# The Free Offer of the Gospel and American Presbyterianism



## Reformed Covenanter

What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:

PCA

OPC

RPCNA

WPCUS

Presbyterian Reformed Church

RPCUS

RPCGA

And anyone else that I have not thought of?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Well, bypassing the problem of definitions, I have been told that in the OPC while there is no official position and one doesn't have to agree with Murray/Stonehouse, that you will not get into certain presbyteries without holding to it. That was one OPCers opinion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, bypassing the problem of definitions, I have been told that in the OPC while there is no official position and one doesn't have to agree with Murray/Stonehouse, that you will not get into certain presbyteries without holding to it. That was one OPCers opinion.



Hmm...didn't the man called Young - who co-authored the minority report with John Murray on exclusive psalmody - deny the well-meant offer of the gospel. I think the James Beggs society published stuff by him on it a while back.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Dr. William Young authored the minority report to the Murray/Stonehouse. Dr. Young later joined the PRC when Dr. Murray help to form that little denomination in the mid 1960s. The OPC reports don't have any official constitutional status is my understanding.


----------



## Thomas2007

What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Dr. William Young authored the minority report to the Murray/Stonehouse. Dr. Young later joined the PRC when Dr. Murray help to form that little denomination in the mid 1960s. The OPC reports don't have any official constitutional status is my understanding.



Yes it was William Young. I forgot his first name.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Thomas2007 said:


> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.



By the well-meant offer one means that Christ is freely offered in the gospel and that God sincerely desires that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace the Saviour.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:
> 
> PCA
> 
> OPC
> 
> RPCNA
> 
> WPCUS
> 
> Presbyterian Reformed Church
> 
> RPCUS
> 
> RPCGA
> 
> And anyone else that I have not thought of?



Soooo many acronyms..


----------



## SouthernHero

The PCA sure does.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the well-meant offer one means that Christ is freely offered in the gospel and that God sincerely desires that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace the Saviour.
Click to expand...


Daniel, are you specifically looking for what each believes, or debating this horrible birth child of the marrow men?


----------



## MrMerlin777

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:
> 
> PCA
> 
> OPC
> 
> RPCNA
> 
> WPCUS
> 
> Presbyterian Reformed Church
> 
> RPCUS
> 
> RPCGA
> 
> And anyone else that I have not thought of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo many acronyms..
Click to expand...


You forgot the ARPC


----------



## cih1355

The Protestant Reformed Church denies the free offer of the gospel. This church believes that the gospel should be preached to everyone, but it denies that God offers salvation to the non-elect.


----------



## MrMerlin777

cih1355 said:


> The Protestant Reformed Church denies the free offer of the gospel. This church believes that the gospel should be preached to everyone, but it denies that God offers salvation to the non-elect.




To avoid confusion I think it should be mentioned that the Presbyterian Reformed Church and the Protestant Reformed Church are two separate denominations. One comming out of Scottish Presbyterianism and the other from the Contenental Reformed side of the house.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the well-meant offer one means that Christ is freely offered in the gospel and that God sincerely desires that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace the Saviour.
Click to expand...


Or put another way, The well-meant offer means that God sincerely desires to save the reprobate, those passed over in His electing decree.

This is a piece by Prof. David Engelsma on it, "Is Denial of the 'Well-Meant Offer' Hyper-Calvinism?", and articles on the matter.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the well-meant offer one means that Christ is freely offered in the gospel and that God sincerely desires that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace the Saviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, are you specifically looking for what each believes, or debating this horrible birth child of the marrow men?
Click to expand...


No debate; just want to know the lie of the land.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MrMerlin777 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:
> 
> PCA
> 
> OPC
> 
> RPCNA
> 
> WPCUS
> 
> Presbyterian Reformed Church
> 
> RPCUS
> 
> RPCGA
> 
> And anyone else that I have not thought of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo many acronyms..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the ARPC
Click to expand...


Sorry, but there are so many I can't keep up with them all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the well-meant offer one means that Christ is freely offered in the gospel and that God sincerely desires that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace the Saviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or put another way, The well-meant offer means that God sincerely desires to save the reprobate, those passed over in His electing decree.
> 
> This is a piece by Prof. David Engelsma on it, "Is Denial of the 'Well-Meant Offer' Hyper-Calvinism?", and articles on the matter.
Click to expand...


I never said it was hyper-Calvinism, that would be a misrepresentation, but it is high-Calvinism. The free-offer is not something which can be reconciled with human reason, but the Bible makes it pretty clear that it is God's revealed will that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace Christ as he is offered to them in the gospel:



> Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ Ezek. 33:11


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel, are you specifically looking for what each believes, or debating this horrible birth child of the marrow men?



Where in the Marrowmen do you find this teaching?


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The free-offer is not something which can be reconciled with human reason, but the Bible makes it pretty clear that it is God's revealed will that the wicked turn from their evil ways and embrace Christ as he is offered to them in the gospel:



The elasticity of the English language enables one to speak unclearly, but technically the word "should" is required between "wicked" and "turned." It is God's revealed will that the wicked _should_ turn from their evil ways. God's revealed will does not indicate what _shall_ take place as far as future events are concerned.


----------



## yeutter

*PCA and the free well meant offer*



SouthernHero said:


> The PCA sure does.



When did the PCA take a position on the free well meant offer?
Prof. John H. Gerstner joined the PCA after he left the old mainline Presbyterian Church. He did not agree with the Murray Stonehouse position on the well meant offer.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, are you specifically looking for what each believes, or debating this horrible birth child of the marrow men?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Marrowmen do you find this teaching?
Click to expand...


Matthew, this was the crux of the issue. They called it the "warrant" to believe. And directly connected it with the univeral apsect of the atonement. Some puritans erred in that time calling it closing with Christ.

Thomas Boston:
That there is no universal atonement yet there is warrant to offer Christ to all mankind whether elect or reprobate and a warrant for all to freely receive Christ however great sinners they are or have been.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Matthew, this was the crux of the issue. They called it the "warrant" to believe. And directly connected it with the univeral apsect of the atonement. Some puritans erred in that time calling it closing with Christ.
> 
> Thomas Boston:
> That there is no universal atonement yet there is warrant to offer Christ to all mankind whether elect or reprobate and a warrant for all to freely receive Christ however great sinners they are or have been.



Thomas Boston clearly states there is no universal atonement, and yet you charge the marrowmen with maintaining a universal aspect to the atonement. His view on the warrant to believe is in perfect accord with the Westminster formularies and Sum of Saving Knowledge. The free offer of the gospel is standard reformed terminology; the innovation by moderate Calvinism in recent years has been to introduce what they call the well-meant offer, or a desire or delight in God that all men be saved. That is the bone of contention, not the free offer of the gospel.


----------



## Ron

The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.

Ron

Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The free offer of the gospel is standard reformed terminology; the innovation by moderate Calvinism in recent years has been to introduce what they call the well-meant offer, or a desire or delight in God that all men be saved. That is the bone of contention, not the free offer of the gospel.



This post is particularly helpful. I think many assume that by denying the well meant offer of the gospel they would be denying the free offer of the gospel. I think too many assume that, because we must freely proclaim the Gospel to all, and that all have a responsibility to receive it, that God's decree (or desire if you will) corresponds to the way we think about it. Even as too much can be said about God's reprobation of men and depreciating the real force of the Gospel call from a hyper-Calvinist angle, I think we can try to press too much in the other direction.

A number of weeks ago I was preparing for and then taught on Romans 10. The notion of the Gospel herald going forward with Good News only to be received by mostly unbelief really struck me at the time and I've been chewing on that cud for several weeks now.

It was just this AM, I was listening to R.C. Sproul making a good observation about Paul's declaration that he wasn't ashamed of the Gospel and the wonder of it all that a message of good news from God that goes into the world would ever be considered shameful. A man comes flying into the city, his feet kicking up clouds of dust to proclaim: "Death has been defeated! There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus!" Instead of rejoicing, people stone him.

There was also some mention that the Greek word for Gospel (euangelion) carries with it an idea of judgment for those that don't receive the news. Does anyone know what he's referring to and if there is some substance to this? It makes some sense, in fact, as the Gospel is actually received as bad news by some and they are judged in their rejection of it but is there something in the etymology or Biblical use that actually communicates an undercurrent of judgment if the hearer doesn't rejoice at the news?

Anyway, this is a bit meandering but my bottom line is that I think some have seen in the challenge to the well-meant offer a repudiation of Evangelism or a care for the lost. Perhaps many have seen in hyper-Calvinists a Gospel-denying ambivalence to the proclamation of the Gospel as a result. I think these discussions need to honestly deal with those that have a valid concern over what, precisely, is being communicated by the idea and ensure that we don't lose the full nature of the Gospel in our attempt to existentially _feel_ like God is more earnest that we proclaim the News He's commanded us. The News is big enough to proclaim even without me having to understand the hidden things of God with respect to it.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, this was the crux of the issue. They called it the "warrant" to believe. And directly connected it with the univeral apsect of the atonement. Some puritans erred in that time calling it closing with Christ.
> 
> Thomas Boston:
> That there is no universal atonement yet there is warrant to offer Christ to all mankind whether elect or reprobate and a warrant for all to freely receive Christ however great sinners they are or have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Boston clearly states there is no universal atonement, and yet you charge the marrowmen with maintaining a universal aspect to the atonement. His view on the warrant to believe is in perfect accord with the Westminster formularies and Sum of Saving Knowledge. The free offer of the gospel is standard reformed terminology; the innovation by moderate Calvinism in recent years has been to introduce what they call the well-meant offer, or a desire or delight in God that all men be saved. That is the bone of contention, not the free offer of the gospel.
Click to expand...


