# Well-Meant Offer and Reprobation



## Nate (Jan 17, 2015)

Do any on this board agree with the following statement: 

"The decree of reprobation is a conditional decree, a decree dependent upon the unbelief of men in the face of God's desire and attempt to save them." 

Some posit that the above statement is the logical conclusion of adherence to the well-meant offer of the gospel, and that this view of reprobation is widespread in Reformed churches. I appreciate any of your thoughts.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 17, 2015)

NateLanning said:


> Do any on this board agree with the following statement:
> 
> "The decree of reprobation is a conditional decree, a decree dependent upon the unbelief of men in the face of God's desire and attempt to save them."
> 
> Some posit that the above statement is the logical conclusion of adherence to the well-meant offer of the gospel, and that this view of reprobation is widespread in Reformed churches. I appreciate any of your thoughts.



Nate,

Can you give an author and context?


----------



## Edward (Jan 17, 2015)

NateLanning said:


> God's desire and attempt to save them.



"God's ... attempt to save them." 

Sounds like a mighty weak God to me. Sort of like the old Lay's potato chip song? "He tried, but he couldn't do it..."


----------



## Nate (Jan 17, 2015)

Tyler,

David Engelsma contends that many in the Reformed community advocate this postition in _*Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel*_, p56.

He is interacting with writings from AC DeJong (_*Well-Meant Gospel Offer*_, p122-30), James Daane (_*The Freedom of God*_, p200), and CG Berkower (_*Divine Election*_, p172-217) which are fairly clear in advocating the above quote in my view.


----------



## Edward (Jan 17, 2015)

NateLanning said:


> David Engelsma contends that many in the Reformed community



What does he mean by 'Reformed Community' and how many is 'many'?


----------



## Nate (Jan 17, 2015)

Edward said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> > David Engelsma contends that many in the Reformed community
> ...



I don't know - thus my query. Perhaps by quoting DeJong, Daane, and Berkower he means the CRC and GKN, but from the context it seemed like he meant many more churches that teach the WMO.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 21, 2015)

I'm no expert, but that sounds like pretty strong language, even for someone who embraces the WMO (I don't). Perhaps Engelsma is just stating his view of the logical implications of such a position.


----------



## Toasty (Jan 21, 2015)

NateLanning said:


> Do any on this board agree with the following statement:
> 
> "The decree of reprobation is a conditional decree, a decree dependent upon the unbelief of men in the face of God's desire and attempt to save them."
> 
> Some posit that the above statement is the logical conclusion of adherence to the well-meant offer of the gospel, and that this view of reprobation is widespread in Reformed churches. I appreciate any of your thoughts.



God alone decides who the reprobate are. It is true that when people go to hell, they will be punished for their sins. The reprobate will get what they deserve, but this does not mean that man decides who will be the reprobate. God alone decides that. 

God will save all of His elect and He will always be successful at that. God does not make any failed attempts. He always successfully carries out His plan.

Just because God alone decides who the elect are and who the reprobate are does not mean that man is not responsible for their unbelief. Man is responsible is for believing in Christ and repenting of their sins. God commands everyone to repent of their sins and to place their faith in Christ for their salvation. This is a serious command. He hates all sin including unbelief.

Denying the well-meant offer of the gospel does not mean that it is ok to be lackadaisical about telling people about how God saves His people from their sins. It doesn't mean to be cold and aloof towards everyone. 

Does anyone believe that God desires to save the reprobate without actually making an attempt to save the reprobate?


----------



## Cymro (Jan 21, 2015)

Reprobation is a no,no, now in evangelical circles. Although thinking on it, years ago when
Banner of Truth brought out Pink's work on Predestination they left out the chapter on 
Reprobation. Prof R. A. Finlayson wrote," Calvin agreed that negative predestination is not
to be explained as an act of God's justice but as an act of Sovereignty."


----------



## mgkortus (Jan 21, 2015)

Toasty said:


> Does anyone believe that God desires to save the reprobate without actually making an attempt to save the reprobate?



This question is at the heart of Engelsma's rejection of the well-meant offer. He would likely argue that God does not desire anything (saving a reprobate person) that He does not also sovereignly decree to occur (the accomplishment of that salvation of a reprobate person). As God, all that He desires is accomplished. 

Like brothers Henry and Nate, I would really like to hear the perspective of others on this...


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 21, 2015)

I think that whenever we try to reason about God we should start with the most fundamental aspect of God, namely, His gentlemanliness.


----------



## Nate (Jan 21, 2015)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I think that whenever we try to reason about God we should start with the most fundamental aspect of God, namely, His gentlemanliness.



Do you have thoughts on how this might relate to the OP?


----------



## KMK (Jan 21, 2015)

Edward said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> > David Engelsma contends that many in the Reformed community
> ...



It probably includes Vineyard, Sovereign Grace, and MacArthurites.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 21, 2015)

NateLanning said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I think that whenever we try to reason about God we should start with the most fundamental aspect of God, namely, His gentlemanliness.
> ...



Well, not directly, but it does relate to Matt's post and my low sense of humor!


