# The Biblical Offer of the Gospel



## AV1611

This is I believe a helpful introduction to the 'Free Offer' debate: http://www.epc.org.au/literature/stebb6.html


----------



## polemic_turtle

This wouldn't be somehow connected to the PRCA, would it? Seems like I've seen a number of Anglicans who appreciate their soteriological stances. Interesting.


----------



## AV1611

polemic_turtle said:


> This wouldn't be somehow connected to the PRCA, would it? Seems like I've seen a number of Anglicans who appreciate their soteriological stances. Interesting.



No...although they faced a similar battle as the C/PRC although a few decades later.



trevorjohnson said:


> How would this affect evangelism and mission work?



The method of presentation will obviously differ from the more free-will emphasis that modern calvinistic preaching has having a higher view of God and his sovereign work.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> The method of presentation will obviously differ from the more free-will emphasis that modern calvinistic preaching has having a higher view of God and his sovereign work.



Could you give an example "offer" in the two methods to highlight how they would differ in your opinion?


----------



## yeutter

polemic_turtle said:


> This wouldn't be somehow connected to the PRCA, would it? Seems like I've seen a number of Anglicans who appreciate their soteriological stances. Interesting.




Hoeksema is much like Augustus Toplady only more systematic.


----------



## AV1611

yeutter said:


> Hoeksema is much like Augustus Toplady only more systematic.



Do you know where AMT's sermons are available from online (I have hard copies already).


----------



## JOwen

I have extensive quotes from Calvin on my blog on the "free offer". 
http://kerugma.solideogloria.com/archive/2006_09_01_kerugma_archive.html
I would also highly recommend this debate on the subject between Silversides, a Reformed Presbyterian and Hanko, a Protestant Reformed. While Hanko has some interesting points, Silversides has Calvin's position down.

Here is the link 

JL


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> I have extensive quotes from Calvin on my blog on the "free offer".
> http://kerugma.solideogloria.com/archive/2006_09_01_kerugma_archive.html
> I would also highly recommend this debate on the subject between Silversides, a Reformed Presbyterian and Hanko, a Protestant Reformed. While Hanko has some interesting points, Silversides has Calvin's position down.
> 
> Here is the link
> 
> JL



To the Silversides-Hanko debate I would add the Mouw-Engelsma debate found here.

The CG issue is unrelated to the FO issue so perhaps a separate thread?.

Regarding the terms of 'offer': Did Calvin use it? Yes indeed however the question that must be asked is precisely what did he mean by the term 'offer'? That is why it is rather pointless to find quotes by the reformers and puritans where the term 'offer' was used and shout - there...they believed in the free offer.

Further...what do we mean by the term 'Free Offer'? How should we define the _free offer of the gospel_? Do we understand it as refering to the general proclamation of the gospel i.e. heralding it to all nations, all creatures etc? Do we mean that God is gracious to all in having the gospel preached to all? Much of the controversy has arisen because people have not defined their terms of if they have done so they have defined them differently and then talked at cross purposes.

I would add that far better is it that we use Biblical language. So we preach the gospel, herald the gospel, proclaim the gospel...no where in the Scripture do we find the phrase 'offer the gospel'. 

As for the CG?FO debate...let us not ban debate but discuss and pray that the Holy Ghost leads us into all truth as has been promised. This leads me on to doctrinal development. We must recognise that truth did not end with Calvin...there are times...shock horror that he was wrong...indeed even councils have erred!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There is an essay on the well-meant/free offer here:


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> To the Silversides-Hanko debate I would add the Mouw-Engelsma debate found here.
> 
> The CG issue is unrelated to the FO issue so perhaps a separate thread?.




Mmmmmm, if you listen to the debate you will see that it is also about the free offer.

Blessings!


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> Regarding the terms of 'offer': Did Calvin use it? Yes indeed however the question that must be asked is precisely what did he mean by the term 'offer'? That is why it is rather pointless to find quotes by the reformers and puritans where the term 'offer' was used and shout - there...they believed in the free offer.



Here is an interesting Calvin quote. Would you say that Calvin was wrong in this?

_Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~_

The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, *because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love.* To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.

* But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; *for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, *he loved his own work in them*; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures,* shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption* (Calvin's Commentary on the harmony of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).
​
I see here in Calvin a discriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> Would you say that Calvin was wrong in this?



Yes. God loves his inheritance and them alone.

Let us look at your quote:



> The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love.



Here Calvin is speaking of animals.



> ...God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.



He is correct here!



> But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — *he is said to love the political virtues*; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them *outward righteousness*, and that for the general advantage, *he loved his own work in them*; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption



I think Calvin is confusing here and could have made use of clarifying phrases such as "...in that...". What Calvin seems to be teaching here is that God loves "justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance" and so those who do them he loves i.e. he loves the outward righteousness he himself has worked in them. But he states that "God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them".

However we must remember that as great as Calvin was he was not infaliable and it is our duty to be always reforming our doctrine to the Scriptures. I do not think Calvin is correct for even the 'good works' of the unregenerate are filthy rags and no man can do something good in the eyes of God. The ploughing of the wicked is sinful (Prov 21:4).


----------



## JOwen

And what would you say to Calvin here?

" _The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance._ " 2 Peter 3:9

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming *that he might invite all mankind to repentance*. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". *So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish;* for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. *For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. *But as the verb chōreō is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.​
Admittedly, this is a most difficult passage to interpret if one does not understand Calvin's disposition to God's to two kinds of love toward man (General, nonsalvific benevolence, and electing, saving love). Rev. Hanko, in his debate with Rev. Silversides says the following, "When we are speaking of common grace, we are also speaking of common mercy, common love, common goodness, common long-suffering. They all go together. They can't be separated. I'm not going to argue against just a common grace this evening, but against a common love, common mercy, common benevolence, common goodness, common long-suffering" (Intro to Lecture #2). I think in doing so, he has argued himself right off the pages of Scripture. Agree or disagree, Hanko has out calvined Calvin. He's not taken Calvin in all his context, and realized the dichotomization of his teaching on this subject.

How then do we reconcile the clear Biblical teaching that God hates the sinner with a passage such as this? We can do one of two things. We can wrest the passage from its true context, or as Calvin does, we can go back to the two ways in which the Bible speaks of God's love. When the Scriptures tell us that God hates the reprobate with an eternal hatred, it speaks of the reprobate in terns of the "hidden purpose of God", to quote Calvin. In this way, there is an eternal and abiding hatred. And when the Word indicates that God is long-suffering to man in the calls to repentance, it is from the general, non-saving love "made known to us in the gospel" (Calvin) that terminates on the creature. This love is not saving, but creaturely, “that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him” (Calvin). If you disagree with these two loves, argue with Calvin.


----------



## BertMulder

Sloppy dogmatics brings heresy into the church. 

Speaking of Prof. Hanko and the socalled 'offer of the gospel', Prof Hanko has done a thorough job here on the history of the free offer:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Free Offer/cover.htm

From his Introduction:





> If it can be shown from history that not only has the church not confessed a given doctrine in most of her history, but rather has condemned it when it appeared in the teachings of various men within the church, that ought to make us hesitate to insist upon the fact that Scripture teaches this particular position. Once again, the question is: Do I want to place myself on the side of those who have been consistently repudiated by the church as teaching something contrary to Scripture? If Scripture itself requires this of me, then, of course, I do - regardless of the consequences. But the fact remains that I had better be very sure. To go against the testimony of the church of all ages is indeed a bold move, and one can never be too sure that his position is firmly and unequivocally taught by Holy Writ. A study of history can be enlightening and helpful.
> 
> This is especially true of the doctrine of the free offer. While it is sometimes maintained that the doctrine of the free offer has the weight of history behind it, this is a false and empty claim. A study of the history of doctrine within the church will show that quite the contrary is true. Quite consistently heretics who were condemned by the church have held the doctrine of the free offer. Quite consistently the church has refused to adopt any such doctrine. The weight of history is surely behind those who deny that the free offer is the teaching of Scripture. It is this assertion that we hope to prove in this and subsequent chapters.
> 
> While it is impossible to avoid completely a Scriptural analysis of the idea of the free offer, it is not our intent in these articles to engage in any such exegetical study. Our purpose is primarily historical, and to the historical data we intend to limit ourselves as much as possible.1 It is to the history of this doctrine then that we turn our attention.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Sloppy dogmatics brings heresy into the church.
> 
> Speaking of Prof. Hanko and the socalled 'offer of the gospel', Prof Hanko has done a thorough job here on the history of the free offer:
> 
> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Free Offer/cover.htm
> 
> From his Introduction:



Speaking as a Scottish Presbyterian who is now the pastor of a 3 Forms Church, Hanko butchered the Marrow Controversy and displayed a great lack of knowledge on the subject of the Free Offer in that piece. I have yet to see any PRC scholar actually interact with Calvin's own words on the subject besides saying, "Calvin used unfortunate language".


----------



## BertMulder

Sorry Rev. Lewis:

1. Your link does not figure. What dit Calvin say, and where?

2. What basis do you have for your allegations regarding Prof. Hanko's lack of understanding?

If you come with an allegation, you have to back it up.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Sorry Rev. Lewis:
> 
> 1. Your link does not figure. What dit Calvin say, and where?
> 
> 2. What basis do you have for your allegations regarding Prof. Hanko's lack of understanding?
> 
> If you come with an allegation, you have to back it up.




First, click here for an 8 part series on the subject matter of the Free Offer by Calvin (3/4 the way down the page).

Second, I would not make the allegations if i was not able to back them up. I plan on a full critique on Hanko and the Marrow, as well as H. Hoeksema on the Covenant. This will be posted on my blog.


----------



## BertMulder

> I have yet to see any PRC scholar actually interact with Calvin's own words on the subject besides saying, "Calvin used unfortunate language".



I am no scholar, although I am Protestant Reformed. I would not say Calvin used unfortunate language. And remember, Calving did not speak English, but this is from the Latin. What does _offere_ mean in Latin? I stand wholeheartedly here on the position that Calvin, in any of these citations, did not teach the Well meant offer.


Sorry, Pastor Lewis, but you are being just slightly ingeneous. Was reading your blog, and a certain part of Calvin's commentary has been deleted:

on Rom 1:16



> At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: _and that it is the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in the gospel a sure proof of their own ruin._ Since then the gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall find him a Judge. But everywhere in Scripture the word salvation is simply set in opposition to the word destruction: and hence we must observe, when it is mentioned, what the subject of the discourse is. Since then the gospel delivers from ruin and the curse of endless death, its salvation is eternal life. 1



Noting here, that a savor of death to the ungodly is hardly to them the sweet savor of an offer of grace. Also, considering offer, from the Latin root, is meant in the sense of 'displaying'.

This is how my commentary readson Rom 5:18:



> 18. Therefore, etc. This is a defective sentence; it will be complete if the words condemnation and justification be read in the nominative case; as doubtless you must do in order to complete the sense. We have here the general conclusion from the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening explanation, he now completes the comparison, "As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosu>nhn, but the justification -- dikai>wma, 1 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. 2
> 
> These two words, which he had before used, judgment and grace, may be also introduced here in this form, "As it was through God's judgment that the sin of one issued in the condemnation of many, so grace will be efficacious to the justification of many." Justification of life is to be taken, in my judgment, for remission, which restores life to us, as though he called it life-giving. 3 For whence comes the hope of salvation, except that God is propitious to us; and we must be just, in order to be accepted. Then life proceeds from justification. 4



Inst 3:3:21:

21.



> Moreover, that repentance is a special gift of God, I trust is too well understood from the above doctrine to require any lengthened discourse. Hence the Church' extols the goodness of God, and looks on in wonder, saying, "Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life," (Acts 11: 18 and Paul enjoining Timothy to deal meekly and patiently with unbelievers, says, "If God per adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil," (2 Tim. 2: 25, 26.) God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration. It were easier to create us at first, than for us by our own strength to acquire a more excellent nature. Wherefore, in regard to the whole process of regeneration, it is not without cause we are called God's "workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2: 10.2) Those whom God is pleased to rescue from death, he quickens by the Spirit of regeneration; not that repentance is properly the cause of salvation, but because, as already seen, it is inseparable from the faith and mercy of God; for, as Isaiah declares, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." This, indeed, is a standing truth, that wherever the fear of God is in vigor, the Spirit has been carrying on his saving work. Hence, in Isaiah, while believers complain and lament that they have been forsaken of God, they set down the supernatural hardening of the heart as a sign of reprobation. The Apostle, also, intending to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, states, as the reason, that it is impossible to renew them to repentance, (Heb. 6: 6 that is, God by renewing those whom he wills not to perish, gives them a sign of paternal favor, and in a manner attracts them to himself, by the beams of a calm and reconciled countenance; on the other hand, by hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven, he thunders against them. This kind of vengeance the Apostle denounces against voluntary apostates, (Heb. 10: 29,) who, in falling away from the faith of the gospel, mock God, insultingly reject his favor, profane and trample under foot the blood of Christ, nay, as far as in them lies, crucify him afresh. Still, he does not, as some austere persons preposterously insist, leave no hope of pardon to voluntary sins, but shows that apostasy being altogether without excuse, it is not strange that God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus shown to himself. For, in the same Epistle, he says, that "it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame," (Heb. 7: 4-6.) And in another passage, "If we sin willingly, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment," &c. (Heb. 11: 25, 26.) There are other passages, from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians of old extracted materials for their heresy; so much so, that some good men taking offense at their harshness, have deemed the Epistle altogether spurious, though it truly savors in every part of it of the apostolic spirit. But as our dispute is only with those who receive the Epistle, it is easy to show that those passages give no support to their error. First, the Apostle must of necessity agree with his Master, who declares, that "all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men," "neither in this world, neither in the world to come," (Matth. 12: 31; Luke 12: 10.) We must hold that this was the only exception which the Apostle recognized, unless we would set him in opposition to the grace of God. Hence it follows, that to no sin is pardon denied save to one, which proceeding from desperate fury cannot be ascribed to infirmity, and plainly shows that the man guilty of it is possessed by the devil.