I agree with your second notion. That is why I said the marrow men, who were condemned btw, were the birth mother of the well meant offer of the Gospel. There is much wrong with their thoughts matthew and to deny this is to rewrite every account that is presented against them. Using the word offer is not the problem, as you read in owen, he used it correctly. Hence owen's fight against Baxter on the atonement.

The Marrow taught the following:

1) It held that assurance was of the nature of faith.
*2) It taught a universal atonement and pardon in the cross. (While this point was not specifically discussed in the book, the Assembly considered it a necessary part of the teaching of the book that the universal offer of the gospel was a warrant to each man to receive Christ. It was at this critical point that the whole question of the offer of salvation entered the discussion.)*

3) It taught that holiness was not necessary to salvation.

4) It taught that the fear of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be motives of obedience.

5) It held that the believer is not under the law as a rule of life.

They confessed both ends of the spectrum of High Calvinism and Amyraludism. But the biggest point of contention was #2.

The Church of Scotland offically condemned this teaching. Even though modernism has denied this, the decision of 1720, reaffirmed in 1722, has never been retracted. 

They taught a conditional salvation Matthew. You may play semantics to defend them, which is your prerogative. I agree the word offer, when used correctly, as in Owen and the confessions, is reformed to the bone. But once it is perverted to mean anything other than to present, portray, or setting forth, as the marrow did starting with Fischer, it becomes conditioned on faith of man to exercise this hmself. 

Boston, in his book, Human Nature in its Fourfold State, distinguished between an awakening grace and a converting grace. Sometimes these people who labored under the conviction of sin were called “seekers” to emphasize that they were earnestly seeking relief from their anguished grief over sin and looking for that which would bring peace to their hearts. In this state they were enabled to pray even for regeneration and conversion; they were able to go to church to hear the gospel as it presented Christ Who had come to save from sin. But, although this seeking could go on for years, yet it could ultimately result in nothing so that the seeker himself would go lost.

The offer was not merely the proclamation that set forth Christ as the God-ordained way of salvation. The offer was a "warrant" to believe in Christ. The Marrow Men wanted to press home the demands of faith not only, but to do this by giving to everyone the right to believe in Christ. Everyone had not only the obligation to believe, but also the right. In this way they thought to urge upon sinners the blessedness of finding salvation from sin in Christ. Thus the offer expressed God's earnest desire to save all. It revealed God's intention to make all partakers of Christ. It spoke of God's love that extended to all.

As you read the accurate history of this book by Fischer and the Men who spoke it, Boston, the Erskines et al, you will see how this is the beginnign of the WMO and common grace we have today, and lastly universal aspects of the atonement given to the unregenerate and reprobate. Oh and let us not forget that we have also ended up with discussions of a 2 willed God. SOme fabricated revealed will that desires the salvation of all head for head who hear the gospel. The Marrow Men claimed that by making this salvation conditioned upon faith, they in fact made the work of salvation particular because only the elect actually came to faith. But the fact is that the whole work of salvation was made dependent upon man's work of faith (even though the Marrow Men denied this), because one had to explain how only some were saved when in fact God desired the salvation of all, earnestly urged all to come to Christ, and provided an atonement which was sufficient for all, intended for all and available to all, In fact, this atonement was the warrant for a man to believe and gave him the right to come unhesitatingly to Christ. Why then do not all come? They do not all come because they do not all exercise saving faith.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia is correct, when it finds these "ambiguities" in Marrow thought:

1. "Christ has taken upon Him the sins of all men" and being a "deed of gift and grant unto all mankind" is not a universal purchase of the death of Christ, therefore it logically follows that -

2. the saving deed of gift and grant of Christ to all mankind is effective only to the elect, i.e., an infallible redemption gifted to all secures only a portion of its objects.

3. "A deed of gift and grant to all is only an offer." In other words Christ is gifted to all, without that He died for them.

4. Since the gift of Christ to all is not a benefit purchased by the atonement, the substance of the free offer of the gospel does not consist of Christ as Redeemer, but only as a Friend

I love the last one especially...

The Marrow Men were rightly condemned by the General Assemblies of the Scottish churches. They had attempted to introduce into the church ideas that were foreign to the historic faith of Calvinism and had attempted to bring the church into an Amyrauldian theological position. That the Marrow Men could have had such influence on subsequent Presbyterian thought is hard to understand, especially in the light of the fact that their views stand condemned by the church. Those Presbyterians who have their roots in the Scottish churches ought to take note of the fact that, insofar as they teach the offer as maintained by the Marrow Men, they run contrary to their own adopted theological position.

My greatest contention is why we must feel we have to vindicate God as being sincere. Unless God echoes your call from the pulpit in some manner, then the call is not genuine. Since Christ died for everybody, you can know He died for you; thus you have a gospel warrant to believe. The problem is, Scripture never frames the gospel in those terms or the atonement in those terms. There is not a single text of Scripture that records anybody being told to believe because Jesus died for them. The WMO beginning with the marrow men believes the Gospel offers a warrant to every sinner becasue there is an atonement for all head for head, and that God sincerely desires they come to Him to be saved. I just ask how can this be? God appears to be fighting against Himself.

In the words of Twisse:

"And whereas, in the last place, it is said, that the Reprobates cannot obtain this grace of God, although it be offered to them in the Gospel, this either hath no sobriety, or being brought to a sober sense, is utterly untrue. And nothing but the ambiguous notion of grace serves their turn, and gives them liberty to prate they know not what. *For as for faith itself, that is not offered at all in the Gospe*l; men are called upon to believe, and promised, that upon their faith, they shall obtain the grace of remission of sins; & salvation; and these graces may be said to be offered unto all, upon condition of faith; *but faith itself in no congruity, can be said to be offered*; though by the preaching of the Gospel, the Lord works faith in the hearts of whom He will; as it is said, that He will have mercy on whom He will and whom He wills He hardeneth. But as for [per]suasion & exhortation unto faith, this grace the reprobates in the Church of God are partakers of, as well as God's elect." (The Five Points of Grace & Predestination Defined and Defended by the Procurator of the Westminster Assembly )


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> There was also some mention that the Greek word for Gospel (euangelion) carries with it an idea of judgment for those that don't receive the news. Does anyone know what he's referring to and if there is some substance to this?



He's probably showing from context that the gospel includes threatenings to non-compliers: He that believeth not is damned. I think the idea of gospel as good news is overplayed, and a more semantic evaluation would show that the word is often used in the NT in the sense of an authoritative message. Hence preracher of the gospel is an authoritative messenger.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> I agree with your second notion. That is why I said the marrow men, who were condemned btw, were the birth mother of the well meant offer of the Gospel....
> 
> The Church of Scotland offically condemned this teaching. Even though modernism has denied this, the decision of 1720, reaffirmed in 1722, has never been retracted.



The history and Presbyterian procedure is a little more nuanced than that.

Concerning your representation of Marrow teaching, you may find in the standard edition of the Marrow, which includes Thomas Boston's notes, an appendix providing the Marrowmen's actual position. All you have managed to accomplish in your post is a repetition of the usual gross generalisations which are charged against them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was also some mention that the Greek word for Gospel (euangelion) carries with it an idea of judgment for those that don't receive the news. Does anyone know what he's referring to and if there is some substance to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's probably showing from context that the gospel includes threatenings to non-compliers: He that believeth not is damned. I think the idea of gospel as good news is overplayed, and a more semantic evaluation would show that the word is often used in the NT in the sense of an authoritative message. Hence preracher of the gospel is an authoritative messenger.
Click to expand...

I think the idea that the Gospel is _only_ good news is overplayed but it certainly can't be overplayed what great news it is for us!

I think that must be what he was getting at in terms of semantic use in the Scriptures themselves, which I was alluding to above but I wondered if there was some other scholarly work that showed that if that was in the root etymology of the term (though obviously the Scriptural use is the more important factor).

Interestingly, though, the biggest issue for most Americans has to do with not overplaying the fact that it is good _news_ but mistaking the Gospel as not being news at all but an _invitation_. If most American Evangelicals only overplayed the part about the Gospel being good news then that would be an improvement in the right direction that a definitive work is being heralded instead of an accessory to our lives.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ron said:


> The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?



Very good article here Ron.

_In a word, not only can God not save the reprobate. 2000 years ago He acted in time sealing that inability. For God to desire the salvation of the reprobate is to say that God - today - desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago. What can God desire on this regard other than the past be different? Does God live with any sense of regret?_


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your second notion. That is why I said the marrow men, who were condemned btw, were the birth mother of the well meant offer of the Gospel....
> 
> The Church of Scotland offically condemned this teaching. Even though modernism has denied this, the decision of 1720, reaffirmed in 1722, has never been retracted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The history and Presbyterian procedure is a little more nuanced than that.
> 
> Concerning your representation of Marrow teaching, you may find in the standard edition of the Marrow, which includes Thomas Boston's notes, an appendix providing the Marrowmen's actual position. All you have managed to accomplish in your post is a repetition of the usual gross generalisations which are charged against them.
Click to expand...




