# Free Offer / Limited Atonement



## JML (Aug 18, 2009)

I do not believe in a "free offer" in that God desires the salvation of all men and offers it to all who hear the gospel. I do believe in limited atonement.

Therefore, for those who do believe in a free offer (or those who are familiar with that position), how is this reconciled with limited atonement? If God desires the salvation of all men wouldn't it seem that those who believe so would also have to hold to universal atonement. Otherwise, how could God genuinely desire the salvation of men for whom Christ did not die? I think this presents a big problem for those who believe in the "free offer"? I don't believe that God has two wills either, if He had one will that desired the salvation of all men, He would have provided an atonement for them. It seems that the free offer is a slippery slope to free will. What say ye?


----------



## A.J. (Aug 18, 2009)

Greetings! 

I think you're referring to the "well-meant offer." Not all people would equate the free offer and the well-meant offer. 

I am by no means an expert on the debate on this. Nor have I studied this in detail. But it would seem that much of the disagreement among Reformed men on this has a lot to do with semantics. People tend to understand terms differently.


----------



## JML (Aug 18, 2009)

A.J. said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I think you're referring to the "well-meant offer." Not all people would equate the free offer and the well-meant offer.
> 
> I am by no means an expert on the debate on this. Nor have I studied this in detail. But it would seem that much of the disagreement among Reformed men on this has a lot to do with semantics. People tend to understand terms differently.



Yes. That is what I mean. The terminology does seem to confuse the issue. Practically, I don't think there would be much difference among those on the board. Very few that I know that believe in a well meant offer would say from the pulpit that God desires the salvation of every one of the hearers and for those of us who do not believe it, I don't think any of us would go so far as to say to anyone that they are predestined to Hell because we don't know who the elect are.


----------



## A.J. (Aug 18, 2009)

*Good Resources on the Subject*

I've read this

The Free Offer of the Gospel by John Murray with a new foreword by R. Scott Clark

and will attempt to find time to read this as well 

Murray on the Free Offer: A Review by Matthew Winzer


----------



## ewenlin (Aug 18, 2009)

If you can get this, it will definitely clear things up.

Two Wills of God by Dr. McMahon


----------



## JML (Aug 18, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> If you can get this, it will definitely clear things up.
> 
> Two Wills of God by Dr. McMahon



Is he pro two wills or against two wills?


----------



## JML (Aug 18, 2009)

Joshua said:


> A few threads touching on this subject:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/gods-hatred-50145/?highlight=free+offer
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/the...nd-repent-believe-46402/?highlight=free+offer
> ...



Thanks Joshua


----------



## A.J. (Aug 18, 2009)

*And more threads*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/biblical-offer-gospel-17282/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/john-clavin-free-offer-7-a-15790/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/john-calvin-free-offer-3-a-15698/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/john-calvin-free-offer-1-a-15638/

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 12:54:46 EST-----

See especially the quotes by Rev. Jerrold Lewis, and the comments offered by Rev. Matthew Winzer. Enjoy!

Also see the article The Free Offer Of The Gospel: Is It Biblical And Reformed? by Rev. David Silversides


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 18, 2009)

We have to account for the Bible's (for GOD's) use of accommodated speech. He speaks to us in self-descriptive ways that help us understand him, but he will always be incomprehensible (divine attribute).

WE are conflicted by our desires. So I can say,
a) I want to spank my child;
b) I do NOT want to spank my child.
Which is the best desire at a given time? I do not have complete knowledge, so I make a "wise" guess.

If I choose to spank my child, then obviously I wanted to spank him (in one sense, anyway) and I acted on my strongest desire. Seen from that perspective, it is obvious that I did NOT want to NOT spank him. However, it is *stupid* to pretend I had no hierarchy of values. Only in a stark and absolute sense did I want the ONE thing I did, and NOT WANT AT ALL any other options.