Dont see any offer in this, just proclamation of the Gospel.

Your own words:



> The expression of our Saviour, "Many are called, but few are chosen," (Matthew 22:14,) is also very improperly interpreted, (see Book 3, chap. 2, sec. 11, 12.) There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear, viz., that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, _through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation._ Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. (Institutes 3:24:8)



How is a savour of death an offer of grace? Grace is only in the special call, as you yourself here state.



> But if it is so, (you will say,) little faith can be put in the Gospel promises, which, in testifying concerning the will of God, declare that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree. Not at all; for however universal the promises of salvation may be, there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect. We know that the promises are effectual only when we receive them in faith, but, on the contrary, when faith is made void, the promise is of no effect. If this is the nature of the promises, let us now see whether there be any inconsistency between the two things, viz., that God, by an eternal decree, fixed the number of those whom he is pleased to embrace in love, and on whom he is pleased to display his wrath, and that he offers salvation indiscriminately to all. I hold that they are perfectly consistent, for all that is meant by the promise is, *just that his mercy is offered to all who desire and implore it, and this none do, save those whom he has enlightened. *. Moreover, he enlightens those whom he has predestinated to salvation. Thus the truth of the promises remains firm and unshaken, so that it cannot be said there is any disagreement between the eternal election of God and the testimony of his grace which he offers to believers. But why does he mention all men? Namely that the consciences of the righteous may rest the more secure when they understand that there is no difference between sinners, provided they have faith, and that the ungodly may not be able to allege that they have not an asylum to which they may retake themselves from the bondage of sin, while they ungratefully reject the offer which is made to them. Therefore, since by the Gospel the mercy of God is offered to both, it is faith, in other words, the illumination of God, which distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked, the former feeling the efficacy of the Gospel, the latter obtaining no benefit from it. Illumination itself has eternal election for its rule. (Institutes 3:24:17)



Mercy is offered to all who desire it? Offer of grace to all hearers?



> "On the contrary, therefore, Christ declares that the doctrine of the Gospel, though it is preached to all without exception, cannot be embraced by all, but that a new understanding and a new perception are requisite; and, therefore, that faith does not depend on the will of men, but that it is God who gives it." (Comments on John 6:44)



The Gospel preached to everyone, which cannot be received except for the quickening by the Holy Spirit, who works it in our hearts.

Do we need more arguments that Calvin did not preach a "universal offer of grace to all hearers"?

Grace is not offered. Grace is worked, through the Word and Spirit, in the hearts of all the elect. All of God, nothing of us.

*Sola Gratia!*


----------



## turmeric

Dr. Clark, your link is missing! Sorry about the pun.


----------



## BertMulder

> Second, I would not make the allegations if i was not able to back them up. I plan on a full critique on Hanko and the Marrow, as well as H. Hoeksema on the Covenant. This will be posted on my blog.



So the allegation can be made here, but the (delayed) explanation we will have to hunt up on your blog? Come on, Pastor, sure you can do better than that? Be a man and back up your words, or else offer a retraction.

Here is what Prof. Hanko wrote on the Marrow (beg your forebearance on the lengthy quote, moderators):

Pastor, where was Prof. Hanko less than honest?