Matthew, what offends me the most is when this type of response is given when facts have been shown to be true by many of people more learned than myself. There is no missunderstanding, there is no "taking out of context" what they professed. It is fact that the teachings were condemned by the Church of Scotland twice, and never repealed. And all should be still bound by this condemnation. 

They erred. Plain and simple. To denfend their honor on this point is moot. Gerstner is perfect when he states:

John Gerstner said that

such a “love,” on God’s part, so far from being love, would be the refinement of cruelty. As we have already seen, offering a gift of life to a spiritual corpse, a brilliant sunset to a blind man, and a reward to a legless cripple if only he will come and get it, are horrible mockeries.

If that is the attitude of the God who changes not, why would He come to hate them forever in hell for what He loves them in this world: If God loves men now it must be God who repents when He comes to hate them after their death. Since we know that “God is not a man .†.†. that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19), one of two things must be true-either God must hate reprobate sinners now or God must love reprobate sinners forever. It is inconceivable that an unchanging God loves impenitent sinners now and hates these same impenitent sinners after their death

Ian Murray is the one who has rewritten their history. Thomas Chalmers, one of the MM write:

But we cannot say that there is any exercise of fury in God at the time of giving the invitation. There is the most visible and direct contrary. There is a longing desire after you. There is a wish to save you from that day in which the fury of a rejected Saviour will be spread abroad over all who have despised Him. There is a kindness a desire for peace and friendship a longing earnestness to make up the quarrel which now subsists between the Lawgiver in heaven and His yet impenitent and unreconciled creatures. God has purposes of kindness towards every one of you; and as one of His ministers I can now say to you all that there is no fury in God. Now when the spiritual husbandman is trying to soften your hearts, He is warranted to make a full use of the argument of my text that there is no fury in God. He would rather that you turn, and to live. He would rather that this enemy of His ... should take hold of God's strength, that he may make peace with Him. ... And so in Scripture everywhere do we see Him pleading and protesting with you that He does not want to signalize Himself upon the ruin of any, but would rather that they should turn and be saved. .. God is willing to save you: are you willing to be saved? It is not your destruction but your salvation that God wants to put forth His strength in. 

"Christ invites sinners with an enlarged heart. Joy enlarges it. His heart is open to you, his arms are stretched wide. You often see him with sorrow and anger in his face, and this works with you that you will not come. Behold him smiling and inviting you now to himself, sending love looks to lost sinners, from a joyful heart within! Infer, 2nd. May I say, the Mediator's joy is not complete, till you come and take a share? Would you do Christ a pleasure? then come to him. Would you content and ease his heart? Then come. These are they that 'labour' and are 'heavy laden.' Who are meant by these? I cannot agree with those that restrain these expressions to those that are sensible of their sins and misery but I think it includes all that are out of Christ And what are the invitations of the gospel, but Christ putting out his hands to sinking souls, sinking with their own weight. Consider the parallel text, Isaiah 55:1, 'Ho, every one that thirsteth;' where, by the thirsty is not so much understood as those that are thirsting after Christ, as those that are thirsting after happiness and satisfaction Christ in the gospel comes into the world as to an hospital of sin-sick souls, ready to administer a cure to those that will come to him for it. It is the work of faith to give up the soul to Christ, that he may save it . How he complains of these that will not come, John 5:40, 'And ye will not come to me that ye might have life.' He speaks as one that has been working in vain." (From the Chapel Library tract "Come Unto Me, All Ye That Labour" by Thomas Boston)

DO you agree with this Matthew? Sripture sure does not in the least..


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Matthew, what offends me the most is when this type of response is given when facts have been shown to be true by many of people more learned than myself. There is no missunderstanding, there is no "taking out of context" what they professed.



Most would agree that the Marrowmen's own writings would be the most reliable source for their teaching; but here I am being told that many more learned than yourself are rather to be followed. Friend, I think it's a degradation of human intelligence to be a blind follower of men. I've provided you with a source of better information; it's to your own detriment if you do not consult it.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Thomas2007 said:


> What do you mean by the "well-meant offer of the Gospel?" That is not language that I am familiar with.



There is a really good book on the subject called "Hyper-Calvinism and the call of the Gospel" by David J. Engelsma. He defines the arguments used by both sides. Although he to has a position that he is trying to put forth, it is generally considered a good introduction to this issue.


----------



## sotzo

> The News is big enough to proclaim even without me having to understand the hidden things of God with respect to it.



Bingo


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, what offends me the most is when this type of response is given when facts have been shown to be true by many of people more learned than myself. There is no missunderstanding, there is no "taking out of context" what they professed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would agree that the Marrowmen's own writings would be the most reliable source for their teaching; but here I am being told that many more learned than yourself are rather to be followed. Friend, I think it's a degradation of human intelligence to be a blind follower of men. I've provided you with a source of better information; it's to your own detriment if you do not consult it.
Click to expand...


I agree Matthew. Yet one does not have to read all the works of Wesley to conclude he was in error. Therefore one needs not read all the works of each marrow men. The burden of proof has been accomplished against them in regards to the offer of the Gospel. In other arreas, I agree with them. They were not Antinomian at all. They were Amyrauldian in the atonement, and free grace in justification. And I do commend that part greatly. Yet it cannot be denied they were not biblical in their assesment of the offer


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good article here Ron.
> 
> _In a word, not only can God not save the reprobate. 2000 years ago He acted in time sealing that inability. For God to desire the salvation of the reprobate is to say that God - today - desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago. What can God desire on this regard other than the past be different? Does God live with any sense of regret?_
Click to expand...


While this may sound logical, there is a problem. Namely, did the Lord Jesus sincerely desire that the rich young man repent and embrace the offer of mercy? I think Mark 10:21 answers the question:



> Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."



Here we see that Christ loved the young man and desired that he forsake sin and follow Him as Saviour and Lord, yet, at the same time, the young man had not been elected to eternal salvation, nor did Christ die for him on the cross.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

For those who want a defence of the well-meant, free offer of the gospel, I recommend David Silversides' book _The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed_


----------



## NaphtaliPress

See PB Theological Journal, and Matthew Winzer's:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> See PB Theological Journal, and Matthew Winzer's:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/



Does this answer David Silversides specifically?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good article here Ron.
> 
> _In a word, not only can God not save the reprobate. 2000 years ago He acted in time sealing that inability. For God to desire the salvation of the reprobate is to say that God - today - desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago. What can God desire on this regard other than the past be different? Does God live with any sense of regret?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While this may sound logical, there is a problem. Namely, did the Lord Jesus sincerely desire that the rich young man repent and embrace the offer of mercy? I think Mark 10:21 answers the question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we see that Christ loved the young man and desired that he forsake sin and follow Him as Saviour and Lord, yet, at the same time, the young man had not been elected to eternal salvation, nor did Christ die for him on the cross.
Click to expand...


Not as God, but as Man. That is where the affection flows Daniel.. The one question that is never answered Scripturally by the proponents of God's desire for all to come to Christ is it leads to open theism. Since God gives what He demands to His chosen, then how could the offer be presented in such a way? It is as if God does not know the future of the individual. This is tremendously more arbitrary and ruthless on God's part to desire as Heavenly Father the salvation of those whom He never intends to save. People accuse "calvinists" of worshipping a tyrant becasue He does as He pleases with no council or influence of the creature. Yet this charicature of a god, who is said to desire something of which he does not provide is malicious. 

Daniel, please reflect on where this teaching logically leads. Now you can go the course of specualtion of the 2 will theory. It's a new kind of sincerity, is it not, that supposes God can genuinely invite to salvation those whom He has already reprobated? At the end of the day, we must believe Scripture when it says God does not have 2 conflicting desires. One hidden and one revealed. Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations.

Perhaps there is a truth in this theory, but i a hard pressed to find it at all.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> See PB Theological Journal, and Matthew Winzer's:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this answer David Silversides specifically?
Click to expand...

By name? Don't think so; read it. It is not that long. I know Matthew is familiar with the Silversides work; maybe he can comment here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Not as God, but as Man. That is where the affection flows Daniel



Right so Christ loved the rich young man in his human nature, but not in his divine? This would mean that Christ laid aside His divine nature when dealing with the young man, because the passage makes it clear that "Jesus loved him" that is Jesus the God-man, not just Christ the man. This is the problem for high Calvinists; you reject the well-meant offer because you cannot reconcile it with fallen human reason, but you end up in much more serious logical problems yourselves. Please reconsider this issue and feel free to read the likes of Prof. John Murray and other soundly Reformed men.



> The one question that is never answered Scripturally by the proponents of God's desire for all to come to Christ is it leads to open theism.



No it does not. We believe that God has unchangeably foreordained who will and who won't be saved. But we also believe that God desires that those who hear the gospel embrace Christ. God has not foreordained that sinners should keep His law perfectly, yet it is His revealed will that they perfectly obey His commands. Is this open theism as well?



> Daniel, please reflect on where this teaching logically leads. Now you can go the course of specualtion of the 2 will theory. It's a new kind of sincerity, is it not, that supposes God can genuinely invite to salvation those whom He has already reprobated? At the end of the day, we must believe Scripture when it says God does not have 2 conflicting desires. One hidden and one revealed. Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations.