Because of my finitude and fallenness, I continue to face the possibility of conflict over my choice. I do not KNOW infallibly that the action I chose fit optimally with my own best desires, nor if they were ideally compatible in that situation with the revealed will of God.

**************************
God does not have internal "conflicts", ever. He is never plagued with self-doubt, he never second-guesses himself. His decree is perfect.

But again, he often presents himself to us under anthorpomorphic, or _anthropopathic_ language. To repeat, he accommodates himself to us.

What if God, desiring to show us something of himself beside his absolute desire, "pulls back the curtain" once in a while to show us--not only his final and irrevocable decision--but a glimpse of his hierarchy of value?

There is nothing lost to us (unless we petulantly make it so) concerning God's perfect equanimity with himself and all his complacent decisions, if he speaks of one of his lesser "desires" as we might, _ala_ accommodation. If he tells us he has a "desire" that EVERY wicked man turn from his evil ways and live (Ezek.18:23,32; 33:11), and yet he has so ordered and arranged all events such that some of those wicked men will never abandon their damnable ways, then is is apparent that he has a superior desire that SOME wicked men not turn, thus serving as instruments of his wrath.

There is no conflict in God's mind. None whatever. But there's also no reason why we must only expect him to speak of his desire in only one way--that is: absolutely. There's no diminution of the glory of God's absolute decree if he reveals to us an unconflicted lesser desire.

If God had NOT determined NOT to effect his desire that all men always refrain from foul murder, Cain would only have loved his brother, "for who resists his will?" So, plainly there is a revealed will/desire and a decretive will/desire, and the second takes a formally superior place relative to the first.

But also we should acknowledge that God's choosing ONE manifestation of his will, rather than ANOTHER means that not everything that could have happened to the glory of God has or shall happen. We can only say that what we see take place is the particular ideal of the world God has actually chosen.

Seldom does Scripture speak of the array of God's potential "choices" of which he made an unconflicted selection (therefore, it would seem to be a much more obscure and relatively opaque doctrine). But God is not thereby disallowed somehow from speaking of that which he nevertheless has NOT decreed (ultimately) as his "desire". Let us not project upon God the conflicts that WE would have in the same situation (because of our finitude and sin) when he has no conflicts, and only speaks to us in accommodated fashion.

God has chosen to instantiate THIS world, in which specifically THESE persons (excluding all others) are ELECT. But we have to make sense of such verses as 2Cor.5:20, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, *God making his appeal *through us. *We implore you* on behalf of Christ, *be reconciled to God*."

God stands *as it were* pleading with men through his ministers. We represent an undifferentiated will of God; his revealed will, but not his ultimate will; his secondary desire expressed, while his primary desire remains secret. There is nothing prejudicial to the perfectly settled desires of God's decree to speak thus.

************************
Mind you, I still believe men may not express errors concerning God, and the atonement, etc., in preaching salvation to men. It is sub-biblical to speak of Christ as the sole, divinely provided "Savior for all men" without following it immediately by "_*specifically*_ the believers" (1Tim.4:10).

Repentance and faith are commanded of all, not suggested or pleaded for by a God unable to save ALL whom he is DESIROUS (ultimately) to save.

I think it is not wise to tell a man that God had saving love for him, by name, and Jesus died for him, whether he is a believer or not. To know the love of God is to believe in the one he has sent; otherwise the wrath of God abides. For there will NOT be one person in hell _for whom_ Christ died--an ineffectual sacrifice, an ineffectual mediation.

For God loved an unlovely world--a general benevolence--how? by sending his Son, so that believers in him might not perish, but have life everlasting (Jn.3:16). By believing, they might know they had been loved specifically. "This is how we know what love is--he laid down his life FOR US" (1Jn.3:16), who believe. That's particular benevolence.

God loves sinners--this much we know--sinners "like you." So, believe, and find out that we who love him do so because he first loved us.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 19, 2009)

_Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,_ in David VanDrunen, ed., _The Pattern of Sound Words: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple_ (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149-80.


----------