> In order to understand the Marrow controversy in its historical perspective, it is necessary to make a few remarks about the history of the Reformation subsequent to the Westminster Assembly.
> 
> Although the Reformation was never as strong in England as on the continent, due to the efforts in England to make a Protestant State Church from a Roman Catholic Church - which efforts differed from the Reformation on the continent where reformation took place by way of separation from the Romish Church nevertheless, Arminianism itself did not appear in England until 1595, when it was taught by Peter Baro, Margaret professor of Divinity at Cambridge. His teachings occasioned the formulation and adoption of the Lambeth Articles which were added, though never officially, to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. The Lambeth Articles made specific certain points of doctrine involved in the defense of the truths of sovereign grace over aginst Arminianism, which were less explicit in the Thirty-Nine Articles.39 In 1596 Baro resigned his position because of his views.
> 
> These same views were, however, taught and defended by others. We have noticed earlier how Amyrauldianism came into England and was taught by the Davenant School and represented at Westminster by the men who belonged to this school of thought. But the same ideas were taught by Richard Baxter (1615-1691).
> 
> In his doctrine of Christ and the atonement he was Grotian; in his teachings on salvation he was Amyrauldian and Arminian. He believed it his calling to fight a certain antinomianism that had appeared in the church, but he became in fact neo-nomian and taught justification by faith and the works of the new law.
> 
> It is of some interest to note in this connection that the charge of antinomianism is often an easy charge to make and was many times brought by Arminians in their opposition of the truth of justification by faith alone. When some in the church lived lax lives, certain opponents of the truth of sovereign grace were quick to find fault with the truth of justification by faith alone and blame this doctrine for wicked excesses among the people, when in fact, the problem lay elsewhere. Already the Heidelberg Catechism addressed itself to this problem in Question and Answer 64: "But doth not this doctrine (of justification by faith) make men careless and profane? By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness."
> 
> It is important to understand this because the question of antinomianism and neo-nomianism occupied an important place in the Marrow controversy.
> 
> However all that may be, Baxter was opposed by John Owen, especially in his famous book on the atonement: The Death of Death In the Death of Christ.40 In the introduction referred to in the footnote, J. I. Packer claims that Owen was writing against: 1) Classical Arminianism, 2) Amyrauldianism, and 3) The views of Thomas More. He also claims that Usher, Davenant, and Baxter, while holding to a modified Amyrauldianism, had not yet appeared in print with their views at the time Owen wrote his book. But, Packer insists, and correctly so, the book is not only about the atonement; it is also about the gospel.
> 
> "Surely all that Owen is doing is defending limited atonement?" Not really. He is doing much more than that. Strictly speaking, the aim of Owen's book is not defensive at all, but constructive. It is a biblical and theological enquiry: its purpose is simply to make clear what Scripture actually teaches about the central subject of the gospel the achievement of the Saviour. As its title proclaims, it is a "treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of Christ; with the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby." The question which Owen, like the Dort divines before him, is really concerned to answer is just this: what is the gospel? 41
> 
> Concerning the gospel Owen taught that the preacher may not preach that Christ died for each one who hears and that God's love is for each one.42 Man cannot save himself. Christ died for sinners. All who confess sin and believe in Christ will be received. And those who do confess sin and believe in Christ are those whom God has chosen from all eternity. All who hear the gospel face repentance and faith as a duty, but to this is always added a particular promise so that the general command which comes to all through the preaching is always accompanied by a particular promise which is made only to those who repent and believe, i.e., the elect.
> 
> The preacher's task says Owen, is to display Christ. In this connection, Packer claims that Owen held to the ideas of an offer and invitation..43 But this is not entirely true. Owen used repeatedly the word "offer," but, as we have noticed before, it can be used in a good sense -- as many early theologians used it. He used it in the sense of Christ presented, Christ portrayed, Christ set forth in the gospel -- a meaning which comes directly from the Latin root: offere. It is also true that Owen used the word "invitation," but used it in the sense of the invitation of a king, i.e., the command comes from the King Jesus to all who hear the gospel to repent from sin and turn to Christ. Yet Packer makes a point of it that Owen pressed home the idea, so important a part of Puritan thinking, that God through Christ urges upon all sinners to believe, and does this with the tenderest of entreaties and most urgent pleas.44
> 
> These issues were also to occupy the attention of the men who were involved in the Marrow controversy. And they were of particular concern in connection with the dispute over a book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity, which was first published by Edward Fisher in 1645 and republished in 1648 or 1649. The first part of the book, the part which is of particular concern to us, is written in the form of a conversation between Neophytus, a new convert to the faith, Nomista, who represents the position of antinomianism, and Evangelista, a pastor, who speaks the views of the author and expresses what Edward Fisher considered to be the truth of Scripture. It is therefore a discussion about the relation of the gospel to antinomianism and neo-nomianism.
> 
> The book did not attract a great deal of attention when it was first published, but came to the attention of the Scottish theologians in the early part of the eighteenth century under rather interesting circumstances.
> 
> The Presbytery of the Church of Scotland called the Auchterarder Presbytery was examining a certain candidate, William Craig, for licensure to the ministry. In the course of the examination he was asked to subscribe to the statement: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ." To this rather strange statement and clumsily worded article of faith William Craig refused to subscribe. Put into a bit more simple language, the expression simply meant that it was heretical to teach that it is necessary to forsake sin in order to believe in Christ. Or to put it yet differently: Orthodoxy says that one can come to Christ without forsaking sin. Because he refused to subscribe to this statement, William Craig was denied licensure to the ministry and the matter came to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for resolution. The statement under question became known as "The Auchterarder Creed."
> 
> The General Assembly, after long discussion, decided: 1) that subscription could not be required of any statement but what the Assembly itself required. The Auchterarder Presbytery was reprimanded for going beyond anything that the General Assembly had required of her ministers. 2) The creed of Auchterarder was condemned as being antinomian because it taught that repentance was not necessary to come to Christ. 3) At the same time, the Assembly also warned against the evils of denying the need for holiness (antinomianism) and warned against the teaching that good works are the basis for salvation (neo-nomianism).
> 
> While the Assembly condemned the Auchterarder Creed, the Presbytery itself was not disciplined because the members of the Presbytery gave to the creed a good interpretation, namely, that one must come to Christ with his sins to obtain pardon for them; else there was no point in coming to Christ. While the Assembly accepted this interpretation, it nevertheless insisted that the creed itself was capable of an antinomian meaning and ought to be condemned.
> 
> During the course of the discussion over this matter, a delegate by the name of Thomas Boston (famous for his book, Human Nature in its Fourfold State) leaned over and whispered to John Drummond that he knew a book which answered admirably all the points which were under discussion. He referred to The Marrow of Modern Divinity that he had picked up at a friend's house and read with great enjoyment. Shortly after the Assembly concluded its meetings those who were impressed with its contents republished the book.
> 
> Because of its popularity and doubtful teachings, the book soon became the object of official scrutiny, and the contents of the book were officially treated by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1720. After study, the book was condemned on the following grounds.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> While it is clear that the book was particularly condemned for its antinomian teaching, nevertheless, the point of major concern to us is the second point that involves the relation between the atonement of Christ and the free offer of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> There were many in the church that were dissatisfied with this condemnation of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Twelve such men, later called "The Marrow Men," protested this action of the Assembly. These twelve included, among others, such well-known theologians as Thomas Boston, James Hog, Traill, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine. A commission was appointed to examine the question. In the course of the investigation it became evident that the "Marrow Men" had, among other things, asserted that in condemning the universal offer of salvation, the Assembly had condemned the divine commission to preach to all men salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.45 It also became evident that the Marrow Men, while denying that they taught a universal atonement, nevertheless did exactly teach that the atoning work of Christ was universal in some sense. These men distinguished between a giving of Christ in possession and a gift of Christ as warranted men to receive Him. The former was limited to the elect; the latter was offered to all. In connection with this, they maintained that while the statement, "Christ died for all" is clearly heretical; it is sound and orthodox to teach that Christ is dead for all.
> 
> 
> 
> The commission reported to the General Assembly in 1722 where the original decision of 1720 was maintained and the Marrow Men were once again condemned for their view.46
> 
> 
> 
> There have been various interpretations given to the Marrow controversy, some of which we mention here in an effort to highlight the issues which were involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Some have maintained that the Marrow Men were concerned with various evils that were present in the church. Among these evils was the evil of legalism that really taught a salvation on the basis of the works of the law. Also among these evils was the error of a conditional grace. Christ, so it is said, was being separated from His benefits in the preaching. The church could not offer the benefits of Christ to all because they had to know who the elect were before these benefits could be offered to them. But those who were elect could be known as elect only by the manifestation of election in their lives. Thus Christ's benefits hinged upon this manifestation of election in a holy and sanctified life. Hence, the offer was made conditional. One receives salvation only if he is elect, i.e., if he manifests election in his life and if he is assured of his election. Hence all the preaching was made conditional — conditional upon the works of sanctification, which works were the manifestation of election.
> 
> 
> 
> The Marrow Men, on the other hand, were interested in grace. They taught that God, moved by love to all, made a deed of gift and grant to all that whoever believed might have eternal life. This, so it was said, was the offer. This was not Arminian or Amyrauldian, but a gospel of free grace, offered freely to all, a grace which was, therefore, not conditional. The defenders of the offer were, therefore, to be considered the orthodox, while the General Assembly and the church (which had rejected the offer) were given over to the legalism of salvation dependent upon the condition of holiness.
> 
> 
> 
> This interpretation of the Marrow controversy is, therefore, an attempt to turn the tables: an attempt to charge those who repudiated the offer as being proponents of a conditional salvation, while the defenders of the offer were the ones who taught sovereign and free grace.
> 
> 
> 
> This interpretation (and defense) of the Marrow Men is false. While it is a rather interesting (though complicated) attempt to defend the Marrow Men and in this way to defend the offer, the evidence cannot support it. This is true, first of all, because the General Assembly did not teach a legalism, but specifically and concretely warned against it. Who can tell whether there were those in the church who were teaching such views? But if there were, the fact remains that the General Assembly (the same one which condemned the offer) refused to uphold this position and warned against it.
> 
> 
> 
> In the second place, this view is wrong because the General Assembly was never guilty of teaching a conditional salvation. This is simply a misinterpretation of their position. The orthodox did indeed insist that the promises of the gospel were for the elect alone, though they were to be publicly and universally proclaimed along with the command to repent and believe. They maintained a general proclamation of a particular promise, in the same sense as was maintained by the Dort divines.47
> 
> 
> 
> This has always been Biblical and Reformed, but this is by no means a conditional promise. It is certainly true that the promise of the gospel is for the elect alone. It is also true that a holy and sanctified life is the fruit of election as God works His sanctifying power in the hearts of His people through the Spirit of Christ. We may even go so far as to say that it is only in the way of a sanctified walk that the elect child of God lives in the assurance of His election in Christ. No one certainly would ever dare to say that a person can walk in sin, refuse to confess it, but nevertheless experience the electing grace of God in Christ. But this by no means implies a conditional salvation. On the contrary, it was the Marrow Men who taught a conditional salvation. For if salvation merited in the work of Christ on the cross was publicly proclaimed as being for all, the question naturally arises: How is it to be explained that not all receive it? The only answer that can possibly be given, the answer that was given by the Marrow Men, is that this salvation comes to an individual upon the condition of faith. Only those who receive it by faith become the heirs of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> In the third place, the Marrow Men very clearly taught, in defense of a free offer, that the atonement of Christ, upon which the offer rests, is universal in some sense of the word. Thus the offer expressed God's universal love for all and His desire to save all. The salvation that men receive, therefore, is a salvation dependent upon man's act of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> McLeod48 and C.M. M'Crie49 take a slightly different position. They maintain that a certain hyper-Calvinism had come into the Church of Scotland from the Netherlands. This hyper-Calvinism had as its chief characteristic that the call of the gospel and its promises were for the elect only. The gospel does not come to a man who will not receive it because responsibility is limited to and by ability. This, according to McLeod, is essentially an Arminian position, except that the Arminians broadened the concept of ability far more than the hyper-Calvinists in the church. Hence, in opposition to this, the Marrow Men taught a universal love of God and a universal offer of the gospel. Christ belongs, therefore, to all, not in possession, but in the free offer.50
> 
> 
> 
> This interpretation, while presenting the position of the Marrow Men in an essentially correct way, misinterprets the history and occasion for the controversy. There are especially two errors that are made in this interpretation. In the first place, simply without any proof the idea that the promises of the gospel are limited to the elect only is branded as hyper-Calvinism. This simply is not true. And it is not true because this view is the traditional view of those theologians from the time of Calvin on who have maintained the particular character of salvation and grace. If this is hyper-Calvinism, all the fathers at Dort were hyper-Calvinists!
> 
> 
> 
> In the second place, it is not true that the orthodox in the Church of Scotland (or at any other time) denied that the gospel comes to all men because it does not come to a man who will not receive it. Nor did they teach that this statement is true because responsibility is limited to and by ability. The Reformed have always maintained that all men are responsible before God for their sin. This responsibility has nothing to do with ability at all. And it is exactly because of this that the command of the gospel confronts all with their obligation to forsake sin and repent at the foot of the cross. The Heidelberg Catechism addresses itself exactly to this question in Question and Answer 9. It has just made a statement concerning the total depravity of man and insisted that man is so corrupt that he is incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness, except he is regenerated by the Spirit of God. The Catechism then asks: "Doth not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?" And the answer is: "Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own willful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts."
> 
> 
> 
> The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia in its pamphlet, Universalism and the Reformed Churches, presents a third interpretation, which is also the correct one. This pamphlet maintains that the Marrow controversy was a direct result of the Davenant view of the atonement and the offer, which view continued to be taught in the churches in Britain because the Westminster Assembly did not specifically condemn it. 51 This weakness of the Westminster Confession was corrected by the Church of Scotland in its condemnation of the Marrow Men in 1720 and 1722. The Marrow Men taught, according to this pamphlet, a modified Calvinism, which has been the scourge of the church to the present.
> 
> 
> 
> The point in the Marrow controversy that particularly concerns us has to do with the nature of the preaching of the gospel. We must understand that the controversy arose in connection with a view of preaching which was fairly common in Britain especially among some of the Puritans. Already in the latter half of the sixteenth century, the Puritans opposed the partial reformation and worldliness in the State Churches. In their opposition to these weaknesses, they tended to stress strongly the subjective elements in the Christian life, and the stress on these subjective elements led to a certain view of preaching which was found in many pulpits.
> 
> 
> 
> The following elements especially were included in that view:
> 
> 
> 
> In the first place, the Puritans stressed that it was important to preach the law, for this was a means which God used to prepare men for true conversion. While the
> 
> Puritans themselves did not completely agree on this and there was a certain development among the Puritans on this matter, some of the later Puritans especially taught that the preaching of the law was accompanied by certain gracious influences of God in the hearts of the unregenerate which God used to bring men to know their sins and recognize themselves as sinners. The preaching of the law was, therefore, accompanied by a certain preparatory grace that was to be sharply distinguished from saving grace. This preparatory grace was given to all who heard the preaching, but did not in itself save. It was necessary to salvation, but did not in itself guarantee salvation. It wrought in the hearer a certain conviction of sin under which a person could labor for a long time, burdened with sin and guilt, troubled by a conscience which plagued him incessantly, and which moved him to seek relief from the grief which his sins brought about.52
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston, e.g., 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. 53
> 
> 
> 
> The Canons of Dort have something to say about this matter in III & IV, B, 4:
> 
> 
> 
> …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.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, to hunger and thirst after deliverance from misery, and after life, and to offer unto God the sacrifice of a broken spirit, is peculiar to the regenerate and those that are called blessed, Ps. 51:10,19; Matt. 5:6.
> 
> 
> 
> While the Dort theologians were addressing the Arminian error, which was slightly different from the error described above, nevertheless, it is striking that there is certainly a clear similarity. Both the Puritans and the Arminians ascribed these actions which the article mentions to the unregenerate; and both the Arminians and the Puritans explained these actions by a certain grace of God which was given to all who hear the gospel. Basically, therefore, this view of the Puritans stands condemned by the Canons of Dort.
> 
> 
> 
> In the second place, it was to this spiritual state of many that the preaching was addressed. Some have called the Puritans the world's greatest psychologists, and there is a certain element of truth to this. The preaching was often described in terms of an offer in order to encourage those who were under the conviction of sin to embrace the gospel. Through the preaching, God's mercy was portrayed with the intention of disarming the most alienated mind of his suspicions and to relieve the most troubled spirit of his fears. It was intended to assure the hearers that no sinner had sunk beyond the reach of mercy and no sins were so great that they were beyond forgiveness. Thus earnest entreaties and tender remonstrances were necessary to bring the sinner to Christ. 54
> 
> 
> 
> This idea led in turn to various distinctions. On the one hand, distinctions arose between various degrees of "seeking". There were those who had a felt need, who hungered and thirsted, who were weary and heavy laden, etc.; and there were those who had not even progressed this far. The first were under far more serious obligations than the second. There were also various degrees in the conviction of sin. The question often arose whether a sinner was truly and sufficiently under the conviction of sin, or whether his conviction was only apparent and not a genuine matter of the heart. On the other hand, there were distinctions made between the assurance of faith. A sinner might, e.g., neither presume to be an elect, nor might he conclude that he was not. And the assurance that he was an elect went through various stages until he stood in the full assurance of his salvation in Christ. 55
> 
> 
> 
> What did all this have to do with the idea of the offer?
> 
> 
> 
> The word "offer" had been used frequently prior to the Marrow controversy. It is found, as we noticed, in the Westminster Confession; it was used by John Owen and other Puritan divines. But usually it meant the setting forth of Christ as the One Who had come as the Savior from sin. But as the need for pressing home upon the sinner convicted of sin, the sufficiency of the cross of Christ, the idea shifted to that proposed by the Marrow Men. And so they began to teach that no man need doubt this warrant to receive the Savior's blessings. Everyone who hears the preaching has a warrant to receive and embrace the gospel. No man living has a warrant to refuse. God expressed in the gospel His desire to save all. And, it was believed, this was the only way in which the gospel could be pressed home upon the sinner convicted of sin.
> 
> 
> 
> This was somewhat understandable. The unregenerate sinner, who under the preaching of the law, had been convicted of sin, who cried out for relief from the oppression of sin and guilt, had to be assured that Christ wanted his salvation and that the gospel, which presented Christ crucified, was indeed directed to him.
> 
> 
> 
> It was precisely this emphasis that led to a certain universality of the atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> The original passages in the Marrow of Modern Divinity which had come under the scrutiny of the General Assembly read as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> God their Father, as He is in His Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but His free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this His Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> Go and tell every man without exception that here are good news for him; Christ is dead for him, and if he will take Him and accept His righteousness he shall have Him.56
> 
> 
> 
> C. G. M'Crie says that the Marrow maintained that "Gospel giving is not giving into possession, but giving by way of offer. 57 M’Crie also says that in 1742 these men expressed themselves in these words: "There is a revelation of the Divine will in the Word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all mankind without exception, and a warrant to all freely to receive Him, however great sinners they are or have been." 58
> 
> 
> 
> A. A. Hodge defines the issues in the Marrow controversy very clearly. He says that the Marrow Men spoke of a double reference of the atonement. Their desire was to establish "the warrant of faith." The atonement thus had a designed general reference to all sinners of mankind as such. Christ did not die for all so as to save all, but he is dead for all, i.e., available for all sinners if they will receive him. Thus God, out of general philanthropy for all sinners made a deed of gift of Christ and of the benefits of His redemption to all indifferently to be claimed upon the condition of faith. This is God's giving love in distinction from His electing love. Thus the Marrow Men held to a general and a particular love.
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge further explains the views of the Marrow Men as including the idea that the deed of gift or grant of Christ is not itself the general offer, but is the foundation of the general offer upon which the offer rests. This grant is real, universal, an expression of love, conditioned by faith. The warrant upon which the faith of every believer rests and by which faith is justified is this deed of gift. 59
> 
> 
> 
> W. Cunningham defines the preaching which characterized the Marrow Men in the following words:
> 
> 
> 
> (It proclaims) the glad tidings of salvation to all men indiscriminately, without any distinction, setting forth without hesitation or qualification, the fullness and freeness of the gospel offers and invitations - of inviting, encouraging and requiring every descendant of Adam with whom they come into contact, to come to Christ and lay hold of Him, with the assurance that those who come to Him He will in no wise reject. 60
> 
> 
> 
> Guthrie says of the Marrow:
> 
> 
> 
> That though none cordially close with God in Christ Jesus, and acquiesces in that ransom found out by God, except such as are elected, and whose heart the Lord doth sovereignly determine to that blessed choice, yet the Lord has left it as a duty upon people who hear his Gospel to close with the offer of salvation, as if it were in their power to do it. 61
> 
> 
> 
> From all this, the central issues in the Marrow controversy are clear.
> 
> In the first place, the idea of preaching as generally taught involved a conception of conversion and faith different from historical Reformed theology. Conversion in the line of the covenant is essentially no different from conversion when it is effected among the unchurched. It took place later in life and not in infancy, and it was preceded by a conviction of sin that was not the work of saving grace, but resulted from the preaching and an accompanying preparatory grace. It brought a man into a state of conviction in which he hungered and thirsted for righteousness and sought escape from the burden of sin and guilt that afflicted his tortured conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> By this view of preparatory grace, a certain common grace was introduced into the thinking of the church and was made responsible for acts in the unregenerate that Scripture assigns only to the regenerate child of God.
> 
> 
> 
> In the second place, the Marrow Men spoke of the offer as necessary to the troubled sinner that he could have no reason why he should not come to Christ. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> In the third place, this necessarily involved a conception of the atonement. By their distinction between the statements, "Christ died for all" and "Christ is dead for all," they gave a certain universality to the atonement; for though they denied the former statement, they maintained the latter. The atonement was not only sufficient for all, but it was intended for all by God, for it was a manifestation of a universal love of God for all. It thus established the warrant for all to believe; and in this way it was also made available for all.
> 
> 
> 
> In the fourth place, this all involved a certain view of predestination that was essentially Amyrauldian. The counsel of God with respect to predestination contained a determinative decree and a hypothetical decree. The former belonged to God's secret will and the latter to God's revealed will. It was especially the latter that was proclaimed through the preaching. But the revealed will of God expressed God's will as desiring the salvation of all who hear the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, all this in turn introduced a conditional salvation into the work of God. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Marrow Men taught that saving faith was worked in the hearts of the elect of God. And it was in this way that they hoped to escape the charge of Arminianism. But this will not work. And it will not work for two reasons. In the first place, how is it to be explained that God on the one hand desires to save all and expressed this desire in the preaching of the gospel; and on the other hand actually gives faith and saves only a select few? The Marrow Men, as the Amyrauldians before them, resorted to a distinction in the will of God to make this plain, but such a distinction sets God in opposition to Himself as being One Who on the one hand desires to save all, and on the other hand, desires to save only some. In the second place, by making faith the condition of salvation, faith is set outside the work of salvation. If it is true that God desires to save all, but that only such are saved who actually believe, then it is also true that the blessings of salvation are dependent upon faith. Then faith is not one of the blessings of salvation, but is a condition to salvation. One cannot have it both ways. Faith is either the one or the other. It is either part of salvation or a condition to salvation; but both it cannot be. In separating faith from the benefits of salvation, as they had necessarily to do, the Marrow Men made faith the work of man. No pious talk of faith as the work of God would alter this fundamental truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 62
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## BertMulder