This is nice philosophy, but it simply is not Biblical. God does have a revealed will and a secret will, hence He says:



> “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29:29


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This is nice philosophy, but it simply is not Biblical. God does have a revealed will and a secret will, hence He says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29:29
Click to expand...


Daniel, If you notice i also said :_Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations._ This is the crux of the issue. There can be no conflicting desires in the Godhead, for they are One. WHat Murray et al propose is the Father elects/reprobates.. Christ pledges to be the elects surety and also sufficient for all to give them a warrant to believe, yet the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and give them the gift of faith. Or the Father elects/reprobates, the Holy SPirit enlightens them under conviction of sin to search for a savior, yet Christ does not die for them. THis is crass


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nice philosophy, but it simply is not Biblical. God does have a revealed will and a secret will, hence He says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29:29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, If you notice i also said :_Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations._ This is the crux of the issue. There can be no conflicting desires in the Godhead, for they are One. WHat Murray et al propose is the Father elects/reprobates.. Christ pledges to be the elects surety and also sufficient for all to give them a warrant to believe, yet the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and give them the gift of faith. Or the Father elects/reprobates, the Holy SPirit enlightens them under conviction of sin to search for a savior, yet Christ does not die for them. THis is crass
Click to expand...


Yet hold on Nicholas, you are saying that God the Son - at least in His human nature - desired that the rich young man accept Him as Saviour, while the other persons of the Godhead don't - in some sense - desire that the wicked repent.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nice philosophy, but it simply is not Biblical. God does have a revealed will and a secret will, hence He says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, If you notice i also said :_Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations._ This is the crux of the issue. There can be no conflicting desires in the Godhead, for they are One. WHat Murray et al propose is the Father elects/reprobates.. Christ pledges to be the elects surety and also sufficient for all to give them a warrant to believe, yet the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and give them the gift of faith. Or the Father elects/reprobates, the Holy SPirit enlightens them under conviction of sin to search for a savior, yet Christ does not die for them. THis is crass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet hold on Nicholas, you are saying that God the Son - at least in His human nature - desired that the rich young man accept Him as Saviour, while the other persons of the Godhead don't - in some sense - desire that the wicked repent.
Click to expand...


There is in this account Daniel much to be considered. For one is Christ teaching Law keeping salvation? We must answer with a resounding no. He spoke to this person as a man, this man was a pharisee. as one like nicodemus. So attracted to Law that he believed there lies eternal life. The word used "love'' also means to treat with kindness. or to welcome. It has been noted this brings a reference to possibly kissing him on the head. Also take note these words are not recorded in Matthew. Not thatthis presents a contradiction when looked at clearly.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, If you notice i also said :_Whatever secret will the Lord may have, it surely doesn't run contrary to His public declarations._ This is the crux of the issue. There can be no conflicting desires in the Godhead, for they are One. WHat Murray et al propose is the Father elects/reprobates.. Christ pledges to be the elects surety and also sufficient for all to give them a warrant to believe, yet the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and give them the gift of faith. Or the Father elects/reprobates, the Holy SPirit enlightens them under conviction of sin to search for a savior, yet Christ does not die for them. THis is crass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet hold on Nicholas, you are saying that God the Son - at least in His human nature - desired that the rich young man accept Him as Saviour, while the other persons of the Godhead don't - in some sense - desire that the wicked repent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is in this account Daniel much to be considered. For one is Christ teaching Law keeping salvation? We must answer with a resounding no. He spoke to this person as a man, this man was a pharisee. as one like nicodemus. So attracted to Law that he believed there lies eternal life. The word used "love'' also means to treat with kindness. or to welcome. It has been noted this brings a reference to possibly kissing him on the head. Also take note these words are not recorded in Matthew. Not thatthis presents a contradiction when looked at clearly.
Click to expand...


I guess we are not going to agree, so I will leave it for now. All the material is out there for anyone who wants to read both positions, there is no point us just repeating the same arguments that have been used over and over again.

Yet hold on a minute:



Could someone please answer the original question? That would be very helpful.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> I agree Matthew. Yet one does not have to read all the works of Wesley to conclude he was in error. Therefore one needs not read all the works of each marrow men. The burden of proof has been accomplished against them in regards to the offer of the Gospel. In other arreas, I agree with them. They were not Antinomian at all. They were Amyrauldian in the atonement, and free grace in justification. And I do commend that part greatly. Yet it cannot be denied they were not biblical in their assesment of the offer



No, you do not need to read all the works of the Marrowmen, just the one which I referenced. It contradicts the gross charges you have made against their teaching. And on the basis of it, I can and do deny the charge that they were not biblical in their assessment of the offer. The Marrow teaching concerning the work of Christ is not that He died for all, but that His death is offered to all. That is not Amyraldian, but orthodox reformed. The Westminster Larger Catechism answer 32 states, "The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him."


----------



## MW

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> See PB Theological Journal, and Matthew Winzer's:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this answer David Silversides specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By name? Don't think so; read it. It is not that long. I know Matthew is familiar with the Silversides work; maybe he can comment here.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't answer him in name; but it is concerned with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, to which Rev. Silversides refers.


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Not as God, but as Man. That is where the affection flows Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right so Christ loved the rich young man in his human nature, but not in his divine? This would mean that Christ laid aside His divine nature when dealing with the young man, because the passage makes it clear that "Jesus loved him" that is Jesus the God-man, not just Christ the man. This is the problem for high Calvinists; you reject the well-meant offer because you cannot reconcile it with fallen human reason, but you end up in much more serious logical problems yourselves. Please reconsider this issue and feel free to read the likes of Prof. John Murray and other soundly Reformed men.
Click to expand...


Prof. Murray not only entangled himself in a serious logical problem, but in a condemned theological error -- monotheletism. One need only apply this idea of single will to a range of human emotions recorded in the Gospels to see how unorthodox its Christology really is. When Jesus grew weary and needed sleep, or hungry and needed food, was it the divine nature? When Jesus poured out His soul and asked that the cup of suffering might be taken from Him, was it the divine nature? When Jesus was filled with sorrow over Jerusalem, and emotion welled in Him to the point of tears, was it the divine nature? Of course not. Jesus was fully man, and expressed desires in accord with His human nature which cannot be ascribed to His divine nature.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as God, but as Man. That is where the affection flows Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right so Christ loved the rich young man in his human nature, but not in his divine? This would mean that Christ laid aside His divine nature when dealing with the young man, because the passage makes it clear that "Jesus loved him" that is Jesus the God-man, not just Christ the man. This is the problem for high Calvinists; you reject the well-meant offer because you cannot reconcile it with fallen human reason, but you end up in much more serious logical problems yourselves. Please reconsider this issue and feel free to read the likes of Prof. John Murray and other soundly Reformed men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prof. Murray not only entangled himself in a serious logical problem, but in a condemned theological error -- monotheletism. One need only apply this idea of single will to a range of human emotions recorded in the Gospels to see how unorthodox its Christology really is. When Jesus grew weary and needed sleep, or hungry and needed food, was it the divine nature? When Jesus poured out His soul and asked that the cup of suffering might be taken from Him, was it the divine nature? When Jesus was filled with sorrow over Jerusalem, and emotion welled in Him to the point of tears, was it the divine nature? Of course not. Jesus was fully man, and expressed desires in accord with His human nature which cannot be ascribed to His divine nature.
Click to expand...


Well, everyone recognizes that there were some things distinct to each nature, however, this introduces a serious disharmony between the two natures (i.e. that Christ wants the non-elect to repent in one nature, but not in the other). Moreover, are you saying that God commands us to love our reprobate neighbour, but does not show any love to them Himself (Matt.5:42-48)?


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Well, everyone recognizes that there were some things distinct to each nature, however, this introduces a serious disharmony between the two natures (i.e. that Christ wants the non-elect to repent in one nature, but not in the other). Moreover, are you saying that God commands us to love our reprobate neighbour, but does not show any love to them Himself (Matt.5:42-48)?



As an aside, the concern over "disharmony" at this point evinces that the well-meant offer cannot establish itself on the basis of the untenable hermeneutic of paradox.

But what you call "disharmony" is nothing more than the proper biblical distinction between revealed and decretive will. Our Lord in His human nature did not take the secret will as the rule of His obedience, but the revealed will. Heb. 10:5, 7, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: ... Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

Matt. 5:42-48 doesn't tell us to love our reprobate neighbour. It says nothing about reprobation. It is teaching us not to make distinctions in the expression of goodwill to our fellowmen. Now if giving rain and sunshine is what you mean by "love," then I follow the Scriptures and say that this "love" is shown to all men whether they be righteous or wicked, without bringing in the discriminating decree of election and reprobation. Here again the well meant offer exegesis fails miserably, because it insists on bringing in the discriminating decree where there is no warrant for it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, everyone recognizes that there were some things distinct to each nature, however, this introduces a serious disharmony between the two natures (i.e. that Christ wants the non-elect to repent in one nature, but not in the other). Moreover, are you saying that God commands us to love our reprobate neighbour, but does not show any love to them Himself (Matt.5:42-48)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, the concern over "disharmony" at this point evinces that the well-meant offer cannot establish itself on the basis of the untenable hermeneutic of paradox.
> 
> But what you call "disharmony" is nothing more than the proper biblical distinction between revealed and decretive will. Our Lord in His human nature did not take the secret will as the rule of His obedience, but the revealed will. Heb. 10:5, 7, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: ... Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."
> 
> Matt. 5:42-48 doesn't tell us to love our reprobate neighbour. It says nothing about reprobation. It is teaching us not to make distinctions in the expression of goodwill to our fellowmen. Now if giving rain and sunshine is what you mean by "love," then I follow the Scriptures and say that this "love" is shown to all men whether they be righteous or wicked, without bringing in the discriminating decree of election and reprobation. Here again the well meant offer exegesis fails miserably, because it insists on bringing in the discriminating decree where there is no warrant for it.
Click to expand...


