# Is there a Free Offer or just a command to repent and believe.



## DonP

Can one say there is a legitimate offer by God to all people when He has predestined from all eternity those He has chosen to forgive and those He will not?

A most excellent work on this subject that really nails it down precisely is Christ Freely Offered, by Ken Stebbins, a rebuttal David Englesma of the protestant Reformed Church in his book Hyper-Calvinsm and the Call of the Gospel. 
The book may have to be ordered from the seminary in Australia but I hope to obtain permission to post it online someday. I have asked him to do a new edition where he also agrees he would need to soften his criticism of the Marrowmen, that being what Fisher a non-elder, wrote in the allegorical text of The Marrow Of Modern Divinity, having 1 or two possible mis-statements is not what the ministers who utilized this famous work would say themselves, Boston having clearly explained the whole matter masterfully in the Appendix to the book. 

God commands you to repent and believe, or Jesus Died for you, or Christ is freely offered to All? What do we say to honor God and truth?

He shows the errors and weaknesses of Stonehouse in His booklet Free Offer, which I have a hard time believing Murray really fully agreed with, and he shows weaknesses in even some of the puritans. 

I heartily recommend Stebbins book to all who proclaim the free offer that they may in carefulness not misrepresent the truth of God, honor Him and proclaim the free offer without falling into the subtle error of the Arminians. 
Covenanter Press, John Knox Theological College Sydney, Aus where he lectured.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Is both an option?


----------



## DonP

Joshua said:


> The problem that I have is what the "Free Offer" has come to mean. I would heartily agree that the Lord God offers salvation to "whosever will." What I disagree with is the idea that He _desires_ to save some contrary to His _decree_ to save some. So _Free Offer_ has become synonymous with "well-meant offer." And that's just a concession I don't believe the Bible makes: a God with His hands eternally tied due to a conflict between His desire and His decree?
> 
> The Lord does all according to His own good pleasure.



Great; so how do we work that out in proclaiming the gospel? ie what can we say?

But I doubt some solidly reformed ministers would want to relinquish the term free offer to the Arminains if I understood you. 

And I think whosoever will is a bit loose. I would say whosover will believe, not just who soever. It is a specific not a wide open in that verse to me. Those who will believe but not restricted to ethnic Jews, of any nation.


----------



## toddpedlar

You say that Christ died to save sinners, that He is the only means of salvation, that one must repent and believe the Gospel, that one must come to Christ.

One needn't "sweeten the pot" with some rubbish that "God loves you" because we do not know that to be the case. It isn't an incentive anyway, because if a person believes that God loves him, he may very well take that to mean that he can just live his life as he sees fit, and that God ultimately, because He loves him, will save him anyway. There is NO need to go beyond what Scripture says, and what the evangelists in the Scriptures said - to do so is to bear false witness, in my opinion.


----------



## DonP

Joshua said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I doubt some solidly reformed ministers would want to relinquish the term free offer to the Arminains if I understood you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here.
> *
> I must have misunderstood you. Thought you were saying you did not like the term free offer since it had become arminianized or something, sorry.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And I think whosoever will is a bit loose. I would say whosover will believe, not just who soever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm . . . I don't know what you're arguing with. If any many _wills_ to do anything, then it's because the Lord has regenerated such a man. So the _whosever wills_ are they Whom the Father gave to the Lord Jesus. I think we're on the same page, and I never think it is "a bit loose" to use the Words of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if we took the words of scripture intended to be heard by a believer with some specific reference and knowledge, and that were addressed to a believer, then spoke those same words to the unregenerate?
> 
> Could those words not be mis-contrued by the hearer?
Click to expand...


----------



## AThornquist

It's hard to separate the offer and the command. For example, in Christ we are offered forgiveness of sins, rest from our burdens, great treasure in heaven and we are commanded to come to Christ for the very same things. I believe that the _very same offer and command_ is given to *all* people, thus making it a well-meant offer to the reprobate, but only the elect are chosen to be regenerated and _be able_ to accept it. So, even though God has chosen to not save the reprobate, they are offered Christ and commanded to repent--the very same as the believer. That sounds like a well-meant offer to me. 