Further to the Marrow men, and heresy, this is a heretical statement from Ebenezer Erskine in this sermon. Because God never lets go of His justice. His justice must be satisfied. And Christ died for our sins to make full and complete satisfaction on the cross for the sins of those given to Him by the Father:

http://www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin06.htm



> 3. God in Christ is a God sitting upon a throne of grace: and does not this say, that God is love? God has a threefold throne, —a throne of glory, a throne of justice, and a throne of grace. The first of these, his throne of glory, is so bright, that it dazzles the eyes of angels, and they cover their faces with their wings when they approach it. The second, namely, his throne of justice, is clothed with red vengeance; and it is so terrible, that the most holy saints tremble when they behold it, "If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? In thy sight shall no man living be justified." And because we were not able to stand here, he has erected another throne, namely, a throne of grace, from whence he issues out acts of grace and mercy to guilty sinners; and so soon as he is seen sitting upon his throne, he is taken up as a God of love; and upon this the poor sinner, that was trembling at the thoughts of being cited before the throne of justice, flees for his life to the throne of grace, saying with the apostle, Heb. 4:16: "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."


----------



## Puritan Sailor

BertMulder said:


> Further to the Marrow men, and heresy, this is a heretical statement from Ebenezer Erskine in this sermon. Because God never lets go of His justice. His justice must be satisfied. And Christ died for our sins to make full and complete satisfaction on the cross for the sins of those given to Him by the Father:
> 
> http://www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin06.htm




What is heretical about Erskine's statement?


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> *that he might invite all mankind to repentance*



God does in deed invite/command/call all to repent.



JOwen said:


> "Not willing that any should perish". *So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved...*


*

I do not think he is correct here. Turretin nor Owen would either.



JOwen said:



But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel.

Click to expand...


In the gospel God declares what? Canon 3/4, viii: "For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him." So if here Calvin taught that his not willing that any should perish was in fact his willing they should heed the call as God's will of command then there is no problem. But he should have worded himself better.



JOwen said:



If you disagree with these two loves, argue with Calvin.

Click to expand...


When was Calvin the test of orthodoxy? We ought to develop his doctrines systematically and conform them closer to the Scriptures. The Puritans built upon Calvin developing his doctrine, so like wise we ought do the same.*


----------



## AV1611

BertMulder said:


> Grace is not offered.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Sorry, Pastor Lewis, but you are being just slightly ingeneous. Was reading your blog, and a certain part of Calvin's commentary has been deleted:
> 
> on Rom 1:16



If you will recall, the posts were to display that Calvin did teach a universal offer. If I was doing what you are inferring by the charge of being _ingeneous_ (sp?- you could be calling me 3 things by this "ingenuous", "ingenious" or even disingenuous), why on earth would I quote Calvin in Institutes 3:3:21? "God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration." The fact that I omitted certain parts was for simple brevity, and took nothing away from the force of Calvin's words. You are dancing here, nothing more. 





> Noting here, that a savor of death to the ungodly is hardly to them the sweet savor of an offer of grace. Also, considering offer, from the Latin root, is meant in the sense of 'displaying'.



Do you think Bert, that by your insisting that the Latin word for "offer" means "display" is new to me? The word "offer" takes nothing away from the thrust of Calvin's own words but enhances them! Calvin interchanges the word "offer" with the word "invites", ("Since then the gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference"- from your translation!), he is proclaiming that very thing that you are decrying. How do you deal with that brother? Calvin is too clear on these points. You can squabble over Latin words if you like but the truth of the matter is Calvin taught a universal offer and a general love.





> This is how my commentary readson Rom 5:18:



There are a few translation that we could use, but for the sake of argument, and because I have no bone to pick with which translation is used, lets quote from your source and examine the contrents...

"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

In the PRC, is this common favour taught? Is this favour really "propounded to all" Bert? Is Calvin right when he says that salvation is "offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."?




> Inst 3:3:21:
> Dont see any offer in this, just proclamation of the Gospel.



What?! Do you think that by drowning out the actual words with the whole quote from 3:3:21 will take away the fact that John Calvin states "Indeed, God declares that he wills the conversion of all, and he directs exhortations to all in common. Yet the efficacy of this depends upon the Spirit of regeneration."



> Mercy is offered to all who desire it? Offer of grace to all hearers?



Look Bert, argue with Calvin, not me these are his words not mine, "Therefore, since _God’s mercy is offered to both sorts of men through the gospel,_ it is faith—the illumination of God—that distinguishes between pious and impious, so that the former feel the working of the gospel, while the latter derive no profit from it. 3:24:17"

Further, Calvin on the same passage,

"For however universal the promises of salvation may be, they are still in no respect inconsistent with the predestination of the reprobate, provided we pay attention to their effect. When we receive the promises in faith, we know that then and only then do they become effective in us. On the contrary, when faith is snuffed out, the promise is abolished at the same time. If this is their nature, let us see whether they disagree with one another. God is said to have ordained from eternity those whom he wills to embrace in love, and those upon whom he wills to vent his wrath. Yet he announces salvation to all men indiscriminately. I maintain that these statements agree perfectly with each other."

You say there is no universal offer in Calvin? I say you read Calvin through 1924 and H. Hoeksema. 



> Do we need more arguments that Calvin did not preach a "universal offer of grace to all hearers"?



I have not seen one argument yet brother.

I'd very much like your thoughts on Calvin here. 

" _The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. _" 2 Peter 3:9

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might *invite all mankind to repentance.* For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "_Not willing that any should perish_". So wonderful is *his love towards mankind,* that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that *God is ready to receive all to repentance,* so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, *who is desirous of salvation*, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of *the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin,* but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand *without a difference to all*, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. But as the verb chōreō is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.


----------



## BertMulder

Very easy to do, is it not? Insisting Calvin taught a general well meant offer? I maintain that Calvin did nothing of the sort. Glasses of Rev. Hoeksema and 1924? Not at all. Namely, I grew up, not in the PRC, but in the Reformed Congregations. As a child was introduced there to the same dogmatic gymnastics. The split between the Reformed Congregations and the Netherlands Reformed in 1953.

And the preaching of grace, not some inpotent offer, is the line of the churchfathers. Of Augustine, of Luther and Calvin, although they did not specifically address the issue. Of the fathers of Dordt. 

You would have a sovereign Lord offer salvation to dead sinners? Can we resist God's will?

But God does not offer. He proclaims, through the means of the preaching, his free and complete Gospel of salvation to His people. Nothing of us, all of Christ. Because if we had to depend on an offer, we would still be in our sins.


----------



## AV1611

BertMulder said:


> But God does not offer. He proclaims, through the means of the preaching, his free and complete Gospel of salvation to His people. Nothing of us, all of Christ. Because if we had to depend on an offer, we would still be in our sins.



 brother


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Very easy to do, is it not? Insisting Calvin taught a general well meant offer? I maintain that Calvin did nothing of the sort. Glasses of Rev. Hoeksema and 1924? Not at all. Namely, I grew up, not in the PRC, but in the Reformed Congregations. As a child was introduced there to the same dogmatic gymnastics. The split between the Reformed Congregations and the Netherlands Reformed in 1953.



It is easy brother, because he did teach it as 2 Peter 3:9 indicates (among many others). Agree or disagree with Calvin on this fact is not my point (I happen to think Calvin missed the point of context myself on 2 Peter 3:9). My point IS that the PRC in no place deals with the plain facts _of Calvin_. This is all I'm saying. The sieve of their brand of Supralapsarianism has left a biblical-theological chasm for many texts that are filled with word-play and inherent propensity to rationalism. Let the text speak! I say wherever we find these texts they need to be understood in their anthropromorphic sense in relation to the whole counsel of Scripture, not simply to Romans 9. We_ do not_ believe that there is some great contradiction in God's will. God _does not_ desire the salvation of those that are forever lost. However, to leave men without excuse the LORD comes to all hearers with the universal call. Don't confuse me with the Murray/Stonehouse group that say that God desires the salvation of those he has left in their sins. This is the general broad brush that all opponents of the well meant offer are painted with. What I am saying is the language of the Word, and subsequently of Calvin, is that God has a _general love_ for the human race that will _terminate_ on the reprobate. It is a non-calvific love according to the decree that differs from the salvific love for the elect.

This is where I believe you are missing the point. I see here in Calvin a nondiscriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless. 



> You would have a sovereign Lord offer salvation to dead sinners? Can we resist God's will?
> 
> But God does not offer. He proclaims, through the means of the preaching, his free and complete Gospel of salvation to His people. Nothing of us, all of Christ. Because if we had to depend on an offer, we would still be in our sins.



Says you and the PRC. The Word and history say different. This is why the PRC is deemed hyper in so many eyes; a denial of the well meant offer, EVEN, though God has not decreed the salvation to all, _desperately afraid_ of some eternal contradiction in God. The PRC needs to stop looking at everything through the disaffected glasses of the CRC tumult.
Calvin taught the free offer, he taught a general non saving love, so did the Puritans, and the Westminster Divines, and all sound and orthodox Christians.

You err on Turretin like you err on Calvin brother. How much have you read on either I would ask? Here is Turretin on the Offer as well as the will of God, election and reprobation.

"He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, *if it is understood *of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the *will of decree* and yet does not will it; or by the *will of precept* and yet does not will it). But if it refers to *diverse wills*, the reasoning *does not equally hold good*. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, *there is no simulation or hypocrisy here *(as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. *For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do.* It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.

XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come *and to desire it*); another to *will they should not come* (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can *in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety* because the former respects only the *will of precept*, while the latter respects the *will of decree*. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still *they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects.* He does not* seriously call* who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). *For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills).* But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.

XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e.,* commands and desires*) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king *intends or has decreed* that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Luke 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, *but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice*. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.”

Turretin is smack on!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Jerrold, your comments are extremely helpful to me. Have you written any more on this? 

And I think the Marrow Men are also wrongly misread and falsely accused in the above article by Hanko. First of all, one has only to read the book to understand that the accusations of the GA in that time were in the very least misinformed. It's impossible to call that book antinomian when over half the book was an exposition of the 10 commandments. Also, there teaching of the free offer was the same as quoted in Calvin and Turretin above. Even that phrase "Christ is dead for you" is careful explained by Boston in the notes to show that no Amyraldian meaning was intended.


----------



## JOwen

Hello Patrick,

I am planning on critiquing Hoeksema on the Covenant (I'm reading through his Reformed Dogmatics right now), as well as Hanko's treatment of the Marrow Controversy. I would imagine some of this will be ready in the next few months on my blog.
You are bang on when you say that the MM used the language of Calvin. The book(which is heavily criticized by the PRC) is a monument to Biblical Calvinism.

Blessings!


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> Here is Turretin on the Offer as well as the will of God, election and reprobation.
> 
> "He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, *if it is understood *of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the *will of decree* and yet does not will it; or by the *will of precept* and yet does not will it). But if it refers to *diverse wills*, the reasoning *does not equally hold good*. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, *there is no simulation or hypocrisy here *(as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. *For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do.* It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.
> 
> XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come *and to desire it*); another to *will they should not come* (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can *in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety* because the former respects only the *will of precept*, while the latter respects the *will of decree*. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still *they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects.* He does not* seriously call* who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). *For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills).* But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.
> 
> XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e.,* commands and desires*) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king *intends or has decreed* that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Luke 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, *but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice*. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.”
> 
> Turretin is smack on!



Indeed he is but I do not see Turretin teaching the Free Offer in these extracts.


