a contradiction.


None of them are contradictions. They are examples of theological paradox or samples of where our logic stops and we must rely upon the Word alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> You rationalize, but even then you have a problem, because not all within God's Covenant people in the OT were saved. If you apply Ezekial 33:11 only to them...well, not even all of them were saved. Thus God pleads and appeals to some who are not atoned for, even under your definition.
> 
> W.G.T. Shedd writes the following:
> 
> “The universal offer of the benefits of Christ’s atonement springs out of God’s will of complacency, Ezek. 33:11…. God may properly call upon the non-elect to do a thing that God delights in, simply because He does delight in it. The divine desire is not altered by the divine decree of preterition.”
> 
> (Shedd's Dogmatic_ Theology, _II, page 484).


I am definitely interested in being rational, which is not the same as rationalizing as you're using the term. You're thinking that the other side rationalizes in order to try to explain what you see as a mystery, similar to the Trinity, in what Scripture says about God's disposition toward the reprobate; which then impacts the language we use about God's wants and desires, both in discussion and in evangelism. But if one sees no mystery or seeming contradiction, this position has nothing to rationalize.

So to speak to that, here are some thoughts about the problem with the Covenant aspect you mentioned. Our different ideas on covenant possibly come to bear. So, I think you would agree that in evangelizing we must not tell a man or a crowd that Christ died for them. Yet to a church member in good standing or the congregation of a true church, we rightly say that Christ died for him/for them, even though we can't 'know for sure' that the church member or all in the congregation are born again (and some likely are not). It's because in the first scenario the people are not known to be (or maybe they're known not to be) in covenant with God; and in the the second scenario, the people are known to be in covenant (at least the outward administration of it) with God. God has a particular claim on them. Covenant is why God through the prophets appeals ardently to Israel to return to him, even though many individuals were likely not believers- they were in covenant with him and God had a particular claim on them. It's why God through Paul appeals ardently to the Corinthian church to be reconciled to God, even though many were possibly not believers- but they were in covenant with Him and God had a particular claim on them. These instances are where I think your position gets some of the language and concept of God's ardor toward those outside the covenant. (And of course, some of them are predestined to be brought in and enjoy his ardent covenant love forever!)

I have a busy day and we have probably all exhausted all we have to say several times, so I probably won't interact with the thread anymore. Blessings upon us all as we seek what is pleasing to the Lord and blesses his people.


----------



## timfost

py3ak said:


> Thank you for clarifying, Tim, and in general for bringing more light than heat to the discussion. Yes, the distinction of _beneplacitum _and _signi_ does tend to roll _revealed/preceptive_ into one, though when one wishes to speak about God's decree more broadly than with reference to election/reprobation I think it's helpful to distinguish a little bit more narrowly.



Point noted. Thanks!



> I certainly appreciate your concern not to argue over words; if we are saying the same thing in substance, the exact language is not worth arguing about.



I appreciate this.



> What is the basis of our distinctions about the will of God? As I understand it, it is not because we are positing multiple wills or sorts of will in God, but we are distinguishing based on the content willed or the situation pertaining to that willed content. In other words, I distinguish what God wills to effect from what God wills to command because they have two different objects, not because there are two different wills. In the same way, I distinguish revealed and concealed, not with reference to a diversity in God's will, but with regard to what we may know of it.



I agree with the substance of this. My qualm with the technical language is when we make an artificial distinction in the preceptive will and decretive will by divorcing God's desire from the former in terms of what actually comes to pass. It seems to make God pleased with disobedience, as long as it was decreed. I concur that in a sense, insofar as God desires His decree, He desires a sinful event to occur, but not because He loves the sin but because He brings good from the situation in His infinite wisdom. But the sin itself is hated by God, and He is displeased with it. 

Saying God is in some sense both pleased and displeased with the same event does seem like a contradiction. All I can do is reconcile it to the best of my ability, knowing that it is ultimately resolved in the infinite God. I think it is a dangerous proposition to force God into the confines of human logic when we have difficulty reconciling scripture. 

If we can only properly assign God's pleasure to the things that come to pass, we make God pleased to be angry, pleased to be displeased, to love the things He loves and love the things He hates. When considering the infinite God, human logic will always fall short. Faith embraces His word because it proceeds from the object of our faith. The object of my faith is not my ability to satisfy the objections of those who cry "illogical, contradiction!", but take Him at His word and reconcile to the best of my ability.

I don't think our position is any less logical than our opposition. At some point, we must realize that we kneel before the Creator in awe and amazement, knowing that any seeming contradiction is resolved in Him.

"Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible, (1Ti 6:16) because shrouded in darkness." (Calvin)



> Secondly, when you speak of God's pleasure (and to some degree also of desire), sometimes that seems to be used in the technical sense of _beneplacitum/ευδοκια, i.e., _what God has actually determined to be done, Ephesians 1:11. Sometimes it seems to speak in the sense of what is pleasing to God in terms of moral approbation/ευαρηστια. Are you moving back and forth between the two for a reason, or do you see them as indistinguishable (or am I misreading your intention by attributing technical terminology when you were speaking more popularly)?



I move back and forth because scripture does this. I've already described how some of the distinctions being made are forced. I believe I can speak of God's desire properly regarding his precepts and His decree because scripture does. I make it a point to not get caught up in distinctions that help our logic but don't account for all biblical data. I'm not opposed to logic, but I don't believe that logic solves the problem in a neat package.

I admit this may put us at an impasse. If so, I'm really ok with that. I respect you greatly and appreciate our interactions here. 

I also realize that my beliefs about the design of Christ's satisfaction play a bigger role in this discussion than is possible to be exhausted on a forum. It may be better to leave the discussion as is and redeem the time.

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## Goodcheer68

Pergamum said:


> None of them are contradictions. They are examples of theological paradox or samples of where our logic stops and we must rely upon the Word alone.


I get that. I was simply trying to point out that the Trinity isn’t even an apparent contradiction like you said it appeared to be.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> It seems to make God pleased with disobedience, as long as it was decreed.
> 
> Saying God is in some sense both pleased and displeased with the same event does seem like a contradiction. All I can do is reconcile it to the best of my ability, knowing that it is ultimately resolved in the infinite God. I think it is a dangerous proposition to force God into the confines of human logic when we have difficulty reconciling scripture.



Our Confession is quite clear:
"This their sin God was *pleased*, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory." WCF 6.1.

"The rest of mankind God was *pleased *... to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." WCF 3.7.

All that God ordains is for the ultimate and highest end of creation: God's own glory (WLC #12). That God is pleased (and quite jealous) in the glory of Himself is something we must accept and rejoice upon. For it would be unworthy of God to not desire His glory.

Of course God hates sin, which is contrary to God Himself. But, God is most certainly pleased to ordain and overrule sin for His own glory, not to mention to manifest His justice, wisdom, holiness, goodness, dominion.

We cannot imply that God paradoxically desires our obligation (what we _ought _to do) to what He has preceptively commanded, yet does not desire we actually obey what He has commanded given that God has not decreed—the non-violence by God to our will included in said decree—our actual obedience.

Instead, we must say that God desires obedience ("a thing" pleasing to God in iteself ←review the link once more). For unless it were so, what actual basis exists for God's descriptions of sin? Nevertheless, the actual _events _of disobedience belongs solely to God (_voluntas beneplaciti_).

Distinguishing between what is _preceptive_ and what is _decretive_ in Scripture prevents us from importing upon the _preceptive will_ what properly belongs to the _decretive will_. This is why we Reformed may rightly claim that man is morally responsible and God sovereignly rules and overrules all things for His own glory.