But then again, I think it's all in how we use the terms. I use "well-meant offer" through the lens of presuppositions that others don't hold to and vice versa; there's just no way to escape it


----------



## toddpedlar

AThornquist said:


> It's hard to separate the offer and the command. For example, in Christ we are offered forgiveness of sins, rest from our burdens, great treasure in heaven and we are commanded to come to Christ for the very same things. I believe that the _very same offer and command_ is given to *all* people, thus making it a well-meant offer to the reprobate, but only the elect are chosen to be regenerated and _be able_ to accept it. So, even though God has chosen to not save the reprobate, they are offered Christ and commanded to repent--the very same as the believer. That sounds like a well-meant offer to me.
> 
> But then again, I think it's all in how we use the terms. I use "well-meant offer" through the lens of presuppositions that others don't hold to and vice versa; there's just no way to escape it



I dont' see a problem with an "offer"... but the "offer" must never be spoken as "Christ died for you, will you now accept Him." If one refuses to use such words, he is usually labelled as a hypercalvinist by evangelicals.


----------



## AThornquist

toddpedlar said:


> I dont' see a problem with an "offer"... but the "offer" must never be spoken as "Christ died for you, will you now accept Him." If one refuses to use such words, he is usually labelled as a hypercalvinist by evangelicals.



Oh, I certainly agree. The offer would be that all who believe will be saved, not that Christ died for all so you must accept His gift for it to be effective. Surely the Lord died for His bride and no other.


----------



## jaybird0827

God commands all men everywhere to repent.

[KJV]John 3:16-18, 36[/KJV]


----------



## toddpedlar

jaybird0827 said:


> God commands all men everywhere to repent.
> 
> [KJV]John 3:16-18, 36[/KJV]



Indeed he does. And repentance is a turning FROM and a turning TO - turning FROM sin and turning TO Christ. Both must be present, and this must be presented when discussing repentance (it's easy for someone to want to turn from sin because of its effects, but not quite so easy for that same person to want to turn to Christ given all that entails).


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

*Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A.* Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.​
Ministers of the gospel may both present the promises of God’s grace in Christ “freely offered in the gospel” and command all to believe and repent. He may not tell all “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” or that Christ died for their sins. Neither may he assure all those who make a profession of faith and are baptized into the visible church, they are “saved.” Certainly, he may not encourage them to take assurance from some unscriptural practice like walking the aisle at an invitation to come to an “altar” or “down front.”

I have found this message helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The free offer of the gospel


----------



## DonP

Joshua said:


> I would like to clarify something.
> 
> Does God "sincerely desire" for all men without exception to come to Him for salvation, in direct conflict of His decrees of Divine Election & Reprobation? I don't believe so, nor do I think the Bible teaches it.



So would you comment on how you understand those verses then or do you have a post elsewhere?

For me many of these kinds of verses are easily explained in that the Jews thought it was only for them. They missed Abrahams promise to all nations somehow. 

So When it says Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world, or god desires all men... etc. I see these as clearly reminding the Jews, that God is the savior and God for all men of all nations and races. Not each and every individual. Just as All Judea came out to see Jesus but not each and every person. All over from or a lot of them. All seldom means all. 

But what about God does not delight in the death of the wicked?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

See Matthew Winzer's review of Murray on the Free Offer attached.


----------



## DonP

Ezek 33:11
11 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?' 
NKJV


----------



## Prufrock

PeaceMaker said:


> Ezek 33:11
> 11 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?'
> NKJV



Revealed v. Secret Will.

Exhortations and threatenings are not always reflections of absolute reality: God threatened Adam with death; but not absolutely. It was, in fact, never God's intention that Adam would die the first and second deaths as a result of eating the fruit: but such was his revealed threatening


----------



## DonP

Prufrock said:


> Revealed v. Secret Will.
> 
> Exhortations and threatenings are not always reflections of absolute reality: God threatened Adam with death; but not absolutely. It was, in fact, never God's intention that Adam would die the first and second deaths as a result of eating the fruit: but such was his revealed threatening



Maybe God just meant you shall die, the 1st death and never meant the 2nd death.
Like Joshua I have a hard time seeing god conflicted in His will. 

Perhaps some anthropomorphism could explain Ez but ...