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> I am planning on critiquing Hoeksema on the Covenant



I would be very interested to see what you have to say.


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> Indeed he is but I do not see Turretin teaching the Free Offer in these extracts.



If you agree with Turretin here we have more in common that I thought. Glad to hear it.


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> I would be very interested to see what you have to say.



I'm almost done part one of my critique of Hoeksema on his denial of the Covenant of Works. Should be ready soon[ish].


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> Hello Patrick,
> 
> I am planning on critiquing Hoeksema on the Covenant (I'm reading through his Reformed Dogmatics right now), as well as Hanko's treatment of the Marrow Controversy. I would imagine some of this will be ready in the next few months on my blog.
> You are bang on when you say that the MM used the language of Calvin. The book(which is heavily criticized by the PRC) is a monument to Biblical Calvinism.
> 
> Blessings!



Self laudatory eh?

Look forward to what you have to say.

Perhaps you should give first priority to your defense of your statements against Prof. Hanko's work.

*As I still believe you owe us, on this forum*, an explanation of your comments on Prof. Hanko's work on the History of the offer. And if that is not forthcoming very soon, it is my opinion that you should withdraw your comments until some future date when you can put your money where your mouth is. That would be the Biblical, Christian way.


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> If you agree with Turretin here we have more in common that I thought. Glad to hear it.



As am I  

Out of interest have you read Henry Danhof's pamphlet on the covenant of grace? It can be found that these below:

*1.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr96d.html
*2.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
*3. *http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
*4.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace
*5.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov98.html#...ovenantOfGrace


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Self laudatory eh?
> 
> Look forward to what you have to say.
> 
> Perhaps you should give first priority to your defense of your statements against Prof. Hanko's work.
> 
> *As I still believe you owe us, on this forum*, an explanation of your comments on Prof. Hanko's work on the History of the offer. And if that is not forthcoming very soon, it is my opinion that you should withdraw your comments until some future date when you can put your money where your mouth is. That would be the Biblical, Christian way.




Self praise? I do not understand where I was praising myself Bert. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Perhaps you have a chip over the Calvin debate, I don't know.

Secondly, I don't owe you anything brother. If I say that a critique is forthcoming, be patient and look for it in the future. You have no right to dictate the timing. And it was not a critique of Hanko's History of the Offer, but his portion on the Marrow Men within that work.


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> As am I
> 
> Out of interest have you read Henry Danhof's pamphlet on the covenant of grace? It can be found that these below:
> 
> *1.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr96d.html
> *2.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html
> *3. *http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#IdeaCovenantGrace
> *4.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr98.html#CovenantOfGrace
> *5.* http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov98.html#...ovenantOfGrace



Thank you, I will give it a read.


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> Secondly, I don't owe you anything brother. If I say that a critique is forthcoming, be patient and look for it in the future. You have no right to dictate the timing. And it was not a critique of Hanko's History of the Offer, but his portion on the Marrow Men within that work.




*Pastor Lewis, you owe Prof. Hanko and this forum an apology for your sin of slander, which is a sin against the 9th commandment, for your unsubstantiated allegations.*


----------



## Puritan Sailor

And you need to substantiate your claim of heresy against Erskine, Mr. Mulder. Preferably, I'd like you to evaluate Erskine's statment in light of his whole theology rather than just bits taken out of context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> *Pastor Lewis, you owe Prof. Hanko and this forum an apology for your sin of slander, which is a sin against the 9th commandment, for your unsubstantiated allegations.*



Well here is just a sample to show Hanko's sloppy scholarship.

"There were many in the church that were dissatisfied with this condemnation of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Twelve such men, later called "The Marrow Men," protested this action of the Assembly. These twelve included, among others, such well-known theologians as Thomas Boston, James Hog, Traill, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine."​
Let alone the fact that he could not even spell Hogg correctly, Robert Traill was not a Marrow Man nor was he a member of the Scottish Assembly at that time. Robert Traill, while a great influence on the MM died 17 years before the Marrow Controversy ever came about. The 12 that are spoken about are "James Hogg, James Bathgate, Thomas Boston, John Williamson, John Bonnar, Gabriel Wilson, Ebeneizer Eerskine, Ralph Erskine, James Wardlaw, James Kid, Henry Davidson, James Hunter (The Story of the Scottish Church, 458)."

This is the kind of sloppy scholarship I was talking about Bert. He can't even get his facts correct. This is not to mention the theological error permeated throughout that chapter.
Did I say "Hanko butchered the Marrow Controversy and displayed a great lack of knowledge on the subject of the Free Offer in that piece"? 
Yep. More to come in time...


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> And you need to substantiate your claim of heresy against Erskine, Mr. Mulder. Preferably, I'd like you to evaluate Erskine's statment in light of his whole theology rather than just bits taken out of context.



Believe the sermon I quoted (and linked in its entirity) was by Ebenezer Erskine, who was suspended by the general assembly, the charge being, I believe, heresy. They knew a lot more of his doctrine than me. So my charge is substantiated. I was just stating a historical fact, as much as you might disagree with the decision of the assembly.

Excerpt from wikipedia:


> Some time before this, he, along with some other ministers, had been rebuked and admonished by the general assembly, for defending the doctrines contained in the Marrow of Modern Divinity (Thomas Boston). A sermon which he preached on lay patronage before the synod of Perth in 1733 furnished new accusations, and he was compelled to defend himself from rebuke by appealing to the general assembly. Here, however, the sentence of the synod was confirmed, and after many fruitless attempts to obtain a hearing, he, along with William Wilson of Perth, Alexander Moncrieff of Abernethy and James Fisher of Kinclaven, was suspended from the ministry by the commission in November of that year.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Believe the sermon I quoted (and linked in its entirity) was by Ebenezer Erskine, who was suspended by the general assembly, the charge being, I believe, heresy. They knew a lot more of his doctrine than me. So my charge is substantiated. I was just stating a historical fact, as much as you might disagree with the decision of the assembly.
> 
> Excerpt from wikipedia:



This is amusing. I guess we could say the same thing about Herman Hoeksema. 


Excerpt from Wikipedia:

" In 1924 he refused to accept the three points of common grace, which became official church dogma of the CRC. The result of this controversy was that he and some other ministers with their congregations were put out of the Christian Reformed Church."

Seems Erskine has a friend

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Everyone take a deep breath...........consider the above moderated. 

Carry on.


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> Excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> " In 1924 he refused to accept the three points of common grace, which became official church dogma of the CRC. The result of this controversy was that he and some other ministers with their congregations were put out of the Christian Reformed Church."
> 
> Seems Erskine has a friend




And we are all laughing. We will let history, and the current state of affairs in the Christian Reformed Church judge who was on the right side of that issue. The same Christian Reformed Church that recently decided that the Popish mass is not an accursed idolatry.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> And we are all laughing. We will let history, and the current state of affairs in the Christian Reformed Church judge who was on the right side of that issue. The same Christian Reformed Church that recently decided that the Popish mass is not an accursed idolatry.



Of course the same could be said for the Church of Scotland which Erskine seceded from who now is one of the most liberal denominations on earth. The Secession line however remains faithful to the WCF in denominations like the Free Church Continuing, ans Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. History has spoken for the Marrow men as well.

Anyway, Bert, what do you say about the Hanko quote I put up? Is that not a good start in defending my name in the face of your charge?

Blessings!


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> Anyway, Bert, what do you say about the Hanko quote I put up? Is that not a good start in defending my name in the face of your charge?
> 
> Blessings!



It does not touch the substance of his pamphlet, as you well know.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> It does not touch the substance of his pamphlet, as you well know.



What do you mean? My contention was he misrepresented the history of the Marrow Controversy in sum and substance in that article. Then you decry me a violator of the ninth commandment and subsequently brush of Hanko's historical foibles as inconsequential!? Is that how you argue for the truth Bert?

In Reformed courts, when a Christian brings charges against a brother (say the 9th commandment) who is subsequently vindicated of said charges the accuser is lovingly rebuked for his error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor

We could also add that he only quotes the Marrow twice (that I can see), and ignores Boston's notes on those two passages which explain them, quite extensive notes at that. He quotes alot from people who talk about the Marrow, but not the Marrow itself. If you're going to critique Marrow theology, you have to critique the Marrow of Modern Divinity, not people's opinon of the Marrow.


----------



## turmeric

Here ya go!

I'm just here to help!


----------



## JOwen

turmeric said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> I'm just here to help!



great link!


----------



## BertMulder

Fisher wrote, "God the father, as he is in his Son, Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all ... And hence it was, that Jesus Christ said unto his disciples, Mark xvi.15, 'Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven:' that is, Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall save him." Boston's notes state, "... the deed of gift or grant is to every man. This necessarily supposeth Christ crucified to be the ordinance of God for salvation, to which lost mankind is allowed access. ... Therefore he says not, 'Tell every man Christ died for him;' but, Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to, and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him; there is a crucified Christ for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be saved."

So the Marrowmen are not hypothetical universalists?


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Fisher wrote, "God the father, as he is in his Son, Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all ... And hence it was, that Jesus Christ said unto his disciples, Mark xvi.15, 'Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven:' that is, Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall save him." Boston's notes state, "... the deed of gift or grant is to every man. This necessarily supposeth Christ crucified to be the ordinance of God for salvation, to which lost mankind is allowed access. ... Therefore he says not, 'Tell every man Christ died for him;' but, Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to, and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him; there is a crucified Christ for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be saved."
> 
> So the Marrowmen are not hypothetical universalists?



No more than Calvin. Bert you still do not see that there is a general love and a special love in God. "Christ is dead for you" does not mean "Christ died for you". If you or Hanko would read Boston's note you would see that. "Christ is dead for you", although not the best way of formulating it, means that there is an atoning Saviour for lost sinners (as sinners), any kind of sinner, of any sinful persuasion. 

Ponder for a moment Bert the words of Calvin on the two loves in God.

Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~

The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, *because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. **To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance.* As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces *in fatherly love* none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.

*But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify;* for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — *he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves.* In _this sense,_ under various points of view, *God loved Aristides and Fabricius*, *and also hated them*; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, *he loved his own work in them;* but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? *For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption* (Calvin's Commentary on the harmony of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).


posted by Pastor Lewis @ 8:42 AM​
I see here in Calvin a discriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.

Bert, what will you do with Calvin here?


----------



## BertMulder

Then how can you say that the Word is a two edged sword?

A savour of life to life and a savor of death to dead?


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Then how can you say that the Word is a two edged sword?
> 
> A savour of life to life and a savor of death to dead?



It _is _a two edged sword _and _a savor of death unto death. We are not talking about the salvific activity of the Word of God when we are talking about the _general love of God_. That belongs to His _special revelation_ and the _personal operation_ of the Holy Spirit. The _general love_ of God for his creation does not impinge on His eternal and electing love _or_ His justified eternal damnation.


----------



## BertMulder

now you are mixing apples and oranges.

First of all I excerpted Fisher's statement that "God the father, as he is in his Son, Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all ... And hence it was, that Jesus Christ said unto his disciples, Mark xvi.15, 'Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven:' that is, Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall save him". In other words, Fisher makes the statement that God has a saving love for every sinner.

Then you quote Calvin: "But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. ". In other words, Calvin makes the statement that God has a love for some, which is not a saving love.

Then to my statement illustrating election and reprobation with the Scriptural statement of the two-edged sword, you reply:



> It is a two edged sword and a savor of death unto death. We are not talking about the salvific activity of the Word of God when we are talking about the general love of God. That belongs to His special revelation and the personal operation of the Holy Spirit. The general love of God for his creation does not impinge on His eternal and electing love or His justified eternal damnation.



*Which is something quite different that what Fisher said. Don't you see that????*


----------



## JOwen

It is the difference between the _general_ call and the _effectual _call. The general call of the Gospel, common love, common grace stem from the warrant to believe as mankind lost. Effectual calling however is the Word and Spirit working in the heart of unregenrate to the saving of their souls. There is not apples and orenges in Calvin or the Wrod. Only two kinds or degrees of love.
This is evident as Calvin has explained.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Bert, lets go at this from another angle. Perhaps it will help you better understand Fisher, Boston, and Calvin. A sinner comes to you and says, "What must I do to be saved." What are you going to tell him?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Patrick

After reading through this long thread, that's an excellent question that I am hopeful to see explored!


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> It is the difference between the _general_ call and the _effectual _call. The general call of the Gospel, common love, common grace stem from the warrant to believe as mankind lost. Effectual calling however is the Word and Spirit working in the heart of unregenrate to the saving of their souls.