When we confuse the _preceptive_ and the _decretive_ in Scripture, we join the anti-Reformed in their claims that man, given the decree of God, is not responsible for his actions, and even that God is somehow incapable of doing anything about man's moral actions.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> I agree with the substance of this. My qualm with the technical language is when we make an artificial distinction in the preceptive will and decretive will by divorcing God's desire from the former in terms of what actually comes to pass. It seems to make God pleased with disobedience, as long as it was decreed. I concur that in a sense, insofar as God desires His decree, He desires a sinful event to occur, but not because He loves the sin but because He brings good from the situation in His infinite wisdom. But the sin itself is hated by God, and He is displeased with it.
> 
> Saying God is in some sense both pleased and displeased with the same event does seem like a contradiction. All I can do is reconcile it to the best of my ability, knowing that it is ultimately resolved in the infinite God. I think it is a dangerous proposition to force God into the confines of human logic when we have difficulty reconciling scripture.
> 
> If we can only properly assign God's pleasure to the things that come to pass, we make God pleased to be angry, pleased to be displeased, to love the things He loves and love the things He hates. When considering the infinite God, human logic will always fall short. Faith embraces His word because it proceeds from the object of our faith. The object of my faith is not my ability to satisfy the objections of those who cry "illogical, contradiction!", but take Him at His word and reconcile to the best of my ability.
> 
> I don't think our position is any less logical than our opposition. At some point, we must realize that we kneel before the Creator in awe and amazement, knowing that any seeming contradiction is resolved in Him.
> 
> "Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible, (1Ti 6:16) because shrouded in darkness." (Calvin)



Thank you, Tim, I think at this point you've articulated the strongest argument in favor of your position. Certainly, no one would want to say that God is pleased with disobedience. The fact that "pleasure" can be a little equivocal is one good reason for distinguishing what semantic domain we are in. I think on the whole you acknowledge that: e.g., you don't wish to affirm that God is pleased with the obstinacy of the reprobate in the same way that he is with the humility of the elect. From my point of view, it has sometimes seemed that the reverse acknowledgement is not always made; i.e., that God has done all that pleases him (Psalm 115:3). I am comfortable using the language of what God is pleased with in terms of either_ ευδοκια _or_ ευαρεηστια/decree _or _approbation_; but of course, I would not like to confuse them in my mind or speech.



timfost said:


> I move back and forth because scripture does this. I've already described how some of the distinctions being made are forced. I believe I can speak of God's desire properly regarding his precepts and His decree because scripture does. I make it a point to not get caught up in distinctions that help our logic but don't account for all biblical data. I'm not opposed to logic, but I don't believe that logic solves the problem in a neat package.
> 
> I admit this may put us at an impasse. If so, I'm really ok with that. I respect you greatly and appreciate our interactions here.



I certainly agree that Scripture speaks of both; it is legitimate to speak of both. The language of technical theology is often more precise than Scripture, because part of its function is drawing out the harmony between different parts of Scripture. This may leave us at an impasse, as you suggest, because while I am open to hearing arguments about a distinction without a difference, I do believe it's part of the responsibility of faithfully apprehending Scripture to distinguish things that differ. If it's possible and legitimate to distinguish between _how_ God is love and how God is angry; between the _sort_ of energizing operative in the means of salvation to the elect and of damnation to the reprobate; then also between _how_ God is pleased with obedience, and how he is pleased with his own decree. The difference in perception over whether something is logic chopping or wisely distinguishing may arise from multiple sources, of course. But I think you will probably acknowledge that there are points where quite fine distinctions and language far more precise than that of Scripture is both legitimate and necessary, even if you don't perceive a need for it at this exact point.

I also hold you in high esteem. I think you are a credit to your profession of faith, and an asset to your congregation.



timfost said:


> I also realize that my beliefs about the design of Christ's satisfaction play a bigger role in this discussion than is possible to be exhausted on a forum. It may be better to leave the discussion as is and redeem the time.



Yes, that is probably a substantial discussion for a different time and perhaps venue!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Our Confession is quite clear:
> "This their sin God was *pleased*, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory." WCF 6.1.
> 
> "The rest of mankind God was *pleased *... to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." WCF 3.7.
> 
> All that God ordains is for the ultimate and highest end of creation: God's own glory (WLC #12). That God is pleased (and quite jealous) in the glory of Himself is something we must accept and rejoice upon. For it would be unworthy of God to not desire His glory.



I have never denied any of this. To be clear, I completely agree.



> Of course God hates sin, which is contrary to God Himself. But, God is most certainly pleased to ordain and overrule sin for His own glory, not to mention to manifest His justice, wisdom, holiness, goodness, dominion.
> 
> We cannot imply that God paradoxically desires our obligation (what we _ought _to do) to what He has preceptively commanded, yet does not desire we actually obey what He has commanded given that God has not decreed—the non-violence by God to our will included in said decree—our actual obedience.
> 
> Instead, we must say that God desires obedience ("a thing" pleasing to God in iteself ←review the link once more). For unless it were so, what actual basis exists for God's descriptions of sin? Nevertheless, the actual _events _of disobedience belongs solely to God (_voluntas beneplaciti_).
> 
> Distinguishing between what is _preceptive_ and what is _decretive_ in Scripture prevents us from importing upon the _preceptive will_ what properly belongs to the _decretive will_. This is why we Reformed may rightly claim that man is morally responsible and God sovereignly rules and overrules all things for His own glory.
> 
> When we confuse the _preceptive_ and the _decretive_ in Scripture, we join the anti-Reformed in their claims that man, given the decree of God, is not responsible for his actions, and even that God is somehow incapable of doing anything about man's moral actions.



I don't have the time to go through all of this, so I'll answer with Dabney who says it better than I can:

"*Scriptures Ascribe To God Pity Towards Lost.* 

This view has a great advantage in that it reveals and enables us to receive those precious declarations of Scripture which declare the compassion of God towards even lost sinners. *The glory of these representations is that they show us God’s benevolence as an infinite attribute, like all His other perfection’s*. Even where it is rationally restrained, it exists. The fact that there is a lost order of angels, and that there are persons in our guilty race, who are objects of God’s decree of preterition, does not arise from any stint or failure of this infinite benevolence. It is as infinite, viewed as it qualifies God’s nature only as though He had given expression to it in the salvation of all the devils and lost men. We can now receive, without any abatement, such blessed declarations as Ps. 81:13; Ezek. 18:32; Luke 19:41, 42. *We have no occasion for such questionable, and even perilous exegesis, as even Calvin and Turrettin feel themselves constrained to apply to the last. Afraid lest God’s principle of compassion (not purpose of rescue), towards sinners non elect, should find any expression, and thus mar the symmetry of their logic, they say that it was not Messiah the God man and Mediator, who wept over reprobate Jerusalem; but only the humanity of Jesus, our pattern. I ask. Is it competent to a mere humanity to say, "How often would I have gathered your children?" And to pronounce a final doom, "Your house is left unto you desolate?" The Calvinist should have paused, when he found himself wresting these Scriptures from the same point of view adopted by the ultra Arminian. But this is not the first time we have seen "extremes meet." Thus argues the Arminian, " Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has a propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. Therefore, as He declares He had a propension of pity towards contumacious Israel, I conclude that He also had a volition to redeem them, and that He did whatever omnipotence could do against the obstinate contingency of their wills. Here then, I find the bulwark of my doctrine, that even omnipotence cannot certainly determine a free will." And thus argues the ultra Calvinist. "Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has any propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. But if He had willed to convert reprobate Israel, He would infallibly have succeeded. Therefore He never had any propension of pity at all towards them." And so this reasoner sets himself to explain away, by unscrupulous exegesis, the most precious revelations of God’s nature! Should not this fact, that two opposite conclusions are thus drawn from the same premises have suggested error in the premises? And the error of both extremists is just here. It is not true that if God has an active principle looking towards a given object, He will always express it in volition and action*. This, as I have shown, is no more true of God than of a righteous and wise man. And as the good man, who was touched with a case of destitution, and yet determined that it was his duty not to use the money he had in giving alms, might consistently express what he truly felt of pity, by a kind word; so God consistently reveals the principle of compassion as to those whom, for wise reasons, He is determined not to save. *We know that God’s omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace. Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin expiation of infinite value and universal fitness should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner’sreturn to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way*. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by their Mediator. As to the non elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way, the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ. 

*Objections Solved*. 

But it will be objected. If God foreknew that non elect men would do this, and also knew that their neglect of gospel mercy would infal libly aggravate their doom in the end, (all of which I admit), then that gospel was no expression of benevolence to them at all. I reply, first, the offer was a blessing in itself, these sinners felt it so in their serious moments, and surely its nature as a kindness is not reversed by the circumstance that they pervert it; though that be foreseen. *Second, God accompanies the offer with hearty entreaties to them not thus to abuse it*. Third, His benevolence is cleared in the view of all other beings, though the perverse objects do rob themselves of the permanent benefit. *And this introduces the other cavil. That such a dispensation towards non elect sinners is utterly futile, and so, unworthy of God’s wisdom. I reply. It is not futile because it secures actual results both to non elect men, to God and to the saved. To the first, it secures many temporal restraints and blessings in this life, the secular ones of which, at least, the sinner esteems as very solid benefits; and also a sincere offer of eternal life, which he, and not God, disappoints. To God, this dispensation secures great revenue of glory, both for His kindness towards contumacious enemies, and His clear justice in the final punishment*. To other holy creatures it brings not only this new revelation of God’s glory, but a new apprehension of the obstinacy and malignity of sin as a spiritual evil. 