----------



## aadebayo (Jan 27, 2015)

Cymro said:


> Reprobation is a no,no, now in evangelical circles. Although thinking on it, years ago when
> Banner of Truth brought out Pink's work on Predestination they left out the chapter on
> Reprobation. Prof R. A. Finlayson wrote," Calvin agreed that negative predestination is not
> to be explained as an act of God's justice but as an act of Sovereignty."



Thanks for this. I must admit that this is a doctrine that can only be received by a person whose soul has been regenerated. Our proud human nature desires to remove God from His throne. All facets of the doctrine of God's sovereignty, including election and reprobation puts God on His throne as the true ruler of the universe. Another work to consider is Elisha Coles' Sovereignty of God.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 27, 2015)

The Confession makes it clear in one breath that "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." At the same time ("yet so" as 3.1 puts it), "thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures [see WCF 9 on " Of Free Will"]; nor is the liberty or contingency [note carefully both of these words] of second causes taken away but rather established."

This is, I think, a carefully, biblically-reasoned approach to the decrees of God and all that comes to pass in creation and providence. Does God ordain whatsoever comes to pass? Yes. Does this negate free will or contingency? No. Those who answer otherwise need to be aware that they are not speaking biblically and confessionally about the matter. 

The quotes given in the original post lack on the Godward side, to be sure (God seems dependent on us and He is never that). However, we are not to conclude that such deficiency means that we are not properly to engage in the promiscuous preaching of the gospel or that any who hear the gospel call lack warrant for faith. If the response is "the reprobate will not believe" that's a tautology, since no one but God knows who they are. Are we to presuppose that any particular person with whom we are dealing "may be reprobate?" There is not a shred of scriptural warrant for such an approach. We are to deal with everyone with the conviction that God may be merciful to this lost soul and grant him faith and repentance. So we point all to Christ. 

We may differ on how the gospel offer is constructed, I grant that, (as do Murray and Winzer, for example) but we can't properly differ on the fact that the gospel is to be preached to all without distinction and that all are to be told that if they come to Christ, He will in no wise cast them out. We are to call all of our auditors ever, only, and always to faith in Christ and repentance of their sin in the sight of God. 

So, if we agree that the original post quote is seriously in error and deficient, what do you think, Nate, the implications of calling the quote in error are? Do you believe that denying this quote, which we readily do, lands us in some inconsistency in terms of gospel proclamation. I've made clear how I think that the gospel should be proclaimed. How do you think that it should be proclaimed? Would you have a problem, say, with any NAPARC pulpit proclaiming "Come to Christ. Why should you come? Because He calls you to do so! What is your warrant for faith? He has enjoined it upon you by commanding and inviting you to it." I am interested to know where all of this goes for you.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Nate (Jan 27, 2015)

Thanks for your response, Prof. Strange. 



> However, we are not to conclude that such deficiency means that we are not properly to engage in the promiscuous preaching of the gospel or that any who hear the gospel call lack warrant for faith. If the response is "the reprobate will not believe" that's a tautology, since no one but God knows who they are. Are we to presuppose that any particular person with whom we are dealing "may be reprobate?" There is not a shred of scriptural warrant for such an approach. We are to deal with everyone with the conviction that God may be merciful to this lost soul and grant him faith and repentance. So we point all to Christ.



Yes, I agree.



> So, if we agree that the original post quote is seriously in error and deficient, what do you think, Nate, the implications of calling the quote in error are? Do you believe that denying this quote, which we readily do, lands us in some inconsistency in terms of gospel proclamation.



No, I don't believe that a denial of the OP quote places you in inconsistency. My question in the OP was an attempt to understand if members of NAPARC and similar churches agreed or disagreed with the quote. I have heard that most Reformed churches who teach the WMO will agree with the quote, but my experience on this board and in reading material from NAPARC churches has led me to question whether this is true. 



> I've made clear how I think that the gospel should be proclaimed. How do you think that it should be proclaimed? Would you have a problem, say, with any NAPARC pulpit proclaiming "Come to Christ. Why should you come? Because He calls you to do so! What is your warrant for faith? He has enjoined it upon you by commanding and inviting you to it." I am interested to know where all of this goes for you.



I have no objection to this as the command and invitation are clearly Scriptural and Confessional.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 27, 2015)

Nate said:


> "The decree of reprobation is a conditional decree, a decree dependent upon the unbelief of men in the face of God's desire and attempt to save them."



The decree of reprobation is no more dependent on the unbelief of men than the decree of election is dependent upon the faith of the elect.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 28, 2015)

Cymro said:


> Reprobation is a no,no, now in evangelical circles. Although thinking on it, years ago when
> Banner of Truth brought out Pink's work on Predestination they left out the chapter on
> Reprobation. Prof R. A. Finlayson wrote," Calvin agreed that negative predestination is not
> to be explained as an act of God's justice but as an act of Sovereignty."



One hopes one differs only from Prof. Finlayson's understanding rather than Calvin's view, but I cannot see how one could possibly posit, in light of Rom. 3:26, that God's condemnation of reprobates is not equally as much an act of his justice as it is of his sovereignty.


----------