I must object to this most strongly. The general call is not common love and nor did Calvin teach that:



> The expression of our Savior, “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Mat_22:14), is also very improperly interpreted (see Book 3, chap. 2, sec. 11, 12). There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear, viz., that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, *even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation*.[Institutes, 3, 24, 8]





> As the Lord by the efficacy of his calling accomplishes towards his elect the salvation to which he had by his eternal counsel destined them, so he has judgments against the reprobate, by which he executes his counsel concerning them. Those*, therefore, whom he has created for dishonor during life and destruction at death, that they may be vessels of wrath and examples of severity, in bringing to their doom, he at one time deprives of the means of hearing his word, at another by the preaching of it blinds and stupefies them the more*.[Institutes, 3, 24, 12]





> *Nor can it be questioned, that God sends his word to many whose blindness he is pleased to aggravate. For why does he order so many messages to be taken to Pharaoh? Was it because he hoped that he might be softened by the repetition? Nay, before he began he both knew and had foretold the result: *“The Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he will not let the people go” (Exo_4:21). So when he raises up Ezekiel, he forewarns him, “I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me.” “Be not afraid of their words.” “Thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not” (Eze_2:3, Eze_2:6; Eze_12:2). Thus he foretells to Jeremiah that the effect of his doctrine would be, “to root out, and pull down, and to destroy” (Jer_1:10). But the prophecy of Isaiah presses still more closely; for he is thus commissioned by the Lord, “Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed” (Isa_6:9,Isa_6:10). *Here he directs his voice to them, but it is that they may turn a deafer ear; he kindles a light, but it is that they may become more blind; he produces a doctrine, but it is that they may be more stupid; he employs a remedy, but it is that they may not be cured. And John, referring to this prophecy, declares that the Jews could not believe the doctrine of Christ, because this curse from God lay upon them. It is also incontrovertible, that to those whom God is not pleased to illumine, he delivers his doctrine wrapt up in enigmas, so that they may not profit by it, but be given over to greater blindness.* Hence our Savior declares that the parables in which he had spoken to the multitude he expounded to the Apostles only, “because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Mat_13:11). What, you will ask, does our Lord mean, by teaching those by whom he is careful not to be understood? Consider where the fault lies, and then cease to ask.[Institutes, 3, 24, 13]



Let us look at the Canons:

*Canons I, 3* "And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings, to whom he will and at what time he pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. Romans 10:14, 15:"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?""

*Canons II, 5* "Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel."

*Canons III/IV, 8* "As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him."

I do not find your teaching taught herein.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> A sinner comes to you and says, "What must I do to be saved." What are you going to tell him?




Applogies for butting in but my answer would be "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Applogies for butting in but my answer would be "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).



Very well. And then this sinner says to you, "But I don't know if I'm elect! How can I believe on Jesus without knowing I'm elect?"


----------



## JOwen

AV1611 said:


> I must object to this most strongly. The general call is not common love and nor did Calvin teach that:



I think you would reject anything that does not fit into your Supralapsarian grid my friend. You would reject the general call (Free Offer) and common love.

Read here what Calvin says and let me know what you think.

After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately — as it were — reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. *In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them*. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because *he lays aside for a time *the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they *reject an invitation so kind and gracious* (In other words loving-JL), for it is as if he had said, "_Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined." No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining* the lovely message* of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself_. (Comment on John 12:47) ​
It's here brother that you will probably reject Calvin as an falable teacher, and so he is. But please do read what Calvin says in all his writings before you pontificate what Calvin did or did not teach. I am afraid that many people do not read Calvin for themselves (I trust this is not you), but rather read him through others who have a particular point that would like to make. 

In my own of study on Calvin, I have found him a Infralpasarian, who believed in common grace (yet not in the Kuyperian sense of the term), general love, and the free offer (or serious call) of the gospel. I have yet to see anyone prove this wrong.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Note: The issue that is being debated here is an issue of Hermeneutics. Without understanding, as the Reformers and Puritans did, as well as Augustine, how "love" works in varying senses, one will wind up hypercalvinist or Arminian.

AV1611, I'd have to say with JOwen, that are you aren't familiar with what Calvin taught if you say what you say.


Some thoughts from Calvin:

Concerning God’s love he said, “_Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist innumerable_, all which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come ‘to perdition.’ This fact, however, forms no reason whatever why God should not confine His especial or peculiar love to a few, whom He has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to choose out of the rest!”[1] 

[1] Calvin, _Calvin’s Calvinism_, 268 [emphasis mine].



Calvin said concerning John 3:16, “Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, _because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish_.”[1]

[1] John Calvin, _Calvin’s Commentaries, __vol. 17_, _Harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 1-11 _(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 122-123 [emphasis mine].



“It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term _whosoever,_ _both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers_. Such is also the import of the term _world_, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in_ the world_ that is worthy of the favor of God, _yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world_, _when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life_.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 124- 125.

He confirms the same sentiment in other words, that God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. And for this reason not only is the Gospel spread abroad in the world, but God wished to bear witness through all ages how inclined he is to pity…In the Gospel we hear how familiarly he addresses us when he promises us pardon (Luke 1:78). And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ. It follows, then, that what the Prophet now says is very true, that God wills not the death of a sinner, because he meets him of his own accord, and is not only prepared to receive all who fly to his pity, but he calls them towards him with a loud voice, when he sees how they are alienated from all hope of safety. But the manner must be noticed in which God wishes all to be saved, namely, _when they turn themselves from their ways_. God thus does not so wish all men to be saved as to renounce the difference between good and evil; but repentance, as we have said, must precede pardon. How, then, does God wish all men to be saved? By the Spirit’s condemning the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment at this day, by the Gospel, as he did formerly by the law and the prophets (John 16:8). God makes manifest to mankind their great misery, that they may betake themselves to him: he wounds that he may cure, and slays that he may give life. We hold, then, that _God wills not the death of a sinner, since he calls all equally to repentance, and promises himself prepared to receive them if they only seriously repent_. If any one should object—then there is no election of God, by which he has predestinated a fixed number to salvation, the answer is at hand: the Prophet does not here speak of God’s secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects—this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready, _that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us._ _Although, therefore, God’s will is simple_, _yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish_. While we look now through a glass darkly, we should be content with the measure of our own intelligence (1 Corinthians 13:12). When we shall be like God, and see him face to face, then what is now obscure will then become plain. But since captious men torture this and similar passages, it will be needful to refute them shortly, since it can be done without trouble.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Turretin is on that same page:

He says, “Although the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good. Hence, one is general (by which he follows all creatures, Psalm 36:6-7); and other special (which he has respect to men, Acts 14:17) and another most special (relating to the elect and referred to in Psalm 73:1, “God is good to Israel.”)…From goodness flows love by which he communicates Himself to the creature and, as it were, wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence usually is made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that which follows all creatures, called “love of the creature” (_philoktisia_); the second, that by which He embraces men called “love of man” (_philoanthropia_); third, which is specially exercised towards the elect called “love of the elect” (_eklectophilia_).”[2] 

[2] Turretin, _Institutes,_ vol. 1, 241.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Owen is on the same page:

“For the first of these, although it seems not directly to lie in our way, yet it is suited unto the method of the Gospel, that wherever there is a declaration of the excellencies of Christ, in his person, grace or office, it should be accompanied with an invitation or exhortation unto sinners to come to him. This method he himself first made use of (Matthew 11:27-30; John 7:37-38), and consecrated it unto our use also. Besides, it is necessary from the nature of the things themselves; for who can dwell on the consideration of the glory of Christ, being called therewith to the declaration of it, but his own mind will engage him to invite lost sinners unto a participation of him?”[1] 

[1] Owen, _Works_, vol. 1, 419.

He says, “Hereon consider the infinite condescension and love of Christ, in His invitations and call of you to come unto Him for life, deliverance, mercy, grace, peace, and eternal salvation. Multitudes of these invitations and calls are recorded in the Scripture and they are all of them filed up with those blessed encouragements which divine wisdom knows to be suited unto lost, convinced sinners, in their present state and condition.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 422.

“This I shall only say, that in the declaration and preaching of them, Jesus Christ yet stands before sinners, calling, inviting, encouraging them to come unto him.”[1] 

[1] Ibid.

“Consider, therefore, His infinite condescension, grace, and love herein. Why all this towards you? Doth He stand in need of you? Have you deserved it at his hands? Did you love Him first? Cannot he be happy and blessed without you? Hath he any design upon you, that he is so earnest in calling you unto him? Alas! It is nothing but the overflowing of mercy, compassion, grace, that moves and acts Him herein… Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer here unto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto Him.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 422-423.

“Yet cast in your net this once more, upon the command of Christ—venture this once more to come unto Him on His call and invitations; you know not what success He may give unto you.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 428.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Edwards too:

, “Hence I would take occasion to invite needy, thirsty souls to come to Jesus…Accept the offered love of him who is the only-begotten Son of God, and his elect, in whom his soul delighteth. Through Christ come to God the Father, from whom you have departed from sin. He is the way the truth, and the life; he is the door, by which if any man enters he shall be saved.”[1]

[1] Ibid., 172.

“We should admire the love of Christ to men, that he has thus given himself to the remedy for all their evil, and a fountain of all good. Christ has given himself for us to be all things for us that we need.”[1]

[1] Ibid., 181.


“Pardon is as much _offered and promised _to the greatest sinners as any, if they will come aright to God for mercy. The invitations of the gospel are always in universal terms: as, Ho, every one that thirsteth; Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden; and, Whosoever will, let him come. And the voice of Wisdom is to men in general: Proverbs 8:4, ‘Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.’ Not to moral men, or religious men, but to you, O _men. So _Christ promises, John 6:37, ‘Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.’ This is the direction of Christ to his apostles, after his resurrection, Mark 16:15-16, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.’ Which is agreeable to what the apostle saith, that ‘the gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven,’ Colossians 1:23.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 271-272.

How much Christ appears as the Lamb of God in his invitations to you to come to him and trust in him. With what sweet grace and kindness does he, from time to time, call and invite you, as Proverbs 8:4, “Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.” And Isaiah 55:1-3, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat; yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.” How gracious is he here in inviting everyone that thirsts, and in so repeating his invitation over and over, “Come ye to the waters, come, buy and eat; yea come!” Mark the excellency of that entertainment which he invites you to accept of; “Come, buy wine and milk!” your poverty, having nothing to pay for it, shall be no objection, — “Come, he that hath no money, come without money, and without price!” What gracious arguments and expostulations he uses with you! “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.” As much as to say [that] it is altogether needless for you to continue laboring and toiling for that which can never serve your turn, seeking rest in the world, and in your own righteousness: — I have made abundant provision for you, of that which is really good, and will fully satisfy your desires, and answer your end, and stand ready to accept of you: you need not be afraid. If you will come to me, I will engage to see all your wants supplied, and you made a happy creature. As he promises in the third verse, “Incline your ear, and come unto me: Hear, and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” And so Proverbs 9 at the beginning. How gracious and sweet is the invitation there! “Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither;” let you be never so poor, ignorant, and blind a creature, you shall be welcome. And in the following words, Christ sets forth the provision that he has made for you, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” You are in a poor famishing state, and have nothing wherewith to feed your perishing soul; you have been seeking something, but yet remain destitute. Hearken, how Christ calls you to eat of his bread, and to drink of the wine that he has mingled! And how much like a lamb does Christ appear in Matthew 11:28-30, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” O thou poor distressed soul! whoever thou art, consider that Christ mentions thy very case, when he calls to them who labor and are heavy laden! How he repeatedly promises you rest if you come to him! In the 28th verse he says, “I will give you rest.” And in the 29th verse, “Ye shall find rest to your souls.” This is what you want. This is the thing you have been so long in vain seeking after. O how sweet would rest be to you, if you could but obtain it! Come to Christ, and you shall obtain it. And hear how Christ, to encourage you, represents himself as a lamb! He tells you, that he is meek and lowly in heart, and are you afraid to come to such a one! And again, Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and I will sup with him and he with me.” Christ condescends not only to call you to him, but he comes to you. He comes to your door, and there knocks. He might send an officer and seize you as a rebel and vile malefactor, but instead of that, he comes and knocks at your door, and seeks that you would receive him into your house, as your Friend and Savior. And he not only knocks at your door, but he stands there waiting, while you are backward and unwilling. And not only so, but he makes promises what he will do for you, if you will admit him, what privileges he will admit you to; he will sup with you, and you with him. And again, Revelation 22:16, 17, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth, say, come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” How does Christ here graciously set before you his own winning attractive excellency! And how does he condescend to declare to you not only his own invitation, but the invitation of the Spirit and the bride, if by any means he might encourage you to come! And how does he invite everyone that will, that they may “take of the water of life freely,” that they may take it as a free gift, however precious it be, and though it be the water of life…Would you choose for a friend a person of great dignity? It is a thing taking with men to have those for their friends who are much above them, because they look upon themselves honored by the friendship of such. Thus, how taking would it be with an inferior maid to be the object of the dear love of some great and excellent prince. But Christ is infinitely above you, and above all the princes of the earth, for he is the King of kings. So honorable a person as this offers himself to you, in the nearest and dearest friendship.[1] 

[1] Edwards, _Works_, vol. 1, 687.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

William Greenhill too:

“Objection, but surely these invitations are in vain if a man cannot come when he is invited. To what end are they? Answer: The sun shines upon the rock, and the rain falls upon the rock, yet no man expects that the sun should melt the rocks or the rain should make the rocks fruitful. But the adjacent parts and fields have the benefit; and so, though invitations fall upon rocks, yet other persons may have the benefit.”[1] 

[1] William Greenhill, _Christ’s Last Disclosure of Himself_ (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999), 129-130.