----------



## Prufrock

PeaceMaker said:


> Maybe God just meant you shall die, the 1st death and never meant the 2nd death.
> Like Joshua I have a hard tie seeing god conflicted in His will.
> 
> Perhaps some anthropomorphism could explain Ez but ...



If "2nd death" were not included in the malediction, "whence cometh it?" Aren't all evils which befall humanity summarily contained within that thread?

Also, indeed, you _should_ have a hard time seeing God conflicted in his will. But the distinction between revealed and secret results in no such conflict.


----------



## DonP

Prufrock said:


> If "2nd death" were not included in the malediction, "whence cometh it?" Aren't all evils which befall humanity summarily contained within that thread?
> .



Hmmm.. so if god had not threatened Adam with both deaths, then He couldn't have brought that on the unregenerate? 
They could only have the spiritual death, fall, or physical death, but not eternal death?

Thanks, Ya got me thinking here, hadn't considered this before. I will hear more of this matter.


----------



## Pilgrim72

I like how Sinclair Ferguson explains the Free Offer in this sermon:

SermonAudio.com - The Free Offer of the Gospel

Your thoughts?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Joshua said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ezek 33:11
> 11 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?'
> NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest reading the aforeposted PDF of Rev. Matthew Winzer's response to the Murray-Stonehouse report on the "Free Offer." It's very good.
Click to expand...


I guess this discussion is never going to end on the PB ...

For what it's worth I find Winzer's article greatly wanting, particularly his exegesis of Ezekiel. Maurice Roberts' sermon on the free offer here I find more convincing, as well as R. Scott Clark's paper, "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). Moreover, look for Donald John MacLean's paper on the free offer in James Durham coming soon in the _Puritan Reformed Journal_.

In short, I appreciate Joshua's argument that God can't "desire" the salvation of those who aren't ultimately saved, however, I don't think it does justice to all the Biblical data. We have to take *all* that the Bible says about this topic into account, even verses that *appear* to contradict others. In analyzing the biblical data the archetypal / ectypal distinction in our knowledge of God (see Clark's essay) must be taken into account.

Secondly, Ezek. 18:23, 32 and 33:11 actually says that God doesn't "desire the death of a sinner". To argue that this is about the elect only (which is not a popular exegesis in the reformed tradition), doesn't have justification from the context and ignores the plain meaning of the words In my humble opinion. This "desire" is most likely a desire of a *different kind* to that of the elect's salvation. But how this is, I do not wish to speculate because Scripture doesn't, and I only have an ectypal knowledge of God--we have to let God be God and recognize that we finite creatures cannot contain God's infinite uncreated knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that there are a variety of views in the Reformed tradition on the free offer, and the confessions allow for this. I highly recommend Richard Muller's recent lectures given at MARS on the decree in 16th and 17th century reformed theology (where among other things he dismantles the usual categories of supra and infra lapsarianism showing they come from the 18th - 19th century and do not reflect 16th and 17th century reformed theology), particularly the third on Christ's satisfaction and the decree. He shows that standard reformed divines (like Bullinger, Musculus, Ursinus, Zanchius, etc. etc.) were very happy with saying that Christ died for "all" (meaning everyone, not just the elect) when it came to an offer of the gospel, even if they say he died for the elect in a *different *sense.

Blessings.


----------



## DonP

I have heard it explained that a father does not delight, enjoy disciplining his child but he does it because it it is he most loving and beneficial thing to do. 

Similarly, if not in fact, anthropomorphically, it could be that God does not enjoy punishing the wicked, though it is His will to do so. 

It could be expressed this way to show His fatherly nature and our responsibility in our choosing to sin and not obey or live in faith to him, so no one can blame Him. 

We also must use care we do not ascribe to God all the passions of men and in the same way.