*Some seem to recoil from the natural view which presents God, like other wise Agents, as planning to gain several ends, one primary and others subordinate, by the same set of actions. They fear that if they admit this, they will be entrapped into an ascription of uncertainty, vacillation and change to God’s purpose. This consequence does not at all follow as to Him. It might follow as to a finite man pursuing alternative purposes*. For instance, a general might order his subordinate to make a seeming attack in force on a given point of his enemy’s position. The general might say to himself. "I will make this attack either a feint, (while I make my real attack elsewhere), or, if the enemy seem weak there, my real, main attack." This, of course, implies some uncertainty in his foreknowledge, and if the feint is turned into his main attack, the last purpose must date in his mind from some moment after the feint began. Such doubt and mutation must not be imputed to God. Hence I do not employ the phrase "alternative objects" of His planning; as it might be misunderstood. We "cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection." *But it is certain, that He, when acting on finite creatures, and for the instruction of finite minds, may and does pursue, in one train of His dealings, a plurality of ends, of which one is subordinated to another. Thus God consistently makes the same dispensation first a manifestation of the glory of His goodness, and then, when the sinner has perverted it, of the glory of His justice. He is not disappointed, nor does He change His secret purpose. The mutation is in the relation of the creature to His providence. His glory is, that seeing the end from the beginning, He brings good even out of the perverse sinner’s evil*."

(Dabney, _Systematic Theology_)


----------



## timfost

py3ak said:


> The language of technical theology is often more precise than Scripture, because part of its function is drawing out the harmony between different parts of Scripture. This may leave us at an impasse, as you suggest, because while I am open to hearing arguments about a distinction without a difference, I do believe it's part of the responsibility of faithfully apprehending Scripture to distinguish things that differ.



I agree that technical language is often helpful and necessary when dividing the Scriptures. My qualm is when our technical language doesn't account for all biblical data. I believe Dabney (reply above to AMR) reconciles these "problems." 



> But I think you will probably acknowledge that there are points where quite fine distinctions and language far more precise than that of Scripture is both legitimate and necessary, even if you don't perceive a need for it at this exact point.



Yes, I agree. Thank you for articulating so well. Again, thank you for your thoughtful replies and brotherly encouragements.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> I don't have the time to go through all of this, so I'll answer with Dabney who says it better than I can:
> 
> "*Scriptures Ascribe To God Pity Towards Lost.*
> 
> This view has a great advantage in that it reveals and enables us to receive those precious declarations of Scripture which declare the compassion of God towards even lost sinners. *The glory of these representations is that they show us God’s benevolence as an infinite attribute, like all His other perfection’s*.


Tim,

It would take a lengthy separate thread to deal with Dabney's 19th century necessarianism (viewing God in terms of a nature which His will is bound to follow), versus the voluntarist tradition intrinsic in the Reformed's defense of God's sovereignty, simplicity, etc.

Per the voluntarist position, the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. God has volitionally willed the faith of all those that would partake of the atonement. Accordingly, in the counsel of God atonement and faith are coupled.

I am not sure what points you are trying to make or even where you are in dispute with what I have written. I prefer not to tease out your disagreements using Dabney's lengthy discourse, especially given Dabney's cavil about "_the questionable, and even perilous exegesis_" of Calvin or Turretin. I prefer that you make them plain if you have them.

But in the interest of moving things along, I will make one or two observations.

Dabney:
"Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin expiation of infinite value and universal fitness should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to _every sinner’s return to his love_, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by their Mediator. As to the non elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way, the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ."​
Note Dabney's opening with the benevolence of God, a love of God that is wholly ineffective, given the complacency of "_every sinner's return to his love_". If I understand Calvinism aright, the benevolence of God is always limited to the elect. Yet, Dabney elsewhere writes "_Christ's design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate_." Thus, from my quote Dabney above, he apparently has contradicted his own stated presupposition.

Per Dabney, in contradistinction to Cunningham, redemption is applied to some and not applied to others because of election. This is a post-redemptionist doctrine, rejected by the Reformed as it effectively divides the Godhead, teaching that God the Father says "No!" to God the Son.

Dabney (and others) seek to introduce something in God between the _preceptive _and the _decretive _distinctions. For Dabney, the fulfillment of this "_conative power_" (_will of disposition_ so-called by others) depends upon the creature. Once we accept any notion of a conditional will in God we are required to limit Scriptural statements plainly declaring that God does according to His will.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It would take a lengthy separate thread to deal with Dabney's 19th century necessarianism (viewing God in terms of a nature which His will is bound to follow), versus the voluntarist tradition intrinsic in the Reformed's defense of God's sovereignty, simplicity, etc.



I haven't studied these issues enough to deal with them now.



> Per the voluntarist position, the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. God has volitionally willed the faith of all those that would partake of the atonement. Accordingly, in the counsel of God atonement and faith are coupled.



I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with this, but affecting more than just the salvation of the elect doesn't seem to be out of accord with God's volition, if indeed He willed the atonement to affect other ends in conjuction with the salvation of the elect.



> I am not sure what points you are trying to make or even where you are in dispute with what I have written. I prefer not to tease out your disagreements using Dabney's lengthy discourse, especially given Dabney's cavil about "_the questionable, and even perilous exegesis_" of Calvin or Turretin. I prefer that you make them plain if you have them.



I simpy don't have time to reply in-depth to all of your objections. I quoted Dabney because, in my mind, he addressed many of the concerns that account for all scripture on the subject in a way that I don't feel your position does.



> Note Dabney's opening with the benevolence of God, a love of God that is wholly ineffective, given the complacency of "_every sinner's return to his love_".



I simply don't see the problem here. John 3:16-19 is one of his proof texts for this, and I agree with him. Man was alienated from God and God in turn demonstrated His love thus: calling man again to Himself with the promise of eternal life on the condition of faith and repentance. Not all divine love ends in salvation, just as not all human love ends in marriage.



> If I understand Calvinism aright, the benevolence of God is always limited to the elect.



Respectfully, I don't think you understand Calvinism aright on this point.



> Yet, Dabney elsewhere writes "_Christ's design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate_." Thus, from my quote Dabney above, he apparently has contradicted his own stated presupposition.



I don't see the contradiction here. Dabney says himself that "[t]he proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse." His argument in the portion I quoted to you states "Some seem to recoil from the natural view which presents God, like other wise Agents, as planning to gain several ends, one primary and others subordinate, by the same set of actions."



> Per Dabney, in contradistinction to Cunningham, redemption is applied to some and not applied to others because of election. This is a post-redemptionist doctrine, rejected by the Reformed as it effectively divides the Godhead, teaching that God the Father says "No!" to God the Son.



I don't think you are being very careful here with Dabney's argument. I believe you are imputing a logical order of decrees to Dabney that he argues against. He spends significant time countering the error of Amyraldianism. Amyraldianism teaches that God purposed to redeem all of humanity, but seeing that the race would reject Him purposed to save part of humanity by another decree. You seem to infer that Dabney was operating off of the same principles that he himself clearly opposes. Further, you posit Dabney promoting disunity within the Godhead by the Son wanting to redeem those the Father does not. Does He actually make this argument explicitly?



> Dabney (and others) seek to introduce something in God between the _preceptive _and the _decretive _distinctions. For Dabney, the fulfillment of this "_conative power_" (_will of disposition_ so-called by others) depends upon the creature. Once we accept any notion of a conditional will in God we are required to limit Scriptural statements plainly declaring that God does according to His will.



I think your argument is what he calls the "ultra Calvinist." It embodies the same error as the "ultra Arminian." 

Patrick, I have learned so much from you and appreciate your time and example in so many ways. You are an outstanding moderator and devout Christian. But in this matter, I cannot concur. I think your logic is getting in the way of clear biblical doctrine.

I'm not sure there is much use in keeping the conversation going, at least from my end. I have neither the time or desire. Again, I appreciate our interactions. If I am wrong, I pray the Spirit works in me what is lacking in my understanding. I am certainly not beyond error.

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> I think your logic is getting in the way of clear biblical doctrine.


Tim,

As I have noted earlier, I am attempting to extract something from your response's reliance upon Dabney that signals exactly what you think is in dispute with my replies.

It is a wee bit unfair to suggest Dabney has reconciled "problems" and just point me to a lengthy quote that actually generates more questions. Perhaps we are talking past one another. Could you please state exactly what is this "clear biblical doctrine" you find me to be unclear about?