“Doctrine: The Lord Christ is very desirous that sinners, thirsty sinners, should come to Him for relief, that they should be saved, that they should have refreshing virtue from Him-grace, pardon, peace, and whatsoever will do their souls good. ‘Let him that is athirst come’ (Revelation 22:17).”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 130.


. “Are you a poor, thirsty, sinful soul? Are you lost in your own apprehension? Are you at the gates of death and hell? The Lord Christ came to save you, to seek you out. He is willing, forward and ready to do it. He came for that very end.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 133.


“Is not Christ willing and ready to do good to sinners? He does not forbid them to come to Him, let the disease be what it will, and the diseased party be what he will.”[1] 

[1] Ibid.


. “And so when God the Father and Christ the Son command us to believe, they are very willing that we should do so. When princes send out their commands to the people to do such and such things, they are very desirous that they should be done. So when God gives out His commands in the gospel, and when Christ commands men in the gospel to come, it is an argument that there is a strong will in Him for it to happen.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 135.


“He sends out His servants. He sends out ministers to invite and call men saying, ‘The Supper is ready; all things are ready.’”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 138.


“He commands us to teach all nations and to acquaint men with the riches of grace by Christ, with the wonderful love and kindness of God in Christ, and what’s to be had in Christ, so that people might come to Him and have mercy and relief from Him.”[1] 

[1] Ibid.


“The willingness of the Lord Christ to do sinners good appears in that He does not shut up this water of life, though He knows that but few will come to Him for it, and that those who do come to Him often abase it and Him too.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 141.


“It is wonderfully perspicuous and clear that Christ would do sinners good in that He presses them with the strongest arguments there can be to partake of the good that is to be had by Himself.”[1] 

[1] Ibid., 142.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Can I take a moment and give a plug for a book that would clear this up readily?







*The Two Wills of God *
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon 
*Description:* THROUGH THE CENTURIES, hard questions have been deliberated concerning God’s will. Understanding God’s will and how it theologically functions in relationship to man’s salvation can be a daunting task. Answering some of those questions from the Scriptures brings clarity and helps us understand the glorious God that we serve. Have you ever wondered: Does God love only the elect? If God does not desire the wicked to perish, is God’s will frustrated when the sinner goes his own way? Why is God is seen as “repenting,” or “sad,” and even “changing His mind”?! What is “common grace,” and is it really found in the Bible? Does God desire things He does not decree, and does He decree things He does not desire? How many wills does God have? This book is an attempt to give the Christian the proper hermeneutical tools to define “God’s will” and how that will works in and through redemptive history. 

*Printed: *550 pages, Paperback, perfect-bound.

*Purchase:* *Click Here to Purchase* ​


----------



## Arch2k

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Can I take a moment and give a plug for a book that would clear this up readily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Two Wills of God *
> by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> 
> *Description:* THROUGH THE CENTURIES, hard questions have been deliberated concerning God’s will. Understanding God’s will and how it theologically functions in relationship to man’s salvation can be a daunting task. Answering some of those questions from the Scriptures brings clarity and helps us understand the glorious God that we serve. Have you ever wondered: Does God love only the elect? If God does not desire the wicked to perish, is God’s will frustrated when the sinner goes his own way? Why is God is seen as “repenting,” or “sad,” and even “changing His mind”?! What is “common grace,” and is it really found in the Bible? Does God desire things He does not decree, and does He decree things He does not desire? How many wills does God have? This book is an attempt to give the Christian the proper hermeneutical tools to define “God’s will” and how that will works in and through redemptive history.​
> 
> *Printed: *550 pages, Paperback, perfect-bound.​
> *Purchase:* *Click Here to Purchase*​


 
 Get it. Read it.


----------



## turmeric

Thanks, Matt!


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> Very well. And then this sinner says to you, "But I don't know if I'm elect! How can I believe on Jesus without knowing I'm elect?"



Then I would ask him where he heard such nonsense!


----------



## ReformedWretch

If someone wants to know if they are "saved" I would point them to first John. Better yet, I would set a time to go over that book with them!


----------



## AV1611

JOwen said:


> You would reject the general call (Free Offer) and common love.



I believe in the general call but object to the term Free Offer. 



JOwen said:


> Read here what Calvin says and let me know what you think.
> 
> After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately — as it were — reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. *In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them*. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because *he lays aside for a time *the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they *reject an invitation so kind and gracious*, for it is as if he had said, "_Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined." No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining* the lovely message* of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself_. (Comment on John 12:47) ​



I have no objection whatsoever with what Calvin here says. I would also ask him to clarify what he meant by saying "an invitation so kind and gracious". Gracious to whom? How does he reconcile that with what he taught in his _Institutes_ Book 3, Chapter 24.



JOwen said:


> But please do read what Calvin says in all his writings before you pontificate what Calvin did or did not teach.



Should we give as much weight to young Calvin as old Calvin? Should we place more weight upon a commentary or his systematic theology? I have provided evidence that Calvin did not believe that the gospel call was loving to the reprobate. Your response is to quote Calvin from elsewhere not to deal with the quotes I provided. 

I would remind you brother that Calvin loved the grace of God and I say at times when I have mediated upon the gospel that it is loving and gracious yet you would be wrong to use my expression to teach what you want me to mean...in the same way, we must be careful not to read our current debate back into Calvin.


----------



## AV1611

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Isaiah 55:1-3, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat; yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.” How gracious is he here in inviting everyone that thirsts, and in so repeating his invitation over and over, “Come ye to the waters, come, buy and eat; yea come!”



Who is God inviting? He is "inviting everyone that thirsts". *Question: do all thirst?*


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”



Who is Christ bidding? Christ bids "all ye that labor and are heavy laden". *Question: are all heavy laden?*


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Question: do all thirst?



Would this coorolate with the beattitude 

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

If so, I would say that not all do, no.


----------



## Arch2k

AV1611 said:


> Who is God inviting? He is "inviting everyone that thirsts". *Question: do all thirst?*
> 
> 
> Who is Christ bidding? Christ bids "all ye that labor and are heavy laden". *Question: are all heavy laden?*


 
These questions are resorting back to the invisible/inward. The invitation is connected with the outward call. The "thirsting" is the work of the Holy Spirit granting one the ability to accept the invitation. There is a difference.

Question: Would you judge if someone truely is thirsting or heavy laden before extending the outward gospel call? If so, how would you go about judging this?

Another Question: Are all who are thirsty and heavy laden elect? If not, does the invitation as you see it apply to the unelect thristy and heavy laden people?


----------



## AV1611

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Question: Would you judge if someone truely is thirsting or heavy laden before extending the outward gospel call?



No because the external call is general.



> Another Question: Are all who are thirsty and heavy laden elect?



Yes.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Then I would ask him where he heard such nonsense!



This is what you hear from convicted sinners in Hypercalvinist churches who don't believe in a free offer. And you still didn't answer the question. This seeking sinner has been sitting under preaching that says only the elect will be saved by Christ. He is waiting for you to clarify why his question is nonsense. How can he believe on Christ as his Savior without the assurance that he is elect?


----------



## Scott Bushey

AV1611 said:


> No because the external call is general.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.



In what way is the EC 'general'?


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> This is what you hear from convicted sinners in Hypercalvinist churches who don't believe in a free offer.



Have you first hand experience of this? I know a few ex-Gospel Standard folks.




Puritan Sailor said:


> He is waiting for you to clarify why his question is nonsense. How can he believe on Christ as his Savior without the assurance that he is elect?



It is nonsense because it is not true, it is nowhere in Scripture. Such people would need a careful listener not a militant anti-(hyper)Calvinist ranter.


----------



## AV1611

Scott Bushey said:


> In what way is the EC 'general'?



*Canons I, 3* "And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings, to whom he will and at what time he pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. Romans 10:14, 15:"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?""

*Canons II, 5* "Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel."

*Canons III/IV, 8* "As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him."


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Have you first hand experience of this? I know a few ex-Gospel Standard folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is nonsense because it is not true, it is nowhere in Scripture. Such people would need a careful listener not a militant anti-(hyper)Calvinist ranter.



Yes I know people who struggled with this, from Dutch circles. And yes I would agree its nonsense. But why? You still haven't answered the question. The frustated seeker is still waiting for you to tell him the answer now that you have called his concern nonsense and unbiblical. How can he believe on Christ as HIS Savior without assurance of election?


----------



## Scott Bushey

AV1611 said:


> *Canons I, 3* "And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings, to whom he will and at what time he pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. Romans 10:14, 15:"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?""
> 
> *Canons II, 5* "Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel."
> 
> *Canons III/IV, 8* "As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him."



The above does not discriminate. The secret things of God are God's.........

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,[17] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]

15. Matt. 13:14-15; 22:14; Acts 13:48; 28:24
16. Matt. 7:22; 13:20, 21; Heb. 6:4-5
17. John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12
18. Acts 4:12; I John 4:2-3; II John 1:9; John 4:22; 14:6; 17:3; Eph. 2:12-13; Rom. 10:13-17
19. II John 1:9-12; I Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:6-8

Outward call -vs- inward.


----------



## AV1611

Scott Bushey said:


> The above does not discriminate.



You wanted me to post why the external call is general i.e. the gospel is preached to all. I take it by the comment above you agree with me.



> Yes I know people who struggled with this, from Dutch circles. And yes I would agree its nonsense. But why? You still haven't answered the question. The frustated seeker is still waiting for you to tell him the answer now that you have called his concern nonsense and unbiblical. How can he believe on Christ as HIS Savior without assurance of election?



Because the assurance of our election is not a precondition of our believing but rather our believeing makes manifest our election (if it is persevering).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Because the assurance of our election is not a precondition of our believing but rather our believeing makes manifest our election (if it is persevering).




Very true. But that still doesn't help this seeker out. What grounds does he have go to Christ, the Savior of the elect, and call upon Him to be HIS Savior if he doesn't need assurance of election? How can he know that Christ will receive him? Christ only loves and receives the elect, correct? If it's not on the grounds of knowing he is elect, then on what grounds can he come to Christ for salvation?


----------



## JOwen

Puritan Sailor said:


> Very true. But that still doesn't help this seeker out. What grounds does he have go to Christ, the Savior of the elect, and call upon Him to be HIS Savior if he doesn't need assurance of election? How can he know that Christ will receive him? Christ only loves and receives the elect, correct? If it's not on the grounds of knowing he is elect, then on what grounds can he come to Christ for salvation?



This is a good point to ponder brother. The grounds are the promises, or as the Marrow would say the "that Jesus Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto all mankind lost". Find out what was meant by this and yo have found the gospel offer.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> What grounds does he have go to Christ, the Savior of the elect, and call upon Him to be HIS Savior if he doesn't need assurance of election? How can he know that Christ will receive him? Christ only loves and receives the elect, correct? If it's not on the grounds of knowing he is elect, then on what grounds can he come to Christ for salvation?



If he goes to Christ then Christ will receive him:

*John 4:14* "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

*Rev 22:17* "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

*John 6:37* "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Is he weary, heavy laden? Then "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." *Matthew 11:28*


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> If he goes to Christ then Christ will receive him:
> 
> *John 4:14* "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
> 
> *Rev 22:17* "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
> 
> *John 6:37* "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
> 
> Is he weary, heavy laden? Then "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." *Matthew 11:28*




Ah. So Christ has issued an invitation to him. Would you agree?


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> Ah. So Christ has issued an invitation to him. Would you agree?




Absolutely!

*Matthew 22:1-14* "And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen."


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> This is a good point to ponder brother. The grounds are the promises, or as the Marrow would say the "that Jesus Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto *all* mankind lost". Find out what was meant by this and yo have found the gospel offer.




So, pastor Lewis, you would say God saves everyone?


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> So, pastor Lewis, you would say God saves everyone?



No. Neither did Calvin or the MM. Read Boston's note _along with the MMD_ and then see what you make of the phrase. Far too many critics of the MM have never read _but scattered quotes of the book_, and therefor are not good judges of the conclusion. It is one of those works that if you do not read it all you will leave confused. This is because it was fighting against a certian kind of neonominaism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> *Matthew 22:1-14* "And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen."



So you would agree then that this invitation is made to all regardless of their status as elect or reprobate?


----------



## BertMulder

Originally Posted by JOwen 
This is a good point to ponder brother. The grounds are the promises, or as the Marrow would say the "that Jesus Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto all mankind lost". Find out what was meant by this and yo have found the gospel offer. 

So, pastor Lewis, you would say God saves everyone?



JOwen said:


> No. Neither did Calvin or the MM. Read Boston's note _along with the MMD_ and then see what you make of the phrase. Far too many critics of the MM have never read _but scattered quotes of the book_, and therefor are not good judges of the conclusion. It is one of those works that if you do not read it all you will leave confused. This is because it was fighting against a certian kind of neonominaism.



OK, let's take this one step at a time, as I am only a pretend theologian, not a minister of the Gospel. Pretend I am sitting in your catechism class

And we will leave Calvin out of this, since in Calvin's day there was no doctrinal issue of the welmeant offer of grace considered. So let us not put words in his mouth.