----------



## relostuff

*Words Mis Contrued*



PeaceMaker said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here.
> *
> I must have misunderstood you. Thought you were saying you did not like the term free offer since it had become arminianized or something, sorry.
> 
> *
> Umm . . . I don't know what you're arguing with. If any many _wills_ to do anything, then it's because the Lord has regenerated such a man. So the _whosever wills_ are they Whom the Father gave to the Lord Jesus. I think we're on the same page, and I never think it is "a bit loose" to use the Words of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if we took the words of scripture intended to be heard by a believer with some specific reference and knowledge, and that were addressed to a believer, then spoke those same words to the unregenerate?
> 
> Could those words not be mis-contrued by the hearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say to worry about "re wording" The Gospel so that it is not "mis-contrued" is to become "Arminianized".
> 
> I agree we should not over run a unregenerate with the law unless that is what that person is holding on to ie some Jews, nor should we hit a unregenerate over the head with Pure Love.
> 
> We must preach the Gospel fully and with balance.
> 
> Those that God has called and those that know his voice will hear his WORDS. And will come.
> 
> 
> 
> Tony
> 
> PS my 1st post so be easy on me and I Thank you for starting this Thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rich Koster

Just tell people the facts like Peter did in Acts 2. When you get someone that asks "what should I/we do?" , tell them.


----------



## py3ak

Hi Marty, it's good to hear from you again.

Very hesitantly, though, isn't the point of the archetypal/ectypal distinction that we do have God's truth? It is formulated so we can understand it, but since it is based on the archetypal theology it is utterly trustworthy.

I don't think anyone would disagree that we have to take all of Scripture into account; but still that shouldn't require us to equivocate, should it?


----------



## MW

Anyone who worships God with the thought that by so doing they are fulfilling some need in God ought to read and study Psalm 50 to correct their unworthy view of the Almighty and His service.


----------



## CharlieJ

JohnOwen007 said:


> I highly recommend Richard Muller's recent lectures given at MARS on the decree in 16th and 17th century reformed theology



Are these lectures available somewhere, or is the content of the lectures available in a different form?


----------



## DonP

Joshua said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, I appreciate Joshua's argument that God can't "desire" the salvation of those who aren't ultimately saved, however, I don't think it does justice to all the Biblical data.
> 
> 
> 
> To be accurate, I've never said God _can't_, rather that He _doesn't_. I believe that the Lord does all His good pleasure, and that His Word never returns unto Him void, and that it [His Word]_ always_ accomplishes His purpose, and that His purpose is borne from His desire.
Click to expand...


Where to you get that His purpose is borne from desire? 
Something like this?
Isa 46:10
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying,'My counsel shall stand,
And *I will do all My pleasure,' *
NKJV
So does this then mean God does take pleasure in the death and punishment of the wicked, since He will do it?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Hey Ruben, hope you are well brother!



py3ak said:


> archetypal/ectypal distinction that we do have God's truth? It is formulated so we can understand it, but since it is based on the archetypal theology it is utterly trustworthy.



The archetypal / ectypal distinction reminds us of our finitude because the finite cannot contain the infinite. Our (ectypal) knowledge of God is always a finite replica of God's knowledge of himself. What we understand of God (ectypal knowledge) is thus faithful but not identical; it will be greatly limited. This means there will be _apparent _anomalies in our knowledge of God because we (i) don't have all the information, indeed can't, and (ii) our knowledge is of a creaturely (not divine) kind.

The Trinity is a case in point. I don't understand how each person can simultaneously subsist in the one divine nature. It seems to be contradictory to me, but in reality it is not. This is because the Bible teaches both ideas (whether I grasp it or not). The 17th century Socinians explained away the Trinity because they saw it as contradictory. They did this by pitting one set of verses against another set of verses.



py3ak said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree that we have to take all of Scripture into account; but still that shouldn't require us to equivocate, should it?



Yes, of course, hopefully no-one would disagree. However, in practice it's another thing. I've found myself doing it unwittingly many times. This is because it can be all too easy to explain away one set of verses by another set of verses. Hence, In my humble opinion I see Ezek. 18:23, 32, and 33:11 explained away all too easily. We don't do this with the Trinity or the Incarnation. And I don't want to do this when it comes to God's will / desire.

Blessings dear brother.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 01:37:02 EST-----



CharlieJ said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I highly recommend Richard Muller's recent lectures given at MARS on the decree in 16th and 17th century reformed theology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these lectures available somewhere, or is the content of the lectures available in a different form?
Click to expand...