Mr Winzer

Thanks for the discussion; as we are not going to agree I will leave it there. Generally speaking, I do not engage in protracted debates with minsters for a number of reasons:

1) It may appear disrespectful.

2) They know more that I do, and so you have to acknowledge your limitations.

3) There are others which I have momentarily forgotten.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel,

You left out an important advantage for Rev. Winzer.

Vegemite.

It's really quite good for you. I think it might even stimulate the mind. Very delicious on toast with butter. I ate some at his house and I immediately gained a few IQ points.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel,
> 
> You left out an important advantage for Rev. Winzer.
> 
> Vegemite.
> 
> It's really quite good for you. I think it might even stimulate the mind. Very delicious on toast with butter. I ate some at his house and I immediately gained a few IQ points.



I have heard of vegemite before (perhaps on an Australian TV show); didn't realise it was that good for you ; seriously though, I always enjoy discussions with Mr. Winzer - even though I don't always agree with him, you can be sure that he will give you _the best_ argument of the opposing viewpoint.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> You left out an important advantage for Rev. Winzer.
> 
> Vegemite.
> 
> It's really quite good for you. I think it might even stimulate the mind. Very delicious on toast with butter. I ate some at his house and I immediately gained a few IQ points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard of vegemite before (perhaps on an Australian TV show); didn't realise it was that good for you ; seriously though, I always enjoy discussions with Mr. Winzer - even though I don't always agree with him, you can be sure that he will give you _the best_ argument of the opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Yet is matthew a "happy little vegemite''


----------



## sotzo

> ...the young man had not been elected to eternal salvation, nor did Christ die for him on the cross.



With all due respect, this is neither warranted by the text, nor possible for us to even know. We have no idea what happened in the young man's life beyond the occurence of the text. For all we know, his "going away sad" could have been the beginning of his conversion. 

Conclusions like these, in my opinion, represent the doctrines of limted atonement and election run amuck....specifically, trying to sort out the individual persons for whom Christ's death will be applied versus the simple truth that those who are elect I (whomever those are) will be saved through the particular application of Christ's death to them. Why go beyond the latter??


----------



## JOwen

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel, are you specifically looking for what each believes, or debating this horrible birth child of the marrow men?



Well there is some strong language along with some historical inaccuracy. The Free Offer (also called the Well Meant Offer), is as old as time. Calvin, the Westminster Divines, and the Nadere Reformatie all supported and preached the Free Offer. To be sure, Murray/Stonehouse codified it in a way that has caused difficulty, but as a doctrine, it is unavoidable. Whatever remnants of anti-Free Offer remains in North America is, by and large, due to the influence of some Strict and Particular Baptists, and Hoeksma. I took some time a little over a year ago to collate John Calvin on the Free Offer. The mass of material is astounding. This is not to mention the prolific wittings of the Puritans on the subject. 

I would encourage readers to listen to a debate held in the UK between Silversides and Hanko. You can find it here under Audio Lectures.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Puritan Sailor said:


> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...



Patrick, again my contention with the Marrow Men is that it was the embyonic stage of what is now the WMO which in turn connects hypothetical universlaism with the offer of the Gospel. That within the offer, God actually desires the reprobate or unregenerate to embrace this warrant of faith. The whole idea perpetrated by them and other puritans in this time of preparationism by Law, where there conscious of the reprobate and unregenerate is seared leading them to "seek' for Christ, and continue on for years seeking one who has not died for them is such a dreadful thought for myself and against the nature of God. It is pavlovian in a sense. To dangle Christ as a savior for those whom it is never intended is malicious on the part of the preacher. It is not the word offer that is problematic, it is the distinction fo which they spoke. Owen himself defines offer and proclaiming, presenting, lifiting up, Christ and that is Scriptural. But to claim that the Atonement, because of speculated universal aspects, gives the preacher the right to give all head for head a warrant to embrace Christ is going beyond what is true. I will also note that the charge of antinomianism was terribly wrong against them. Yes the neonomians who were in charge of the Scotland church presented a conditional Gospel that is much worse than those of the marrow men. There is much written about this issue, of which I know I am not nearly as clear as them, yet it is possible to glean from what is written a sense of what the MM intentions were.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Puritan Sailor said:


> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...


It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Amazing Grace said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, again my contention with the Marrow Men is that it was the embyonic stage of what is now the WMO which in turn connects hypothetical universlaism with the offer of the Gospel. That within the offer, God actually desires the reprobate or unregenerate to embrace this warrant of faith. The whole idea perpetrated by them and other puritans in this time of preparationism by Law, where there conscious of the reprobate and unregenerate is seared leading them to "seek' for Christ, and continue on for years seeking one who has not died for them is such a dreadful thought for myself and against the nature of God. It is pavlovian in a sense. To dangle Christ as a savior for those whom it is never intended is malicious on the part of the preacher. It is not the word offer that is problematic, it is the distinction fo which they spoke. Owen himself defines offer and proclaiming, presenting, lifiting up, Christ and that is Scriptural. But to claim that the Atonement, because of speculated universal aspects, gives the preacher the right to give all head for head a warrant to embrace Christ is going beyond what is true. I will also note that the charge of antinomianism was terribly wrong against them. Yes the neonomians who were in charge of the Scotland church presented a conditional Gospel that is much worse than those of the marrow men. There is much written about this issue, of which I know I am not nearly as clear as them, yet it is possible to glean from what is written a sense of what the MM intentions were.
Click to expand...


And you are simply mistaken that they were arguing that way. Lachman's book points that out from the original sources. They did not base the offer upon a universal atonement but upon the command and promise of God. One thing that never comes up in these discussions, and Lachman does an excellent job pointing this out, is that the Marrowmen and their opponents read different authors. They were influenced by different traditions. The Marrowmen favored the more British and early Presbyterians (of which the Marrow book is a part). The Opponents favored later Continental authors, generally speaking, many of them were educated in Holland, and many were not even familiar with the earlier Puritan sources (a woeful consequence of the lack of books during this period in Scottish church history). Within the context of the Puritans and earlier presbyterian tradition, the language of the Marrow makes perfect sense and is completely orthodox. But from the later continental position, the language could be construed as problematic, especially when you are influenced by neonomianism. When you read the Marrow men within the context of their own tradition, they are perfectly orthodox and in perfect harmony with the Westminster Standards, as Boston proved so well in his explanatory notes to the Marrow. 
And if you wish to trace out embryonic stages of development, see what happened to the Church of Scotland within a generation after the Marrow. They ended up in rationalism and moralism. JOwen above has proved tons of quotes here on the board showing the free offer to be a doctrine going straight back to Calvin. It didn't start with the Marrow men.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

NaphtaliPress said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could lend a hand???


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Puritan Sailor said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could lend a hand???
Click to expand...

I think I drafted a note to that effect last year; but I don't recall where it went if I sent it; David is quite the traveler. My main problem right now is I don't know where my copy is!


----------



## Ron

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good article here Ron.
> 
> _In a word, not only can God not save the reprobate. 2000 years ago He acted in time sealing that inability. For God to desire the salvation of the reprobate is to say that God - today - desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago. What can God desire on this regard other than the past be different? Does God live with any sense of regret?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While this may sound logical, there is a problem. Namely, did the Lord Jesus sincerely desire that the rich young man repent and embrace the offer of mercy? I think Mark 10:21 answers the question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we see that Christ loved the young man and desired that he forsake sin and follow Him as Saviour and Lord, yet, at the same time, the young man had not been elected to eternal salvation, nor did Christ die for him on the cross.
Click to expand...


Daniel,

Just a couple of observations: 

1. I was speaking of God's lack of desire to save those elected unto damnation. I was not speaking to the question of whether God loved them. Accordingly, I could argue, but I won't, that logically speaking God could love but not desire to save those He has elected unto damnation. My theology doesn't allow for that distinction but I suppose it is logically tenable. After all, we are called to love our wives and our neighbor but that does not require that we _desire_ the same things for them. Accordingly, (and again I don't think that Scripture teaches this), it is not a logical contradiction for Jesus to love certain ones he does not desire to save. 

2. Now I will argue my point. You seem to be making an assumption that needs to be justified because your position up until now depends on it. Your assumption is that the rich man whom Jesus loved was damned in the end. I don't find that in the text. I do find that the rich man walked away, but don't many walk away from the demands of the gospel prior to receiving the word with gladness? Does God always grant repentance and faith to His elect upon their first hearing the good news? Who knows, this Rich Man could have been none other than Saul of Tarsus. Accordingly, you may not build your case that Jesus loves or desires to save those who are damned in the end based upon that text, for the simple reason the text doesn't say whether the man was saved in the end. It does say though, "With God all things are possible." 