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Tim,
> 
> It would take a lengthy separate thread to deal with Dabney's 19th century necessarianism (viewing God in terms of a nature which His will is bound to follow), versus the voluntarist tradition intrinsic in the Reformed's defense of God's sovereignty, simplicity, etc.
> 
> Per the voluntarist position, the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. God has volitionally willed the faith of all those that would partake of the atonement. Accordingly, in the counsel of God atonement and faith are coupled.
> 
> I am not sure what points you are trying to make or even where you are in dispute with what I have written. I prefer not to tease out your disagreements using Dabney's lengthy discourse, especially given Dabney's cavil about "_the questionable, and even perilous exegesis_" of Calvin or Turretin. I prefer that you make them plain if you have them.
> 
> But in the interest of moving things along, I will make one or two observations.
> 
> Dabney:
> "Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin expiation of infinite value and universal fitness should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to _every sinner’s return to his love_, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by their Mediator. As to the non elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way, the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ."​
> Note Dabney's opening with the benevolence of God, a love of God that is wholly ineffective, given the complacency of "_every sinner's return to his love_". If I understand Calvinism aright, the benevolence of God is always limited to the elect. Yet, Dabney elsewhere writes "_Christ's design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate_." Thus, from my quote Dabney above, he apparently has contradicted his own stated presupposition.
> 
> Per Dabney, in contradistinction to Cunningham, redemption is applied to some and not applied to others because of election. This is a post-redemptionist doctrine, rejected by the Reformed as it effectively divides the Godhead, teaching that God the Father says "No!" to God the Son.
> 
> Dabney (and others) seek to introduce something in God between the _preceptive _and the _decretive _distinctions. For Dabney, the fulfillment of this "_conative power_" (_will of disposition_ so-called by others) depends upon the creature. Once we accept any notion of a conditional will in God we are required to limit Scriptural statements plainly declaring that God does according to His will.



Patrick,

You wrote: "If I understand Calvinism aright, the benevolence of God is always limited to the elect."

But the bible and most of the Reformed speak of God's benevolence to all, even the non-Elect. This is God's common grace.

Do you reject common grace?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> Patrick,
> 
> You wrote: "If I understand Calvinism aright, the benevolence of God is always limited to the elect."
> 
> But the bible and most of the Reformed speak of God's benevolence to all, even the non-Elect. This is God's common grace.
> 
> Do you reject common grace?


Dabney, in the quote provided above by Tim, to which I responded, begins with God's _benevolence _(promoting the well-being of another), which is the proper word to use concerning the goodwill of God towards the short-term physical needs of the reprobate.

But, Dabney then strays too far in his attempt to peek behind the curtain.

Love is not benevolence, it is much more. The _complacency _in love—the fact or state of being pleased with a thing or person; tranquil pleasure or satisfaction in something or some one—is actually what Dabney is implying by his "_every sinner's return to his love_" remark under a section devoted to benevolence.

If benevolence, as Dabney attempts to define it, includes the obvious _complacency_ he has ascribed to what he calls "benevolence," then Dabney has basically defined a love of God restricted to His elect. (See also, here or here.)

Dabney contradicts himself in this section and I have noted it and called attention to the fact that _complacency_ cannot be a component of whatever someone is implying when they say God "loves" the reprobate.

The desire for union and communion that accompanies complacency in love is not offered to the reprobate. The reprobate are denied this nourishment upon which their very person depends. Such a denial by God cannot be viewed as love, rather in biblical terms, it is hatred.

I agree that God has a benevolence (providential and temporal goodness) for all, elect and non-elect. Some may call that a "common grace," but I avoid the phrase if and until it is made plain what is meant by the phrase.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Tim,
> 
> As I have noted earlier, I am attempting to extract something from your response's reliance upon Dabney that signals exactly what you think is in dispute with my replies.
> 
> It is a wee bit unfair to suggest Dabney has reconciled "problems" and just point me to a lengthy quote that actually generates more questions. Perhaps we are talking past one another. Could you please state exactly what is this "clear biblical doctrine" you find me to be unclear about?



I really thought that the Dabney would help clarify, not muddy the waters. I don't have the time or desire to get to the bottom of this whole debate, since many other presuppositions seem necessary to come to the conclusions we've come to.

For the sake of focus, allow me one question that I think is at the heart of the issue:

If God does whatever He pleases, is He ever displeased?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> I really thought that the Dabney would help clarify, not muddy the waters. I don't have the time or desire to get to the bottom of this whole debate, since many other presuppositions seem necessary to come to the conclusions we've come to.
> 
> For the sake of focus, allow me one question that I think is at the heart of the issue:
> 
> If God does whatever He pleases, is He ever displeased?


Tim,

You have stated that my logic is getting in the way of "_clear biblical doctrine_." I would like to understand exactly what is this "_clear biblical doctrine_" to which you refer. I can appreciate that you have some issues with time demands, but I think I am due some answer to the charge you have laid at my feet so that I might be able to correct whatever errors are at work.

What is your own answer to the question about displeasure now being asked? It would be helpful to interact with your views, versus being questioned and awaiting responses to my answers.

For that matter, I cannot provide an answer unless I understand what you are actually trying to communicate. I would rather not spend the time to try and cover all possible alternatives. Are you asking if God is ever displeased_ with Himself_? Or, perhaps is God ever displeased _with His creatures_? Maybe you mean to ask does God experience a feeling we know as _displeasure _or _disappointment_?


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is your own answer to the question about displeasure now being asked? It would be helpful to interact with your views, versus being questioned and awaiting responses to my answers.



Since scripture says God is displeased many times, the clear and simple answer is "yes."



> For that matter, I cannot provide an answer unless I understand what you are actually trying to communicate. I would rather not spend the time to try and cover all possible alternatives.



This is where I think your logic is complicating simple biblical doctrines. If scripture says a thing displeased God, He can be displeased with something. 



> Or, perhaps is God ever displeased _with His creatures_?



This works. We could add the question, "can God be grieved?"

You said previously:

"When speaking of the "desire" of God found in abundance in Scripture as _voluntas signi_, *we must limit this to God's revealed (preceptive) will—obligations to the thing in and of itself*. For _events_ and _futurition_ found in Scripture as _voluntas beneplaciti_, we speak of the "desire" of God as limited to God's decretive will."

The bolded portion does not account for all biblical data (e.g. Ezek. 18:32). Because of this, I believe your premise is flawed. 

Does this help clarify?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> Since scripture says God is displeased many times, the clear and simple answer is "yes."


Tim,

Scripture speaks of God in many ways that are accommodations to our finitude. The simple answer to such statements is not often bare literalism.



timfost said:


> This is where I think your logic is complicating simple biblical doctrines. If scripture says a thing displeased God, He can be displeased with something.
> ...
> ...
> This works. We could add the question, "can God be grieved?"


Hence my call for more specificity in your question. Apparently, my "logic" is serving a purpose to draw out exactly what you are intending or advocating.



timfost said:


> You said previously:
> 
> "When speaking of the "desire" of God found in abundance in Scripture as _voluntas signi_, *we must limit this to God's revealed (preceptive) will—obligations to the thing in and of itself*. For _events_ and _futurition_ found in Scripture as _voluntas beneplaciti_, we speak of the "desire" of God as limited to God's decretive will."
> 
> The bolded portion does not account for all biblical data (e.g. Ezek. 18:32). Because of this, I believe your premise is flawed.


The passage in question, upon which you cast my reasoning as faulty, has the prophet speaking to the wicked about God's sincere offer of life if they will turn from their evil.

Unless we are going to venture into Arminian or other anti-Reformed appeals to this passage, we maintain that God's taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked who turn from their evil ways is not a statement that applies to each and every wicked man. For the whole counsel of Scripture (see below for example) must be brought to bear here. Instead, it is a statement made only to those who turn from their wicked ways such that they may live.

God, as our moral governor, takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures when considered simply as creatures [image bearers]. Governing protects life, keeps and maintains peace, securing the honor of government. When something that threatens these things is introduced, the consequence is punishment.

Juxtaposed against these matters we find in Scripture, for example, Psalm 135, clear examples of God's pleasure in the rendering of His righteous judgment upon wicked men. Therein God's pleasure arises from His governance in protecting life and keeping the peace upon His righteous grounds. By the demonstrative execution of said judgment upon the wicked, God vindicates His honor as He executes His holy, wise, and righteous purposes.