You can get them from MARS if you phone them up.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 01:39:02 EST-----



Joshua said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, I appreciate Joshua's argument that God can't "desire" the salvation of those who aren't ultimately saved, however, I don't think it does justice to all the Biblical data.
> 
> 
> 
> To be accurate, I've never said God _can't_, rather that He _doesn't_. I believe that the Lord does all His good pleasure, and that His Word never returns unto Him void, and that it [His Word]_ always_ accomplishes His purpose, and that His purpose is borne from His desire.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Davidius

Do you know how to use a search feature?


----------



## DonP

JohnOwen007 said:


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



Seems like this all hangs together 

Lam 3:33-37
33 For He does not afflict willingly,
Nor grieve the children of men. 
34 To crush under one's feet 
All the prisoners of the earth, 
35 *To turn aside the justice due a man *
Before the face of the Most High, 
36 Or subvert a man in his cause — 
The Lord does not approve. 
37 Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass,
When the Lord has not commanded it? 
NKJV


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


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



No, He does it as punishment for sin. The language is judicial, not personal. Magistrates do not punish willy nilly, but only as there is just cause to do so.


----------



## Poimen

Strictly speaking Ezekiel 18:23,32 & 33:11 all say that God does not take *pleasure* (delight) in the death of the wicked not that He does not decree (will) it (see Romans 9:17-22).


----------



## DonP

Poimen said:


> Strictly speaking Ezekiel 18:23,32 & 33:11 all say that God does not take *pleasure* (delight) in the death of the wicked not that He does not decree (will) it (see Romans 9:17-22).



You have restated the debate here


----------



## OPC'n

PeaceMaker said:


> Can one say there is a legitimate offer by God to all people when He has predestined from all eternity those He has chosen to forgive and those He will not?



No, but there is a legitimate command to all to repent and turn from sinning. God never got rid of the works covenant. We all are under it and no one can opt out of it. Some are under the works covenant alone and will go to hell and others are under the works covenant which Christ performed on their behalf thus giving them the covenant of grace.


----------



## DonP

sjonee said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can one say there is a legitimate offer by God to all people when He has predestined from all eternity those He has chosen to forgive and those He will not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but there is a legitimate command to all to repent and turn from sinning. God never got rid of the works covenant. We all are under it and no one can opt out of it. Some are under the works covenant alone and will go to hell and others are under the works covenant which Christ performed on their behalf thus giving them the covenant of grace.
Click to expand...


This sounds like what the Protestant Reformed church teaches. That there is no Free Offer of the gospel to all people. 
Only a command to repent and believe.


----------



## Poimen

PeaceMaker said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking Ezekiel 18:23,32 & 33:11 all say that God does not take *pleasure* (delight) in the death of the wicked not that He does not decree (will) it (see Romans 9:17-22).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have restated the debate here
Click to expand...


I don't follow you here.


----------



## DonP

This is what was raised. 



Joshua said:


> The problem that I have is what the "Free Offer" has come to mean. I would heartily agree that the Lord God offers salvation to "whosever will." What I disagree with is the idea that He _desires_ to save some contrary to His _decree_ to save some. So _Free Offer_ has become synonymous with "well-meant offer." And that's just a concession I don't believe the Bible makes: a God with His hands eternally tied due to a conflict between His desire and His decree?
> 
> The Lord does all according to His own good pleasure.






> Originally Posted by Poimen View Post
> Strictly speaking Ezekiel 18:23,32 & 33:11 all say that God does not take pleasure (delight) in the death of the wicked not that He does not decree (will) it (see Romans 9:17-22).



So the question is then, what does this verse mean if it does not mean what you said it means and Josh is correct in this post.


----------



## Poimen

I agree with Joshua. The point of my post was to correct what Marty was saying about those texts, namely that God wills that the sinner not die.


----------



## DonP

Poimen said:


> I agree with Joshua. The point of my post was to correct what Marty was saying about this text, namely that God wills that the sinner not die.



Oh I was reading that Josh was opposing the interpretation that God does not delight in the death of those He ends up willing go to hell. 

I wish he would come back to this post to answer my question to him. 

So God does will the sinner to die because he does die. So it is God's will. 

The question is does He delight in it or how do we understand this.


----------



## AThornquist

Poimen said:


> I agree with Joshua. The point of my post was to correct what Marty was saying about this text, namely that God wills that the sinner not die.