3. So again, how do you reconcile God's supposed desire to save those elected unto damnation when the atonement was not for them and the Holy Spirit refuses to grant them faith and repentance? If God desires to save those elected unto damnation, then why doesn't He? Please don't say because they won't come to him; that would imply that God desired to save you be-_cause_ of your willingness to come to Him, which of course would reverse the theo-_logical_ order of your willingness and God's willingness, making the initiative yours not His. At the end of the day, you have God desiring to save those who won't come to Christ but the truth of the matter is, the atoning sacrifice of the Savior was not for them, which is why Jesus does not pray for them and the Holy Spirit refuses sovereignly to convert them. Any desire God would have _for them to be saved _would need to be indexed to _God's desire to save them_. God does not desire dead men to come to life on their own. Accordingly, any desire to save them would have to include a regret of what is past since God already determined that He would not give them life, which is why He does not try to give them life. 

4. We might begin here. Does God desire in any sense that they not be saved? In other words, since God desires His decree to come to pass and His decree includes men not coming to Christ, may we not conclude that God desires that men not come to Christ? And if so, then wouldn't it be a contradiction to say that God desires that those same men come to Christ? How can God desire His decree without desiring every component thereof? 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Ron

Joshua,

I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, the way I understand it, the term “free offer,” which literally suggests something more akin to what you say, has been hijacked to mean “sincere desire.” Accordingly, if someone asks whether I affirm the “free offer,” I’d probably do well to inquire what is behind the question.

In passing I'll note that I find a kind providence in the book that the OPC typically uses for communicant membership class. _Confessing Christ _ teaches in the section on Unconditional Election that God does not love those he does not elect unto salvation. 

In His grace,

Ron


----------



## Amazing Grace

Puritan Sailor said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, again my contention with the Marrow Men is that it was the embyonic stage of what is now the WMO which in turn connects hypothetical universlaism with the offer of the Gospel. That within the offer, God actually desires the reprobate or unregenerate to embrace this warrant of faith. The whole idea perpetrated by them and other puritans in this time of preparationism by Law, where there conscious of the reprobate and unregenerate is seared leading them to "seek' for Christ, and continue on for years seeking one who has not died for them is such a dreadful thought for myself and against the nature of God. It is pavlovian in a sense. To dangle Christ as a savior for those whom it is never intended is malicious on the part of the preacher. It is not the word offer that is problematic, it is the distinction fo which they spoke. Owen himself defines offer and proclaiming, presenting, lifiting up, Christ and that is Scriptural. But to claim that the Atonement, because of speculated universal aspects, gives the preacher the right to give all head for head a warrant to embrace Christ is going beyond what is true. I will also note that the charge of antinomianism was terribly wrong against them. Yes the neonomians who were in charge of the Scotland church presented a conditional Gospel that is much worse than those of the marrow men. There is much written about this issue, of which I know I am not nearly as clear as them, yet it is possible to glean from what is written a sense of what the MM intentions were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are simply mistaken that they were arguing that way. Lachman's book points that out from the original sources. They did not base the offer upon a universal atonement but upon the command and promise of God. One thing that never comes up in these discussions, and Lachman does an excellent job pointing this out, is that the Marrowmen and their opponents read different authors. ...When you read the Marrow men within the context of their own tradition, they are perfectly orthodox and in perfect harmony with the Westminster Standards, as Boston proved so well in his explanatory notes to the Marrow.
Click to expand...


Patrick et al who are defending the mm as being orthodox/biblical in their meaning of the 'offer', could YOU please provide the clarification by them please? Not lachman's understanding. See, I have provided quotes from Boston,Chalmers,Erskine that go beyond the scriptural meaning of offering Christ. I am not about to go buy a book, instead let us look at exactly their own words. While perhaps defending against opposition as the marrow men, their writings outside of this controversey should be clear on this so called warrant to believe, seeker error they proposed. And this cannot be denied Patrick regarding this Law preaching bringing all under conviction causing them to seek a remedy but alas end up without a cure given to them or found by them..


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Daniel,
> 
> Just a couple of observations:



Sorry, Ron I did not realise I was addressing any of your comments.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Amazing Grace said:


> Patrick et al who are defending the mm as being orthodox/biblical in their meaning of the 'offer', could YOU please provide the clarification by them please? Not lachman's understanding. See, I have provided quotes from Boston,Chalmers,Erskine that go beyond the scriptural meaning of offering Christ. I am not about to go buy a book, instead let us look at exactly their own words. While perhaps defending against opposition as the marrow men, their writings outside of this controversey should be clear on this so called warrant to believe, seeker error they proposed. And this cannot be denied Patrick regarding this Law preaching bringing all under conviction causing them to seek a remedy but alas end up without a cure given to them or found by them..



I'm sorry, I don't see any quotes by Boston, Chalmers, and Erskine. The quotes you pointed out which the EPC doesn't like about the Marrow are all sufficiently answered by Boston in his explanatory notes on those passages. The evidence is right there for all to read. As for the warrant to believe, that comes straight from the Westminsters Divines in the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of which the Marrow was a contemporary product using the same sources many of the Divines would have used). It's perfectly orthodox reformed terminology in the Puritan and Scottish tradition. Not sure what the rub is there. Why should I believe on Christ if I don't know I'm elect? How you answer that question will completely govern your preaching of the gospel. 

Just because the book was condemned doesn't mean it was condemned justly by the Church of Scotland. Councils do err (as Lachman sufficiently shows as well). And the Marrow men themselves being interogated provided perfectly orthodox answers to their interogators. 

As for Lachman, he does provide the extensive quotes you would like from sources that none of us possess anymore. If you want to have a more informed opinion on the subject I suggest you check it out. All the objections from the EPC are sufficiently answered there. Someday, if I have the time, I will try to mine out some more quotes. I'll have to bow out for now.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Puritan Sailor said:


> I'm sorry, I don't see any quotes by Boston, Chalmers, and Erskine. The quotes you pointed out which the EPC doesn't like about the Marrow are all sufficiently answered by Boston in his explanatory notes on those passages. The evidence is right there for all to read. As for the warrant to believe, that comes straight from the Westminsters Divines in the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of which the Marrow was a contemporary product using the same sources many of the Divines would have used). It's perfectly orthodox reformed terminology in the Puritan and Scottish tradition. Not sure what the rub is there. Why should I believe on Christ if I don't know I'm elect? How you answer that question will completely govern your preaching of the gospel.



Brother Patrick:

We must remember that I also do not agree about the antinomian charge brought against them. This was another condemnation the neonomians of Scotland levied. Assurance is the essence of faith as they proposed. They were 100% biblical on assurance, and I commend their refusal to recant against the neonomians of the day. That said, the rub, as you ask, is that the Canons of Dort reject the thoughts contained by the MM and some puritans, perhaps from certain "divines" also. So as you said not only do councils err, but obviously individuals too. if the 'sources' as you call them, perpetrate the same vein of thought, then Scripture and Dort reject those who are from that fountain of thought also. Boston in his book, "Human Nature in Fourfold State" as well as those "divines" you mentioned propose that preaching Law can make the unregenerate hunger and thirst for righteousness. Becasue of some invented "awakening grace" given by God. This will casue them, to repeat myself ad nauseum, to "seek" a remedy in Christ offered to them. Yet He is not to be found by them.

Look at what Dort has to say:

…the Synod rejects the errors of those who teach: that the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God. For these are contrary to the express testimony of Scripture., "Ye were dead through trespasses and sins," Eph. 1:1, and: "Every imagination of the thought of his heart are only evil continually," Gen. 6:5, 8:21.

Now, if Boston and others recanted of this thought, I know not. I have yet to find evidence that they have. And perhaps under trial, they denounced this error, yet continued to teach it outside the court of the church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Here is what Westminster has to say about the use of the law to all men and to the unregenerate.*
*Westminster Larger Catechism Q.95.Of what use is the moral law to all men?*
The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, (u) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (w) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; (x) to humble them in sense of their sin and misery, (y) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (z) and of the perfection of his obedience. (a)
u LEV 11:44-45; LEV 20:7-8; ROM 7:12
w MIC 6:8; JAM 2:10-11
x PSA 19:11-12; ROM 3:20; ROM 7:7
y ROM 3:9, 23 [9, 35 in MAX but text correct, not repeated]
z GAL 3:21-22
a ROM 10:4
Variants:
1)“use, to ... “them, of”: MSb.
2)“accordingly: to”: Tyler.
3)“keep it; and”: Tyler1 possibly has a semi-colon.
4)“hearts and lives”: W1438; FOURTH; Dunlop; RPa; L&R. E.Rob has the comma.
5)“lives, to”: THIRD; FOURTH; COX.
6)“in *the* sense of their sin” (MSa;[FONT=&quot]†[/FONT] RPa): MSa; RP; L&R; E.Rob. The word “the” is not in the MSS and appears to not have been added until 1725 with RPa. [FONT=&quot]†[/FONT]Bower notes a “the” here in MSa. In the copy there is a faint mark and there is space for a “ye”, but it is too faint to verify in the copy.
7)(1) “misery; and”: MSb. (2) “misery and”: Tyler.