With this, I am going to leave off this back and forth with you, Tim. I think we are struggling to get to the root of what apparently has set us at odds with one another and prefer to not belabor the matter until things are made more plain herein.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Tim,
> 
> Scripture speaks of God in many ways that are accommodations to our finitude. The simple answer to such statements is not often bare literalism.
> 
> 
> Hence my call for more specificity in your question. Apparently, my "logic" is serving a purpose to draw out exactly what you are intending or advocating.
> 
> 
> The passage in question, upon which you cast my reasoning as faulty, has the prophet speaking to the wicked about God's sincere offer of life if they will turn from their evil.
> 
> Unless we are going to venture into Arminian or other anti-Reformed appeals to this passage, we maintain that God's taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked who turn from their evil ways is not a statement that applies to each and every wicked man. For the whole counsel of Scripture (see below for example) must be brought to bear here. Instead, it is a statement made only to those who turn from their wicked ways such that they may live.
> 
> God, as our moral governor, takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures when considered simply as creatures. Governing protects life, keeps and maintains peace, securing the honor of government. When something that threatens these things is introduced, the consequence is punishment.
> 
> Juxtaposed against these matters we find in Scripture, for example, Psalm 135, clear examples of God's pleasure in the rendering of His righteous judgment upon wicked men. Therein God's pleasure arises from His governance in protecting life and keeping the peace upon His righteous grounds. By the demonstrative execution of said judgment upon the wicked, God vindicates His honor as He executes His holy, wise, and righteous purposes.
> 
> With this, I am going to leave off this back and forth with you, Tim. I think we are struggling to get to the root of what apparently has set us at odds with one another and prefer to not belabor the matter until things are made more plain herein.



Patrick;

You give a half-admission here when you write:

"God, as our moral governor, takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures when considered simply as creatures."

Amen, but I would also add that God takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures because they are men made after His image whom He loves...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> Patrick;
> 
> You give a half-admission here when you write:
> 
> "God, as our moral governor, takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures when considered simply as creatures."
> 
> Amen, but I would also add that God takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures because they are men made after His image whom He loves...


Right you are. I was going to add [image bearers] in brackets after the word "creatures," but in my haste I forgot to do so. Correction made.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> With this, I am going to leave off this back and forth with you, Tim. I think we are struggling to get to the root of what apparently has set us at odds with one another and prefer to not belabor the matter until things are made more plain herein.



That sounds like a plan. I believe that the careful categories you've just described detract from the clear reading of the text. It makes the passage seem cryptic. I also find it disappointing that it's so difficult to admit that God is displeased.

I'll leave it at that. Thanks for discussing!


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> God, as our moral governor, takes no pleasure in the misery of His creatures when considered simply as creatures [image bearers]. Governing protects life, keeps and maintains peace, securing the honor of government. When something that threatens these things is introduced, the consequence is punishment.



Just for clarification: a) God takes no pleasure in the misery of creatures as His image bearers. b) All men are image bearers. c) Some men are reprobate. Conclusion: God takes takes no pleasure the misery of a person as an image bearer, but pleasure in the misery of the same person as a reprobate? Confused...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timfost said:


> Just for clarification: a) God takes no pleasure in the misery of creatures as His image bearers. b) All men are image bearers. c) Some men are reprobate. Conclusion: God takes takes no pleasure the misery of a person as an image bearer, but pleasure in the misery of the same person as a reprobate? Confused...


No pleasure in the misery of His creatures - in the concrete case.

Pleased to meet out punishment for His own glory upon the creature that does not turn- in the abstract case.

Calvin on the prophet's declaration only to the sinner that turns:
Now, if the genuine meaning of the prophet is inquired into, it will be found that he only means to give the hope of pardon to them who repent. The sum is, that God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders those who hear it, and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy of God, therefore, will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all the prophets, and apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who they are to whom repentance is given.​Thomas Manton in the section "Application", item 5, sub-item 2 at the bottom of the page:
Merely as it is the destruction of the creature, so God doth not any way approve of it, though, as a just punishment, he delighteth in it. If you look to God’s approbation or delight, your accepting grace more suiteth with it than your refusal​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> No pleasure in the misery of His creatures - in the concrete case.
> 
> Pleased to meet out punishment for His own glory upon the creature that does not turn- in the abstract case.
> 
> Calvin on the prophet's declaration only to the sinner that turns:
> Now, if the genuine meaning of the prophet is inquired into, it will be found that he only means to give the hope of pardon to them who repent. The sum is, that God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders those who hear it, and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy of God, therefore, will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all the prophets, and apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who they are to whom repentance is given.​Thomas Manton in the section "Application", item 5, sub-item 2 at the bottom of the page:
> Merely as it is the destruction of the creature, so God doth not any way approve of it, though, as a just punishment, he delighteth in it. If you look to God’s approbation or delight, your accepting grace more suiteth with it than your refusal​


I like this lovely quote:

"If you look to God’s approbation or delight, your accepting grace more suiteth with it than your refusal."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The passage in question, upon which you cast my reasoning as faulty, has the prophet speaking to the wicked about God's sincere offer of life if they will turn from their evil.


I note that in the passage in question, Ezekiel 18:32, God is speaking to his covenant people. It’s been my observation that appeals like this from God are always to his church, see also 2 Corinthians 5:20. To Ninevah he simply said, 30 days and Ninevah will be destroyed. There was no appeal in the same manner. What are your thoughts on this aspect, Patrick? One of the main practical concerns for this issue is what is said to unbelievers in preaching and evangelization. Isn’t there a difference between what’s said to straying covenant individuals and churches, and what is said to individuals and crowds outside the visible church?


----------



## timfost

This will be my last post on the subject in this thread. Thank you all for discussing.

From Calvin's commentary on Ezek. 18:23 with some comments between in relation to this thread:



> He confirms the same sentiment in other words, that God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. And for this reason not only is the Gospel spread abroad in the world, but God wished to *bear witness through all ages* how inclined he is to pity. For although the *heathen were destitute of the law and the prophets, yet they were always endued with some taste of this doctrine*. Truly enough they were suffocated by many errors: but we shall always find that they were induced by a secret impulse to seek for pardon, *because this sense was in some way born with them, that God is to be appeased by all who seek him*.



It has been stated in this thread that these calls are to God's covenant people. Calvin uses this OT passage to talk about how the witness of this doctrine _through all ages_ and includes the heathen. For Calvin, this doctrine is not just for the covenant people of God.



> Besides, God bore witness to it more clearly in the law and the prophets. In the Gospel we hear how familiarly he addresses us when he promises us pardon. (Luke 1:78.) And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ. It follows, then, that what the Prophet now says is very true, that God wills not the death of a sinner, because he meets him of his own accord, and is not only prepared to receive all who fly to his pity, but he calls them towards him with a loud voice, when he sees how they are alienated from all hope of safety. *But the manner must be noticed in which God wishes all to be saved, namely, when they turn themselves from their ways. God thus does not so wish all men to be saved as to renounce the difference between good and evil; but repentance, as we have said, must precede pardon*. *How, then, does God wish all men to be saved*?



Notice the God's wish is not for repentance alone ("what men ought to do") but for the _salvation_ offered through the means of faith and repentance. This thread has separated the desire for obedience from the desire to save. Such separation is unnatural and forced.



> By the Spirit's condemning the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment at this day, by the Gospel, as he did formerly by the law and the prophets. (John 16:8.) God makes manifest to *mankind* their great misery, *that they may betake themselves to him*: he wounds that he may cure, and slays that he may give life. We hold, then, that; *God wills not the death of a sinner, since he calls all equally to repentance, and promises himself prepared to receive them if they only seriously repent*. If any one should object -- then there is no election of God, by which he has predestinated a fixed number to salvation, the answer is at hand: the Prophet does not here speak of God's secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects -- this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready,* that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us*.



Calvin didn't add artificial categories and separate desired repentance from desired salvation. He reconciled these things in the infinite God.



> Although, therefore, *God's will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned*. Besides, it is not surprising that *our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish*.



Calvin was content to withhold judgment on how to reconcile God's wish for all to be saved with reprobation, a sentiment I wish many of my PB brethren were able to admit without forcing Scripture into the confines of human logic.



> While we look now through a glass darkly, we should be content with the measure of our own intelligence. (1 Corinthians 13:12.) When we shall be like God, and see him face to face, then what is now obscure will then become plain. But since captious men torture this and similar passages, it will be needful to refute them shortly, since it can be done without trouble.



Respectfully,

Tim

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

Jeri Tanner said:


> I note that in the passage in question, Ezekiel 18:32, God is speaking to his covenant people. It’s been my observation that appeals like this from God are always to his church, see also 2 Corinthians 5:20. To Ninevah he simply said, 30 days and Ninevah will be destroyed. There was no appeal in the same manner. What are your thoughts on this aspect, Patrick? One of the main practical concerns for this issue is what is said to unbelievers in preaching and evangelization. Isn’t there a difference between what’s said to straying covenant individuals and churches, and what is said to individuals and crowds outside the visible church?



As I have said before, as a Presbyterian you don't believe that even 100% of the covenant people were saved, and so your objection still finally fails.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> As I have said before, as a Presbyterian you don't believe that even 100% of the covenant people were saved, and so your objection still finally fails.