If the Lord does all to His good pleasure, why does He not find pleasure in the death of wicked?

(From what I have been taught, the answer of course would be that "He desires all to be saved in a sense, but has a greater desire to show both His wrath and His mercy; thus, though He does not find pleasure in the death of wicked, He has a greater desire to demonstrate all of His attributes through the means of election.")


----------



## Poimen

AThornquist said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Joshua. The point of my post was to correct what Marty was saying about this text, namely that God wills that the sinner not die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Lord does all to His good pleasure, why does He not find pleasure in the death of wicked?
> 
> (From what I have been taught, the answer of course would be that "He desires all to be saved in a sense, but has a greater desire to show both His wrath and His mercy; thus, though He does not find pleasure in the death of wicked, He has a greater desire to demonstrate all of His attributes through the means of election.")
Click to expand...


Doing one's good pleasure and taking pleasure are two different things, (though not necessarily mutually exclusive). God wills that the sinner dies, _that_ is His pleasure or desire but He does not delight in their death like some fiend who rubs his hands together in anticipation as he watches someone step off the edge of a cliff. 

The death of sinner is a matter of justice and God is not unwilling nor reluctant to pursue justice. (Outside of Christ) He cannot will that they be saved because that would contradict His holiness. Indeed God does not will that they be saved: Paul is very clear about that. (Romans 9:15; 11:7)


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lam. 3:33 "For He [God] does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of man".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, He does it as punishment for sin. The language is judicial, not personal. Magistrates do not punish willy nilly, but only as there is just cause to do so.
Click to expand...


It's interesting you say "no" to a verse of Scripture not my comments! It looks like you're wanting to explain away exactly what the text says.

To say that this is "judicial" and not "personal" language is special pleading, particularly when the verb (לֹא עִנָּה) is qualified with מִלִּבֹּו "from the heart". (Look also at the LXX and Latin as well).

This is precisely the point I've been trying to make. Let's not explain away the words of Scripture with some preconceived theological assumption.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> This is precisely the point I've been trying to make. Let's not explain away the words of Scripture with some preconceived theological assumption.



Yes, which will only be accomplished by contextual exegesis, not by the bare quoting of a Scripture to make it speak to a theological question which has become of concern to 20th century existentialists. To one who does take an interest in the contextual interpretation of the text, it will be as clear as day that the weeping prophet is concerned to show the justice of God in the punishment of sinners, not to express some conflicting feeling God might have by doing the right thing. And "heart" has a broad semantic range which requires careful mapping of the domain in order to arrive at its correct connotation. It does not automatically refer to a psychological state. Not to mention the fact that the Hebrew abounds in figurative expressions when speaking of God's relations and actions to man, so that it is naivete to assume literal referents without first pinpointing the "human scene" to which the descriptive language applies.


----------



## DonP

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lam. 3:33 "For He [God] does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of man".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, He does it as punishment for sin. The language is judicial, not personal. Magistrates do not punish willy nilly, but only as there is just cause to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting you say "no" to a verse of Scripture not my comments! It looks like you're wanting to explain away exactly what the text says.
> 
> To say that this is "judicial" and not "personal" language is special pleading, particularly when the verb (לֹא עִנָּה) is qualified with מִלִּבֹּו "from the heart". (Look also at the LXX and Latin as well).
> 
> This is precisely the point I've been trying to make. Let's not explain away the words of Scripture with some preconceived theological assumption.
Click to expand...


Could you help us understand how God could "unwillingly" afflict or grieve the sons of man? 

Can we say this is an anthropomorphism or does that not fit? 
Or the same for delight in Ez.?
This would make it more narrative thus the more clear doctrinal passages would prevail?


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Joshua said:


> The problem that I have is what the "Free Offer" has come to mean. I would heartily agree that the Lord God offers salvation to "whosever will." What I disagree with is the idea that He _desires_ to save some contrary to His _decree_ to save some. So _Free Offer_ has become synonymous with "well-meant offer." And that's just a concession I don't believe the Bible makes: a God with His hands eternally tied due to a conflict between His desire and His decree?
> 
> The Lord does all according to His own good pleasure.



Yea and that pretty much sums it up.


----------