*Q96.What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?*
The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to fly from wrath to come, (b) and to drive them to Christ; (c) or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, (d) and under the curse thereof. (e)
b 1TI 1:9-10 [Dunlop misplaced “96” in front of note “c” instead of “b”. Not repeated in L&R or RP.]
c GAL 3:24
d ROM 1:20; With ROM 2:15 [Rothwell, etc. Compared With]
e GAL 3:10
Variants:
1)“Although those”: MSb.
2)“of use, to”: MSb.
3)“consciences, to”: MSa.
4)“flee from” (RPa): RP; L&R; E.Rob.
5)“and, to”: MSb.
6)(1) “Christ: or”: Dunlop; L&R. (2) “Christ, or, upon”: E.Rob.
7)“or upon”: Dunlop.
8)“estate, and”: MSa.


----------



## Amazing Grace

NaphtaliPress said:


> *Here is what Westminster has to say about the use of the law to all men and to the unregenerate.*
> *Westminster Larger Catechism Q.95.Of what use is the moral law to all men?*
> The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, (u) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (w) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; (x) to humble them in sense of their sin and misery, (y) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (z) and of the perfection of his obedience. (a)
> u L
> 
> *Q96.What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?*
> The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to fly from wrath to come, (b) and to drive them to Christ; (c) or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, (d) and under the curse thereof. (e)
> b 1



Then how does this relate to Dort? It appears they are against each other in this respect. Yet since I have not studied the WCF, more explination would be needed. I can agree with [c] and [d] in Q96. Yet, there is no scriptural evidence of the "law regeneration" Thats is what it appears to espouse. John 3 speaks directly agains this to nicodemus, who was zealous for the Law being a pharissee.

The book of Amos speaks of this also:
6"I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
and(M) lack of bread in all your places,
(N) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

7"I also(O) withheld the rain from you
when there were yet three months to the harvest;
(P) I would send rain on one city,
and send no rain on another city;
one field would have rain,
and the field on which it did not rain would wither;
8so two or three cities(Q) would wander to another city
to drink water, and would not be satisfied;
(R) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

9(S) "I struck you with blight and mildew;
your many gardens and your vineyards,
your fig trees and your olive trees(T) the locust devoured;
(U) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

10"I sent among you a pestilence(V) after the manner of Egypt;
I killed your young men with the sword,
and(W) carried away your horses,[a]
and(X) I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;
(Y) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

11"I overthrew some of you,
(Z) as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,
and you were(AA) as a brand* plucked out of the burning;
(AB) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

12"Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel;
because I will do this to you,
prepare to meet your God, O Israel!"


All the judgemets becasue they broke the Law still did not turn them. How can we expect the unregenerate to thirst when he thinks he has enough to drink?

Another scripture that pertains to Law relating to the unregenerate.

John 6:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I know I am not as clear as others. My thought process is weak at times. But i am very troubled by the thought that Law to the unregenerate can cause one to 'close with Christ' to seek Him. The inspired John states that only when the Father draws, one can come to Christ. Can one be drawn to Christ by Law in an unregenerate state? That thought, in this point of my understanding, I deny.

Paul does state in Glataians 3:
Galatians 3:24,25 - "The Law was our tutor to drive us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

Yet Paul was writing to believers here. For unbelievers, I agree with c and d in Q 96. It only points to their just condemnation and hopelesness of avoiding it.. TO believers, it shows the just punishment we deserved, yet escaped becasue of Christ. 

1. Acts 13:39 - "By [Christ] everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified under the Law of Moses.
2. Romans 3:21 - "But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets."
3. Romans 10:4 - "For Christ is the end [or goal] of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes."


And lastly, If the law contains the revealed will of God, explaining the obedience to it for the unregenerate, can you let me know upon what ground unbelievers cannot be baptized, and partake of the Lord's supper, seeing that what the law says it says to them that have not been brought from death to life? If Boston and others claim that Law can draw the unregenerate to Christ, would they allow an unregenerate to partake of the supper or be baptised into the visible community?*


----------



## MW

Thankyou, Mr. Ritchie, for the friendly discussion. 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Mr Winzer
> 
> Thanks for the discussion; as we are not going to agree I will leave it there. Generally speaking, I do not engage in protracted debates with minsters for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1) It may appear disrespectful.
> 
> 2) They know more that I do, and so you have to acknowledge your limitations.
> 
> 3) There are others which I have momentarily forgotten.


----------



## MW

The next words in the song are, "As bright as bright can be!" But I'm a very dull person, so obviously I don't eat enough of it.



Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> You left out an important advantage for Rev. Winzer.
> 
> Vegemite.
> 
> It's really quite good for you. I think it might even stimulate the mind. Very delicious on toast with butter. I ate some at his house and I immediately gained a few IQ points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard of vegemite before (perhaps on an Australian TV show); didn't realise it was that good for you ; seriously though, I always enjoy discussions with Mr. Winzer - even though I don't always agree with him, you can be sure that he will give you _the best_ argument of the opposing viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet is matthew a "happy little vegemite''
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

NaphtaliPress said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.
Click to expand...


Yes, a very well documented work, and very hard on the eyes.


----------



## Ron

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Just a couple of observations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Ron I did not realise I was addressing any of your comments.
Click to expand...


Grace and peace, Daniel.

Ron


----------



## JohnOwen007

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:
> 
> 18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
> 
> 32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."



I think Mr. Winzer has stated his interpretation in one of the earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Matthew has a section on this passage in his Murray on the Free Offer: A Review (PDF).


JohnOwen007 said:


> How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:
> 
> 18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
> 
> 32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."






Daniel Ritchie said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:
> 
> 18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
> 
> 32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Mr. Winzer has stated his interpretation in one of the earlier posts in this thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:
> 
> 18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
> 
> 32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."



See the paper linked by Chris Coldwell. In brief, the context makes it clear that the statements are conditional, being explanatory of the general point that the soul dies for its own sin. God has no pleasure in the death of the _penitent_ wicked; and the passage also teaches that He has no pleasure in the life of the _apostate_ righteous.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> See the paper linked by Chris Coldwell. In brief, the context makes it clear that the statements are conditional, being explanatory of the general point that the soul dies for its own sin. God has no pleasure in the death of the _penitent_ wicked; and the passage also teaches that He has no pleasure in the life of the _apostate_ righteous.



Thanks for the link Chris, and the brief explanation Matthew. I enjoyed reding the link and see from where you're coming now. I appreciate your point of view, but find the Murray reading a little less contorted.

God bless.


----------



## Bygracealone

With regard to the Marrow Men, I would highly recommend listening to Sinclair Ferguson's three message series on the subject. They can be found here under audio sermons: Scottish Preachers: Sinclair Ferguson

He also has a message there on the Free Offer that may be of interest.

I would also recommend Ted Donnelly's article found in the Banner of Truth magazine issue 486, March 2004: "Does a Limited Atonement Preclude a Sincere Offer of the Gospel to All Sinners" - Edward Donnelly

I've appreciated the interaction on this thread from both sides of the debate.


----------



## KMK

bygracealone said:


> With regard to the Marrow Men, I would highly recommend listening to Sinclair Ferguson's three message series on the subject. They can be found here under audio sermons: Scottish Preachers: Sinclair Ferguson



I was not able to download them.


----------



## Bygracealone

My apologies brother Klein. I did a quick search and found the sermons at Sermonaudio. You can download and listen from this link: SermonAudio.com - Search Results

Blessings!

Steve


----------



## Gesetveemet

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Matthew. Yet one does not have to read all the works of Wesley to conclude he was in error. Therefore one needs not read all the works of each marrow men. The burden of proof has been accomplished against them in regards to the offer of the Gospel. In other arreas, I agree with them. They were not Antinomian at all. They were Amyrauldian in the atonement, and free grace in justification. And I do commend that part greatly. Yet it cannot be denied they were not biblical in their assesment of the offer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you do not need to read all the works of the Marrowmen, just the one which I referenced. It contradicts the gross charges you have made against their teaching. And on the basis of it, I can and do deny the charge that they were not biblical in their assessment of the offer. The Marrow teaching concerning the work of Christ is not that He died for all, but that His death is offered to all. That is not Amyraldian, but orthodox reformed. The Westminster Larger Catechism answer 32 states, "The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him."
Click to expand...



Rev Winzer, 

Did not the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland condemned the views of the Marrow men or have I been reading to much STUFF on the internet?

ALSO

Here are some controversial quotes from the book *The Marrow of Modern Divinity*


*Section I,
Christ's fulfilling of the law in the room of the elect.*
“Christ hath taken upon him the sins of all men.”

*Chapter II, Section III, 3 
The warrant to believe in Christ*
“The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind.”

*Chapter II, Section III, 3 
The warrant to believe in Christ.*
“The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind.”

*Chapter II, Section III, 3
The warrant to believe in Christ*
“Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him.”

*THE TWELVE QUERIES
WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO THE TWELVE MARROW MEN, BY THE COMMISION
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, 1721;
WITH THE MARROW-MEN’S ANSWERS TO SAID QUERIES.*
‘That whatever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, He did it for you.”


Have a good Lord’s day.
William



.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Daniel Ritchie said:


> What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:
> 
> PCA
> 
> OPC
> 
> RPCNA
> 
> WPCUS
> 
> Presbyterian Reformed Church
> 
> RPCUS
> 
> RPCGA
> 
> ARPC
> 
> And anyone else that I have not thought of?



This thread has gone way 

Could someone please *answer the question*?


----------



## MW

Gesetveemet said:


> Did not the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland condemned the views of the Marrow men or have I been reading to much STUFF on the internet?



The issue is a little more complex than that, as is Presbyterian procedure. The ministers continued to teach Marrow doctrines without discipline. It was only the book itself which was prohibited from being recommended.