All that God covenanted were saved.


----------



## Pergamum

earl40 said:


> All that God covenanted were saved.


This is not true by your own church's belief. If the children of believers are counted as covenant members and if any are lost then that means some of God's covenant members are lost.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> This is not true by your own church's belief. If the children of believers are counted as covenant members and if any are lost then that means some of God's covenant members are lost.



Not all are Israel is something our reformed churches recognize.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> As I have said before, as a Presbyterian you don't believe that even 100% of the covenant people were saved, and so your objection still finally fails.


It doesn’t fail. Yes, there are reprobates among the people under covenant with God, in both OT and NT. Yet in the Bible God, who knows all things, still appeals to those covenant people as a whole (see the OT, Galatians and Corinthians), and only to his covenant people as a whole, as those who are his own. The reason is that_ all _those under the administration of covenant with God who are straying bear a particular obligation to return to him and be reconciled and he speaks to them accordingly, sometimes with warnings and threatenings, sometimes tenderly as a shepherd to straying sheep. He has been their God, and they have been his people, not by their choosing but by his.

As far as I can see, in the Bible it’s only to those under the administration of the church that God speaks in the tender terms under discussion, including reassurances of his love; I think the well-meant position is taking God’s fervent language in those certain texts and applying it to those outside the covenant.

I think there’s other good language the Bible gives evangelists to use when speaking to those outside the covenant. Texts that speak of his greatness, his holiness and power, the work of Christ on the cross and all it offers to sinners. “We preach Christ crucified.” The message of the gospel. The elect will hear this and be called, though the message’s address is to sinners in general. They need to be convicted of their sins and hear that there’s mercy in Christ for sinners who repent- language about God’s love for them, in particular, etc is not what they need to hear. They do need mercy- they need to be cut to the heart and ask what must I do to be saved? The reprobate upon hearing these things will be further hardened. What grace or help to them is it to hear God loves them? A claim at which they scoff. But that’s not the main issue- the main issue is that we should fear and tremble to speak to them out of accord with God’s word.

I just want God to be most honored and glorified in evangelism. I know that this will also bear the most fruit. I realize that the well meant offer as defined by John Murray seems to be the prevailing view now, so it’s obviously going to be a topic of discussion for a great while.

I am open to being corrected on what I’ve said about God’s language of reconciliation being limited to those under the administration of his covenant. But please offer corrections from the Bible to back up what you say.

Again: the Scriptures tell evangelists what to say to those outside the administration of the church. All these things must be ascertained through the study of Scripture according to the analogy of faith as pertains to evangelism; not necessarily through proof texts, not necessarily through the opinions of good men.


----------



## Pergamum

Jeri Tanner said:


> It doesn’t fail. Yes, there are reprobates among the people under covenant with God, in both OT and NT. Yet in the Bible God, who knows all things, still appeals to those covenant people as a whole (see the OT, Galatians and Corinthians), and only to his covenant people as a whole, as those who are his own. The reason is that_ all _those under the administration of covenant with God who are straying bear a particular obligation to return to him and be reconciled and he speaks to them accordingly, sometimes with warnings and threatenings, sometimes tenderly as a shepherd to straying sheep. He has been their God, and they have been his people, not by their choosing but by his.
> 
> As far as I can see, in the Bible it’s only to those under the administration of the church that God speaks in the tender terms under discussion, including reassurances of his love; I think the well-meant position is taking God’s fervent language in those certain texts and applying it to those outside the covenant.
> 
> I think there’s other good language the Bible gives evangelists to use when speaking to those outside the covenant. Texts that speak of his greatness, his holiness and power, the work of Christ on the cross and all it offers to sinners. “We preach Christ crucified.” The message of the gospel. The elect will hear this and be called, though the message’s address is to sinners in general. They need to be convicted of their sins and hear that there’s mercy in Christ for sinners who repent- language about God’s love for them, in particular, etc is not what they need to hear. They do need mercy- they need to be cut to the heart and ask what must I do to be saved? The reprobate upon hearing these things will be further hardened. What grace or help to them is it to hear God loves them? A claim at which they scoff. But that’s not the main issue- the main issue is that we should fear and tremble to speak to them out of accord with God’s word.
> 
> I just want God to be most honored and glorified in evangelism. I know that this will also bear the most fruit. I realize that the well meant offer as defined by John Murray seems to be the prevailing view now, so it’s obviously going to be a topic of discussion for a great while.
> 
> I am open to being corrected on what I’ve said about God’s language of reconciliation being limited to those under the administration of his covenant. But please offer corrections from the Bible to back up what you say.
> 
> Again: the Scriptures tell evangelists what to say to those outside the administration of the church. All these things must be ascertained through the study of Scripture according to the analogy of faith as pertains to evangelism; not necessarily through proof texts, not necessarily through the opinions of good men.



So you posit a free offer only for His covenant people?

"God, who knows all things, still appeals to those covenant people as a whole (see the OT, Galatians and Corinthians), and only to his covenant people as a whole, as those who are his own."

And yet a great many of those are lost.

Then you write of: "God’s language of reconciliation being limited to those under the administration of his covenant." And yet in Acts we have Paul announcing to Gentiles that God commands all men everywhere to repent. This doesn't seem right.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

George Gillespie's contribution to the Westminster Assembly's debate over hypothetical universalism may be of interest to those wrestling with the issues raised in this discussion. Edmund Calamy and others adopted a different position, though I could probably do with updating that post to include all of Calamy's contributions. (Samuel Rutherford also contributed to this debate as well.) If the divines at the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly could not see eye-to-eye on these issues, we should not be surprised if Reformed people continue to debate them today.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See the thread below, and especially:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/no-room-for-hypothetical-universalism.88436/#post-1093193

In addition to the quote provided above, Rehnman also notes in the cited paper:

“An intention or a conscious goal is that which an agent aims to accomplish and the means are that which is used for attaining the intention. When the agent acts according to its nature, then the end of the action and the end of the agent is one and the same. But when the means are not fitted for the intentional end, then a distinction must be inferred between _the end of the action and the end of the agent_; between the intention and the intender. Now, the doctrine of divine simplicity implies that in God intention and Intender—act and Agent—cannot be other than one and the same. In humans intention and intender—acts and agents—may _not_ be one and the same. In God the means for attaining the salvation of the elect are not, indeed cannot, be disproportionate to that end. There cannot be conditions—conditional redemption—to God. For according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, each thing is related to God, but God is not (reciprocally) related to anything. Yet, universalism anthropomorphically pictures God as using means that are not proportionate to the end and assumes that there is one intention in some salvific act and another intention in some other salvific act. Particularism upholds the doctrine of simplicity and consistently maintains the otherness of God in intending to save humans in Christ. Every salvific action of God is particular in intention, since in God intention and Intender cannot be other than one and the same.”​

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See the thread below, and especially:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/no-room-for-hypothetical-universalism.88436/#post-1093193



I have seen the thread before. Remember that I oppose both hypothetical universalism and the well-meant offer as theological positions. However, I do not allow (or try not to allow) my own theological views to prejudice my analysis of historical facts.

In my opinion as a trained historian, the attempt to argue that the Westminster Standards were designed to exclude either hypothetical universalism or the WMO is fraught with enormous problems. Both the make-up of the Assembly itself and the wider historical and theological context in which it operated render the likelihood of this assertion being true highly improbable. My friend Dr Jonathan Moore, who wrote about John Preston and English Hypothetical Universalism, is also of the same opinion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Reformed Covenanter said:


> My friend Dr Jonathan Moore, who wrote about John Preston and English Hypothetical Universalism, is also of the same opinion.



BTW, this is an EXCELLENT book. It is well written, informative and objective. I have it on my shelf.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timfost said:


> BTW, this is an EXCELLENT book. It is well written, informative and objective. I have it on my shelf.



Yes, though if I am going to be hyper-critical I did not fully agree with the notion that EHU represented a softening of Reformed theology. Rather, it would appear to be more accurate to argue that it was a softer form of Reformed theology from that of strict particularism, but that both streams existed within the Reformed tradition from the beginning. I thought that the author's own views got in the way a bit at this point, but perhaps that is just because I know them too well.  Still, I thought that Richard Muller's conclusion in his review, which was very positive on the whole, was correct.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

@timfost here is a review of the book, which I posted on Goodreads recently:

This monograph is a well-written and carefully researched study into the hypothetical universalism of John Preston. I will lay my cards on the table at the beginning and admit that the author is a friend of mine and that I agree with him (in substance, if not semantics) on the issues of hypothetical universalism and the well-meant offer, as I am a strict particularist in the mould of William Perkins, John Owen, and Francis Turretin. 

To cut a long story short, Jonathan Moore's thesis is that Preston was a theologian in the same mould as James Ussher and John Davenant in that while adhering to Reformed soteriology in opposition to Arminian notion that the death of Christ was not efficient for the salvation of the elect as it merely made salvation possible, Preston also maintained that the atonement was, in some sense, made for all men so that if they repented and believed the gospel Christ's death would be sufficient to save them. This view needs to be carefully distinguished from the more radical opinions of the Amyraldians, and especially the Amyraldian concept of the order of the divine decrees, which essentially results in God having two wills. 

Dr Moore's understanding of theology and even of New Testament Greek grammar means that he avoids mistakes that other historians could easily fall into. For instance, he argues from the Greek N.T., the Geneva Bible, and the Authorised Version that Preston's statement that "Christ is dead for you" is substantially the same thing as saying "Christ died for you", though it would be tempting for modern readers to attempt to go down this route in explaining away Preston's hypothetical universalism. 

Significantly, Dr Moore sees the hypothetical universalism of Preston, Ussher, and Davenant as a softening of Reformed theology. He does so in the intellectual context of seeing William Perkins as representative of the high-water-mark of Elizabethan particularism, with Preston softening the strict particularist emphases of Perkins and other notable contemporaries (including some prominent bishops of the Church of England). 

I think that this argument is a weak point in the author's thesis, not so much because it is fundamentally wrong but because it reflects the author's own suppositions that his branch of Reformed theology is the gold-standard by which all else is to be measured against. I am also not convinced that he has done adequate justice to the possibility of the existence of hypothetical universalism within the English Reformed Church and among the Continental Reformed both at and subsequent to the Reformation. As a result, the author tends to treat hypothetical universalism as an embarrassing uncle at a party rather than as another legitimate branch of Reformed orthodoxy alongside his own. 

Furthermore, it would also have helped had the author acknowledged more clearly that the hypothetical universalists adhered to particular redemption as per the Canons of Dort, while also recognising Christ's death had a universal reference, rather than calling them universal redemptionists. These caveats aside, the book is an important contribution to Reformed history and is well worth your time in reading.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## timfost

Reformed Covenanter said:


> @timfost here is a review of the book, which I posted on Goodreads recently:
> 
> This monograph is a well-written and carefully researched study into the hypothetical universalism of John Preston. I will lay my cards on the table at the beginning and admit that the author is a friend of mine and that I agree with him (in substance, if not semantics) on the issues of hypothetical universalism and the well-meant offer, as I am a strict particularist in the mould of William Perkins, John Owen, and Francis Turretin.
> 
> To cut a long story short, Jonathan Moore's thesis is that Preston was a theologian in the same mould as James Ussher and John Davenant in that while adhering to Reformed soteriology in opposition to Arminian notion that the death of Christ was not efficient for the salvation of the elect as it merely made salvation possible, Preston also maintained that the atonement was, in some sense, made for all men so that if they repented and believed the gospel Christ's death would be sufficient to save them. This view needs to be carefully distinguished from the more radical opinions of the Amyraldians, and especially the Amyraldian concept of the order of the divine decrees, which essentially results in God having two wills.
> 
> Dr Moore's understanding of theology and even of New Testament Greek grammar means that he avoids mistakes that other historians could easily fall into. For instance, he argues from the Greek N.T., the Geneva Bible, and the Authorised Version that Preston's statement that "Christ is dead for you" is substantially the same thing as saying "Christ died for you", though it would be tempting for modern readers to attempt to go down this route in explaining away Preston's hypothetical universalism.
> 
> Significantly, Dr Moore sees the hypothetical universalism of Preston, Ussher, and Davenant as a softening of Reformed theology. He does so in the intellectual context of seeing William Perkins as representative of the high-water-mark of Elizabethan particularism, with Preston softening the strict particularist emphases of Perkins and other notable contemporaries (including some prominent bishops of the Church of England).
> 
> I think that this argument is a weak point in the author's thesis, not so much because it is fundamentally wrong but because it reflects the author's own suppositions that his branch of Reformed theology is the gold-standard by which all else is to be measured against. I am also not convinced that he has done adequate justice to the possibility of the existence of hypothetical universalism within the English Reformed Church and among the Continental Reformed both at and subsequent to the Reformation. As a result, the author tends to treat hypothetical universalism as an embarrassing uncle at a party rather than as another legitimate branch of Reformed orthodoxy alongside his own.
> 
> Furthermore, it would also have helped had the author acknowledged more clearly that the hypothetical universalists adhered to particular redemption as per the Canons of Dort, while also recognising Christ's death had a universal reference, rather than calling them universal redemptionists. These caveats aside, the book is an important contribution to Reformed history and is well worth your time in reading.



Daniel,

Thanks for sharing. It has been a few years since I read the book and I'm sure I've forgotten some of the main points. The idea of softening is interesting. It seems that the predominant view (16th century) was a classic sufficient/efficient in the vein of Lombard. In the context of EHU and strict particularism (SP), sufficient/efficient would be the middle ground. Perhaps my impressions are historically inaccurate (please correct if so!), but it seems that SP was further developed in reaction to the Arminian debate, while EHU was developed in reaction to SP. At any rate, the softening seems to have been real, though not for the sole purpose of being more palatable for the non-Reformed, though it perhaps had this effect. 

I would also hesitate to lump Davenant in with Preston too closely. In my reading, Davenant seems a little closer to classic sufficient/efficient than does Preston. (I'd be happy to have your input on this subject as I do not consider myself any kind of scholar on the issue.) Certainly Amyraldianism is a differant animal.

Thanks for your input on the history and most of all for your honest reading of these historical debates. I really do appreciate your balanced approach to this discussion.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Thanks for sharing. It has been a few years since I read the book and I'm sure I've forgotten some of the main points. The idea of softening is interesting. It seems that the predominant view (16th century) was a classic sufficient/efficient in the vein of Lombard. In the context of EHU and strict particularism (SP), sufficient/efficient would be the middle ground. Perhaps my impressions are historically inaccurate (please correct if so!), but it seems that SP was further developed in reaction to the Arminian debate, while EHU was developed in reaction to SP. At any rate, the softening seems to have been real, though not for the sole purpose of being more palatable for the non-Reformed, though it perhaps had this effect.
> 
> I would also hesitate to lump Davenant in with Preston too closely. In my reading, Davenant seems a little closer to classic sufficient/efficient than does Preston. (I'd be happy to have your input on this subject as I do not consider myself any kind of scholar on the issue.) Certainly Amyraldianism is a differant animal.
> 
> Thanks for your input on the history and most of all for your honest reading of these historical debates. I really do appreciate your balanced approach to this discussion.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Tim



I used to dislike the "sufficient/efficient" view, but now I see it is Scriptural.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have seen the thread before. Remember that I oppose both hypothetical universalism and the well-meant offer as theological positions. However, I do not allow (or try not to allow) my own theological views to prejudice my analysis of historical facts.
> 
> In my opinion as a trained historian, the attempt to argue that the Westminster Standards were designed to exclude either hypothetical universalism or the WMO is fraught with enormous problems. Both the make-up of the Assembly itself and the wider historical and theological context in which it operated render the likelihood of this assertion being true highly improbable. My friend Dr Jonathan Moore, who wrote about John Preston and English Hypothetical Universalism, is also of the same opinion.




Daniel,

Concerning hypothetical universalism, how do you define it? I notice that Question 37 of the Heidelberg has lanugage often used by the hypothetical universalists. I prefer the Heidelberg over the Westminster. It is like a song or poem compared to a dry academic thesis.

*"LORD'S DAY 15*
Q&A 37
*Q. What do you understand by the word "suffered"?*
A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race."

If you admit universal aspects of the particular atonement, are you then a hypothetical universalist, or is there more?

p.s. maybe this needs to be another thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timfost said:


> I would also hesitate to lump Davenant in with Preston too closely. In my reading, Davenant seems a little closer to classic sufficient/efficient than does Preston. (I'd be happy to have your input on this subject as I do not consider myself any kind of scholar on the issue.) Certainly Amyraldianism is a differant animal.



While I have not read that much of John Davenant himself (and much of his writing is buried in Latin), from what I have seen in the secondary literature there do seem to be some subtle differences between his views and John Preston's. Perhaps Davenant would have hesitated to say that "Christ is dead for you" in the manner that Preston did? 

I recently read the modern translation of Moise Amyraut's _A Brief Treatise of Predestination_, which went much further than EHU both with respect to the order of the decrees and with Amyraut's assertion that Christ died _equally_ for all men (the French Reformed Synod advised him to drop that terminology).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> I used to dislike the "sufficient/efficient" view, but now I see it is Scriptural.