Gesetveemet said:


> Here are some controversial quotes from the book *The Marrow of Modern Divinity*



Concerning controversial statements in the book, these are all explained in Boston's notes, which one will find online. Yes, there is some loose language, but able nonetheless to be reconciled with traditional categories of reformed thought. The problem is that the modern reader tends to read the language within the categories of the present Calvinist/Arminian debate. Those categories are slightly different because of the emergence of evangelical Arminianism.

The major concern is the statement, "Christ is dead for you," which includes within it two issues-- universal redemption, and assurance as the essence of faith. It can be pointed out (1.) that the Marrow avoids saying "Christ died for you." It might be asked, Why, if it intends to teach universal redemption? In no sense does it teach that the death of Christ accomplished anything for all men. It merely points to the fact that the death of Christ is offered in the gospel, and that offer warrants the evangelised sinner to believe in Christ to the saving of his soul. Granted, the language is likely to cause misunderstanding, and hence I think it wise not to use it; but the language can nonetheless be understood charitably within the context of the sinner's warrant to believe. (2.) With regard to the second issue, the Marrowmen were quite right to insist that there is a direct assurance in the act of faith besides a reflex assurance. The direct assurance pertains to the truthfulness of what God has revealed in the gospel. A sinner must be sure that when God says believers shall be saved that they shall undoubtedly be saved. The traditional denial of assurance as the essence of faith, as the Marrowmen pointed out, pertains solely to the question as to whether the individual has in fact believed with saving faith, and hence only refers to assurance as a reflex act of faith.


----------



## BLD

Lachman's work is one of the best secondary sources I've ever read, on any subject. Alright...so I haven't read very much of anything else, but it's a dang good book. Someone said they would rather read the Marrow men's words than dig into secondary sources. Well, considering that you all are dealing with an issue in church history, an issue which had tons of background, I think it's pretty silly to go all ad fontes. Unless, of course, you are extremely well read in the primary sources of Reformed orthodoxy, which, in this case, would include things like the minutes of the GA that condemned the book and the various pamphlets that were written about it, etc. Let's not undermine scholars who've done hundreds of hours of work on this. If this sounds like elite-ism, well...if you can find any other way for fellas like me to understand both the synchronic and diachronic contexts of 18th century Scotland, by all means let me know, it would save me a lot of time reading secondary stuff; it is often quite boring.


----------



## BLD

I'm not sure what the rule are for posting extended quotes from copywrited material, so if this and my next post goes against those rules, please let me know ASAP. 

Phil Ryken has done quite a bit of work on Scottish Presbyterianism. I've only read portions of his work on Boston, so I'll leave that one for someone else to comment on. However, I thought this concluding thought from his piece in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Trueman & Clark eds. (Carlisle: Patternoster, 1999) on pg. 209-210. This might not be helpful, since it seems like most folks want to jump strait into dogmatics in this discussion and since it's even more off topic, I suppose, than what's already been said (by all means, will someone please answer the original question). 



> The influence of scholasticism on Scottish theology was more readily apparent when the church was troubled by internecine squabbles in the early eighteenth century. The same academic techniques that helped to distinguish Reformed theology from its rivals threatened to become disruptive - or even destructive - when they were mishandled within the kirk.
> The best known of the eighteenth-century ecclesiastical conflicts, the Marrow Controversy (1718-23), generated a vast quantity of pamphlet literature. Yet many of the short works produced during the controversy are deficient in theological erudition, a fact occasionally noted by the controversialists themselves. Opponents are often quoted out of context, dubious constructions are placed on the disputed terms, and unwarranted theological conclusions are deduced from valid premises. To put it another way, zeal for doctrinal orthodoxy often outstrips integrity of theological method. Many of the Marrow and anti-Marrow pamphlets attempt to employ scholastic techniques, but fail to do so effectively.
> The Marrow Controversy reveals that scholastic method becomes pedantic when it is applied with universal thoroughness. It is noteworthy that several of the most important pamphlets and treatises written during the Marrow Controversy draw heavily from Samuel Rutherford's anti-Antinomian writings. Rutherford thus helped to set the tone for early eighteenth-century Scottish polemics. Rutherford was a frequent critic of Antinomian and Arminian theology, and it is in some of his writings on these subjects that the effects of his scholasticism are least salutary. Polemics are partly a matter of taste, of course, and one's view of a particular polemicist largely depends upon which side of an argument one favors. Yet a lucid polemic will always be valued for the clarity it brings to a theological dispute, and on this score Rutherford cannot always be commended. His Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist is exhaustive in its rebuttal of Antinomian arguments, but it is often needlessly repetitive, failing to synthesize the issues or to appreciate the differences between various degrees of theological error. Rutherford's Survey thus shows that scholasticism can become an encumbrance - as it subsequently became in the Marrow Controversy - when every point in a theological disagreement receives equally exhaustive treatment. The potential liabilities of scholasticism are also apparent in the extensive polemical writings against John Simson (1667-1740). The confusion surrounding Simson's theology was partly due to his own lack of candour, but the treatises written against him also lack the sense of proportion which effective polemics require.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

On copyrighted material follow the rules for 'fair use.' The above looks well within it. If you start posting more than a several pages worth; then you have gone beyond fair use I expect.


----------



## BLD

The following is from Lachman’s work. I’ve paraphrased some of it, as you can see. Again, if this lengthy quote goes against the rules, please let me know ASAP. I didn't find anything about it when I read the rules. 

A few of the quotes that were brought up here were also brought up in condemnation of the Marrow during the GA proceedings, and/or the pamphlet war during the time. Many don’t realize that the author of the Marrow was merely quoting someone else in three of the most common ones that are cited as evidence that it teaches a universal design of the atonement. 


> The first is from Luther: “Christ hath taken upon him the sins of all men”[ Commentarie upon Galatians (London: George Miller, 1635), fol. 137b]. The second is from Ezekiel Culverwell: “The Father hath made a deed of gift, and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his son shall not perish” [A Treatise of Faith (London: I. D. for Hen: Overton, 1633), p. 15]. The third was from John Preston: “Hence it was that Christ said to his disciples, go and preach the gospel to every creature under Heaven, that is, go tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him” [The Breast-Plate of Faith and Love (London: W.I. for Nicolas Bourne, 1632), p. 8]. (Lachman, 22)





> An examination of the context of the passages in question in the Marrow shows that the Assemply was mistaken in its interpretiaton, The phrases “deed of gift and grant” and “Christ is dead for him” are used in Evangelista’s reply to Neophytus’s question: “hath such an one as I, any warrant to believe in Christ?” His further objection, expressing a fear that he may not be one of the elect and therefore, though he be called, he shall not be saved, makes it clear that he understands Evangelista to be speaking of the gospel offer and not of a universal redemption. Evangelista’s reply confirms this, steering him away from God’s secrets of election and reprobation and directing him, not to the death of Christ for all, but rather to the offers of “pardon generally to all.” Yet more decisively indicative of the opinion presented in the Marrow is the sentence immediately prior to the quotation from Luther. Here reference is made to Christ’s putting “himself in the room and place of all the faithful,” and expression which, as Riccaltoun later pointed out, an advocate of universal redemption could not use.
> 
> The sense of the phrases “deed of gift and grant” and "Christ is dead for him” as intended by Culverwell and Preston respectively is another, somewhat more ambiguous question. (Lachman, 24-25)



Lachman doesn’t think Culverwell or Preston were universalists. But, either way


> it is not legitimate to conclude that the Marrow endorses such a view in making use of a passage designed only to present the universal gospel offer, one which Culverwell expressly asserts is phrased so as to avoid making a statement on the issue. (Lachman, 26)
> 
> While there is thus some question as to the position of both Culverwell and Preston in regard to the extent of the atonement, there is no indication that the phrases in question were used in the Marrow with any other design than that for which Culverwell and Preston originally employed them: to present in forceful language the gospel offer of Christ to all men.
> 
> In placing such stress on a free offer of Christ and in affirming that Christ put himself in the place of the elect, the Marrow reflects the consensus of the Reformed thought on the preceding fifty years, which, while describing Christ’s work as a fulfilling of the covenant of Grace for the elect, affirmed that he was to be offered to all. The Calvinistic universalists, stressing the universal gospel offer and considering a universal redemption a necessary foundation for it, nevertheless held that Christ’s death had a special reference to the elect. The Marrow stresses that which all teach, a gospel offer to all and, though placing no emphasis on it, affirms a limited atonement. (Lachman 27-28)



David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988).


----------



## BLD

NaphtaliPress said:


> On copyrighted material follow the rules for 'fair use.' The above looks well within it. If you start posting more than a several pages worth; then you have gone beyond fair use I expect.


Thank you


----------



## JohnOwen007

BLD said:


> David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988).



Anyone know whether this is going to come back in print some time? I'm depsparate for a copy.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

JohnOwen007 said:


> BLD said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know whether this is going to come back in print some time? I'm depsparate for a copy.
Click to expand...

I'll pursue this with David this week and find out if there are any current plans and if he would like to pursue something with me if not.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

NaphtaliPress said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BLD said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know whether this is going to come back in print some time? I'm depsparate for a copy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll pursue this with David this week and find out if there are any current plans and if he would like to pursue something with me if not.
Click to expand...


Try and at least get it in a paperback so we can afford it


----------