In the past I did not like it either, but if Christ's atonement is of infinite value I do not see how we can avoid it. The Canons of Dort recognised that it was biblical and I see no good reason to dissent from that conclusion.



Pergamum said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Concerning hypothetical universalism, how do you define it? I notice that Question 37 of the Heidelberg has lanugage often used by the hypothetical universalists. I prefer the Heidelberg over the Westminster. It is like a song or poem compared to a dry academic thesis.
> 
> *"LORD'S DAY 15*
> Q&A 37
> *Q. What do you understand by the word "suffered"?*
> A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race."
> 
> If you admit universal aspects of the particular atonement, are you then a hypothetical universalist, or is there more?
> 
> p.s. maybe this needs to be another thread.



From what I know about the subject (and I am no expert), the short answer to your question as to what constitutes HU would be "yes." While I have not read much on the subject, I suspect that SPers who hold to the 3FU would argue that Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 15 should be understood in terms of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction. I cannot remember what Zacharias Ursinus's Commentary has to say on this point.


----------



## timfost

Pergamum said:


> p.s. maybe this needs to be another thread.



*Free Offer: A Divided Divided Discussion

*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I recently read the modern translation of Moise Amyraut's _A Brief Treatise of Predestination_



Could you please let me know the book info on this? I've had trouble finding these writings in English.

Thanks!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timfost said:


> Could you please let me know the book info on this? I've had trouble finding these writings in English.
> 
> Thanks!



It is available from Amazon UK.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> This is not true by your own church's belief. If the children of believers are counted as covenant members and if any are lost then that means some of God's covenant members are lost.



Actually, just to be clear, the Westminster Standards teach that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect (see WLC 31; WSC 20). So, the official position of the Westminster formularies is that only the elect are, properly speaking, in the covenant.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timfost said:


> I would also hesitate to lump Davenant in with Preston too closely. In my reading, Davenant seems a little closer to classic sufficient/efficient than does Preston. (I'd be happy to have your input on this subject as I do not consider myself any kind of scholar on the issue.)



Tim,

As providence would have it, I have just started reading John Davenant's commentary on Colossians. He makes the following observation, which may be of interest to you:


But this reply is invalid; *because although it may be a general truth that the death of Christ was sufficient for all; yet is it also true, that the fruit of the death, of the resurrection, and of the intercession of Christ, actually belong only to those who are implanted into Christ*; that I should be sure, therefore, the benefits of Christ belong to me, it is necessary I should be sure also, that I am become a member of Christ, i. e. am justified and reconciled to God. For, if I doubt whether I am effectually called and justified, I must also doubt, whether I am without Christ, without God, an alien to the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger to the covenants of promise, or not, Ephes. ii. 12. When all these things are left in doubt, what place is there for confidence?

John Davenant, _An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians_, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 41 (emphasis added).


----------



## timfost

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tim,
> 
> As providence would have it, I have just started reading John Davenant's commentary on Colossians. He makes the following observation, which may be of interest to you:
> 
> 
> But this reply is invalid; *because although it may be a general truth that the death of Christ was sufficient for all; yet is it also true, that the fruit of the death, of the resurrection, and of the intercession of Christ, actually belong only to those who are implanted into Christ*; that I should be sure, therefore, the benefits of Christ belong to me, it is necessary I should be sure also, that I am become a member of Christ, i. e. am justified and reconciled to God. For, if I doubt whether I am effectually called and justified, I must also doubt, whether I am without Christ, without God, an alien to the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger to the covenants of promise, or not, Ephes. ii. 12. When all these things are left in doubt, what place is there for confidence?
> 
> John Davenant, _An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians_, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 41 (emphasis added).



Thanks for the quote. Have you read the dissertation at the end of the commentary? He goes into the issue and application of sufficiency at length. 

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timfost said:


> Thanks for the quote. Have you read the dissertation at the end of the commentary? He goes into the issue and application of sufficiency at length.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Tim



It is not printed in the Banner of Truth reprint, but I will read it online in due course (you may find it here). Interestingly, they also omitted his defence of episcopacy prior to his commentary on the text, _Diversity of Degrees in Ministers of the Gospel is not Repugnant to the Word of God_. I think that is a shame. While I do not agree with him on church polity, his arguments corrected some of the straw-men that Presbyterians set-up and correct some of the weak arguments evangelical Anglicans often make to defend their church polity (such as the Bible does not address the subject).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If this is of interest, start a new thread, but I would like to see what you have in view as far as the weak arguments. The original Episcopalian argument was from what I read, not a jus divinum one. From what I've read, forget where, it was George Downame, a Presbyterian turn coat, who published the first such work in 1608. Bancroft had claimed so in a sermon in the early 1590s but those in favor of episcopacy were not ready for that and found it practically scandalous. By 1608 having they thought killed off English Presbyterianism, I guess they were ready to fight on the Presbyterians' field. 


Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is not printed in the Banner of Truth reprint, but I will read it online in due course (you may find it here). Interestingly, they also omitted his defence of episcopacy prior to his commentary on the text, _Diversity of Degrees in Ministers of the Gospel is not Repugnant to the Word of God_. I think that is a shame. While I do not agree with him on church polity, his arguments corrected some of the straw-men that Presbyterians set-up and correct some of the weak arguments evangelical Anglicans often make to defend their church polity (such as the Bible does not address the subject).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> If this is of interest, start a new thread, but I would like to see what you have in view as far as the weak arguments. The original Episcopalian argument was from what I read, not a jus divinum one.



Basically, from what I recall from reading it a while ago, he argues that Episcopacy is biblical and debates the exegesis of Theodore Beza against it. In doing so, he corrects the straw-man that the only argument for Episcopacy was based on expediency. 

I will have to check my histories of the Church of Ireland, but was George Downame (Bishop of Derry) really a Presbyterian turncoat? I thought that he was born at Chester and was raised in the CofE, being the son of Bishop William Downame? Are you possibly confusing Downame with his later successor, Ezekiel Hopkins?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Basically, from what I recall from reading it a while ago, he argues that Episcopacy is biblical and debates the exegesis of Theodore Beza against it. In doing so, he corrects the straw-man that the only argument for Episcopacy was based on expediency.
> 
> I will have to check my histories of the Church of Ireland, but was George Downame (Bishop of Derry) really a Presbyterian turncoat? I thought that he was born at Chester and was raised in the CofE, being the son of Bishop William Downame? Are you possibly confusing Downame with his later successor, Ezekiel Hopkins?


I could be wrong, but I think I read this while researching English Presbyterians for Bownd's work on the Sabbath. Maybe different George Downame?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Polly Ha's work confirm's it is the same George Downame. I'll see if I can find that quote about first being Presbyterian in views; not sseeing it in Ha.


NaphtaliPress said:


> I could be wrong, but I think I read this while researching English Presbyterians for Bownd's work on the Sabbath. Maybe different George Downame?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Sorry for the rabbit trail; again we can pursue this in a different thread if need be. This is a link to the author saying Downame had been a Presbyterian.
Here is my comment from Bownd, _True Doctrine of the Sabbath_ (2015), Introduction, p. xlv. Specifically note 130.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> Basically, from what I recall from reading it a while ago, he argues that Episcopacy is biblical and debates the exegesis of Theodore Beza against it. In doing so, he corrects the straw-man that the only argument for Episcopacy was based on expediency.
> 
> I will have to check my histories of the Church of Ireland, but was George Downame (Bishop of Derry) really a Presbyterian turncoat? I thought that he was born at Chester and was raised in the CofE, being the son of Bishop William Downame? Are you possibly confusing Downame with his later successor, Ezekiel Hopkins?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Actually, just to be clear, the Westminster Standards teach that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect (see WLC 31; WSC 20). So, the official position of the Westminster formularies is that only the elect are, properly speaking, in the covenant.


Yes, so I believe the WCF on this point it seems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is not printed in the Banner of Truth reprint, but I will read it online in due course (you may find it here). Interestingly, they also omitted his defence of episcopacy prior to his commentary on the text, _Diversity of Degrees in Ministers of the Gospel is not Repugnant to the Word of God_. I think that is a shame. While I do not agree with him on church polity, his arguments corrected some of the straw-men that Presbyterians set-up and correct some of the weak arguments evangelical Anglicans often make to defend their church polity (such as the Bible does not address the subject).



To be fair to the Banner of Truth, their purpose was to publish John Davenant's commentary on Colossians as part of their Geneva Series of Commentaries. Hence, you can understand why they left the non-commentary material out of the publication. Besides, given that the commentary is well over 900 pages long, expecting them to publish another c. 300 pages is perhaps not reasonable.


----------