Just trying to follow your train of thought. So far we have concluded that you say that Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto *all *mankind lost, yet you say that God does not save everyone. So you must be saying God's grace is resistible, as you say that God desires everyone's salvation, but not everyone is saved. Do I follow you correctly so far?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

BertMulder said:


> So, pastor Lewis, you would say God saves everyone?



I would encourage you to read them in context brother. No one is saying God saves everyone. So I encourage you to stop using that straw man and perhaps try to understand these ministers in their context. You may find more in common with these brothers in Christ than you realize. 

By gift or grant, Boston (and Fisher) are refering to the public invitation for sinners to come to the only Savior. Read Boston's notes here in the Marrow. He explains this from the picture Jesus uses of himself in John 3:14-15, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Jesus has been given by the Father to lost mankind (the 'world' in John 3:16) as the only object of saving faith, the only remedy for sin. This wasn't a secret gift but a public gift (like the serpent) for all mankind to see, hear, and respond. There is no other Savior. All men need a Savior if they would have life, whether they be elect or reprobate. God has only provided one. This is what the Marrow Men meant by gift or grant to lost mankind. 

This is what they meant by "Christ is dead for you." It was not an Amyraldian view of atonement. They simply argued that Jesus Christ has been crucified for sinners and appeased the wrath of God. You would agree correct? If you wish to flee the wrath to come then you must flee to Him. Correct? There is no where else to go. Right? There can only be free and full forgiveness by coming to Christ, correct? This truth of man's sinful condition and need is universal, correct? I trust you still believe in total depravity? Regardless of election, the solution to that universal need can only be found in coming to Christ. Correct? And in lifting Christ up before "whoever," God is making a public invitation for needy sinners to either receive or reject. This is what we mean by free offer. Who the elect and reprobate are is not our concern. The secret things belong to the Lord. The Spirit will cause the elect to respond to the offer. But we must still make the offer to all who have need of the Savior, which is everyone.

If a sinner comes to you and says "What must I to be saved?" Then I imagine you are not going to request he show you his elect membership card before you show him the way. Instead you would point him to Christ and say (with AV1611 above) "Believe on Jesus! He's is the only Savior for lost sinners." And if that is how you would respond, then welcome to the free offer! You believe it whether you like the terminology or not.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Just trying to follow your train of thought. So far we have concluded that you say that Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto *all *mankind lost, yet you say that God does not save everyone. So you must be saying God's grace is resistible, as you say that God desires everyone's salvation, but not everyone is saved. Do I follow you correctly so far?



Not at all brother. The grace of God is irresistible. Also I never EVER said that God desires the salvation of everyone. Read Boston Bert, along with the Marrow of Modern Divinity.
They we will talk again.

Blessings.


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> This is what they meant by "Christ is dead for you." It was not an Amyraldian view of atonement. They simply argued that Jesus Christ has been crucified for sinners and appeased the wrath of God. You would agree correct? If you wish to flee the wrath to come then you must flee to Him. Correct? There is no where else to go. Right? There can only be free and full forgiveness by coming to Christ, correct? This truth of man's sinful condition and need is universal, correct? I trust you still believe in total depravity? Regardless of election, the solution to that universal need can only be found in coming to Christ. Correct? And in lifting Christ up before "whoever," God is making a public invitation for needy sinners to either receive or reject. This is what we mean by free offer. Who the elect and reprobate are is not our concern. The secret things belong to the Lord. The Spirit will cause the elect to respond to the offer. But we must still make the offer to all who have need of the Savior, which is everyone.
> 
> If a sinner comes to you and says "What must I to be saved?" Then I imagine you are not going to request he show you his elect membership card before you show him the way. Instead you would point him to Christ and say (with AV1611 above) "Believe on Jesus! He's is the only Savior for lost sinners." And if that is how you would respond, then welcome to the free offer! You believe it whether you like the terminology or not.



And the reason I don't like the word offer, is as you yourself say, we are, by nature, totally depraved and, without the quickening of the Spirit, are dead and cannot accept any offer. Man, in the natural state, does not want anything to do with Christ.

By the way, minimizing election and reprobation is a classic arminian tactic. Do not recommend you to use that. The apostle Paul, for instance, spend a lot of time on election. And he never said for us not to be concerned with election.


----------



## BertMulder

BertMulder said:


> Originally Posted by JOwen
> This is a good point to ponder brother. The grounds are the promises, or as the Marrow would say the "that Jesus Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto all mankind lost". Find out what was meant by this and yo have found the gospel offer.
> 
> So, pastor Lewis, you would say God saves everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's take this one step at a time, as I am only a pretend theologian, not a minister of the Gospel. Pretend I am sitting in your catechism class
> 
> And we will leave Calvin out of this, since in Calvin's day there was no doctrinal issue of the welmeant offer of grace considered. So let us not put words in his mouth.
> 
> Just trying to follow your train of thought. So far we have concluded that you say that Christ is the Father's deed of gift and grant unto *all *mankind lost, yet you say that God does not save everyone. So you must be saying God's grace is resistible, as you say that God desires everyone's salvation, but not everyone is saved. Do I follow you correctly so far?





> Not at all brother. The grace of God is irresistible. Also I never EVER said that God desires the salvation of everyone. Read Boston Bert, along with the Marrow of Modern Divinity.
> They we will talk again.



ok, so you believe that grace is irresistible. So do I. And you believe in limited atonement. So do I. 

But this does not follow. We cannot resist grace. So if grace is offered to us all, that would mean we are all saved, no?


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> ok, so you believe that grace is irresistible. So do I. And you believe in limited atonement. So do I.
> 
> But this does not follow. We cannot resist grace. So if grace is offered to us all, that would mean we are all saved, no?



Did I say that _grace _was offered? I don't think I have ever used those words. I think I see now where you are misunderstanding me. Having looked over your previous posts in some detail I find you repeatedly insist that the free offer of the Gospel is the _offer of grace_. This is not so. We proclaim and offer the Gospel to all and sundry, but _grace is given_ only to the elect. The Free Offer is to man as sinner, but grace, being irresistible is a work of the Holy Spirit inwardly and savingly.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

BertMulder said:


> And the reason I don't like the word offer, is as you yourself say, we are, by nature, totally depraved and, without the quickening of the Spirit, are dead and cannot accept any offer. Man, in the natural state, does not want anything to do with Christ.


But this doesn't stop God from offering. It is through the offer that He effectually calls the elect. You shouldn't be paranoid about being arminian because of the language. Jesus is lifted up before all to be the object of salvation for siners. What is arminian about that? I would suggest you look for actual arminian substance in the Marrow men, not arminian sounding phrases. The Arminians hijacked our Reformed language. I will not flee from it but take it back for Christ. 



> By the way, minimizing election and reprobation is a classic arminian tactic. Do not recommend you to use that. The apostle Paul, for instance, spend a lot of time on election. And he never said for us not to be concerned with election.



I can downplay election in the offer because Jesus and Paul do. That does not mean I don't hold to it ro don't teach it. I defend it because they defend it. The offer of salvation is based upon God's invitation and man's need. It means that when I tell people to go to Christ they are to go to him because Christ invites them, not because they can know they are elect or not. If I am preaching and offering Christ the way Christ himself does and the apostles after him, then I have no fear of being Arminian, and neither should you.


----------



## BertMulder

JOwen said:


> Did I say that _grace _was offered? I don't think I have ever used those words. I think I see now where you are misunderstanding me. Having looked over your previous posts in some detail I find you repeatedly insist that the free offer of the Gospel is the _offer of grace_. This is not so. We proclaim and offer the Gospel to all and sundry, but _grace is given_ only to the elect. The Free Offer is to man as sinner, but grace, being irresistible is a work of the Holy Spirit inwardly and savingly.



Glad we get that straight! Thus to sum up:

When you of your pulpit proclaim the Gospel, you are not making a welmeant offer of grace to every hearer.

The call of the Gospel, to everyone without exception, is to repent and believe. But the call of the Gospel, from what you say above here, is an outward calling, not the efficacious internal calling of the Spirit in our heart. 

This is just what we believe. So how does your church differ from our church?


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> But this doesn't stop God from offering. It is through the offer that He effectually calls the elect. You shouldn't be paranoid about being arminian because of the language. Jesus is lifted up before all to be the object of salvation for siners. What is arminian about that? I would suggest you look for actual arminian substance in the Marrow men, not arminian sounding phrases. The Arminians hijacked our Reformed language. I will not flee from it but take it back for Christ.
> 
> I can downplay election in the offer because Jesus and Paul do. That does not mean I don't hold to it ro don't teach it. I defend it because they defend it. The offer of salvation is based upon God's invitation and man's need. It means that when I tell people to go to Christ they are to go to him because Christ invites them, not because they can know they are elect or not. If I am preaching and offering Christ the way Christ himself does and the apostles after him, then I have no fear of being Arminian, and neither should you.



Whoa there Sailor! So pretend I am a seeker on your ship. You have been teaching me all about total depravity. So I understand I am a dead sinner. Now you tell me that Christ is dead for me, and offers me His grace.

Then I come to you with the question: That is fine and dandy that Christ is offering me His grace, but how do I appropriate it, since I am a dead sinner, and cannot add even a sigh to my salvation?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

BertMulder said:


> Whoa there Sailor! So pretend I am a seeker on your ship. You have been teaching me all about total depravity. So I understand I am a dead sinner. Now you tell me that Christ is dead for me, and offers me His grace.
> 
> Then I come to you with the question: That is fine and dandy that Christ is offering me His grace, but how do I appropriate it, since I am a dead sinner, and cannot add even a sigh to my salvation?



You appropriate it by faith. You must believe on Christ and trust Him alone to save you. None who go to him will be cast out. You can trust His promise to receive you or you can call God a liar and deny that Christ can save you. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> You appropriate it by faith. You must believe on Christ and trust Him alone to save you. None who go to him will be cast out. You can trust His promise to receive you or you can call God a liar and deny that Christ can save you. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.



"But you just taught me I am a dead sinner. How can a dead sinner believe. I don't have faith, and so I cannot come to Christ in faith"


----------



## Puritan Sailor

No you can't. But you must believe. You have no where else to go so go to Him. Call upon the name of the Lord and you shall be saved. His Spirit can enable you to believe. Cast yourself before him and cry out for that saving faith which only he can grant. Plead to God for mercy and cry out to the only Savior whom God has provided you. And understand that when such faith is granted to you, rejoice that such is the sovereign work of the Spirit and not yourself and that Christ has received you just as He promised.


----------



## satz

Patrick and Bert, 

Forgive my intrusion, but these are some thoughts I had while reading this thread.

The gospel says that all who come to Christ by faith will be saved.

The gospel says only the elect whom God chose in Christ will be saved.

The gospel says that only the elect will come to Christ by faith.

So when a preacher presents the gospel and calls upon men to come to Christ, though the external call goes out to everyone, internally the call is only for the elect, as only the elect would every answer the call in a meaningful way. So when a preacher calls for men to repent and trust the gospel, he is by necessity calling only those regenerate elect persons in the audience. Anyone else would never answer the call and would gain no benefit from the call.

However, it is still true that all who come to Christ will be saved, for only the elect who have been born again by the Spirit will come to Christ. It seems to me, though, that the apostles when performing _initial_ conversions, did not worry too much about telling men they were spiritually dead and unable to understand the gospel without regeneration. What was important to them was that men recognised their sin and their need for a savior. When dealing with unbelievers in need of initial gospel conversion, the apostles seemed quite happy to simply present the gospel as 'Believe on Christ and you will be saved'. They would not, I am sure, have shyed away from teaching about election, but understanding the mechanics of how total depravity relates to regeneration and the ability to understand the gospel is not necessary for initial conversion. I believe making certain of your election comes after that, as per 2 Peter 1 which tells believers to add certain things to their faith in order to make their calling and election sure.


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> No you can't. But you must believe. You have no where else to go so go to Him. Call upon the name of the Lord and you shall be saved. His Spirit can enable you to believe. Cast yourself before him and cry out for that saving faith which only he can grant. Plead to God for mercy and cry out to the only Savior whom God has provided you. And understand that when such faith is granted to you, rejoice that such is the sovereign work of the Spirit and not yourself and that Christ has received you just as He promised.




"Just as I thought. So Christ is not offered. You are contradicting yourself. As you say, I need His Spirit to work faith in me."

So you can keep your worthless offer. Instead I will rely on the free grace that God will work in my heart, through the preaching of the Gospel. As our Canons so beautifully teach us:



> Article 8. As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him.
> 
> Article 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the word, refuse to come, and be converted: the fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the word by perplexing cares, and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. - This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower. Matthew 13.
> 
> Article 10. But that others who are called by the gospel, obey the call, and are converted, is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others, equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversions, as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains; but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who as he has chosen his own from eternity in Christ, so he confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of his own Son, that they may show forth the praises of him, who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light; and may glory not in themselves, but in the Lord according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.
> 
> Article 11. But when God accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, he not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illumines their minds by his Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pervades the inmost recesses of the man; he opens the closed, and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised, infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, he quickens; from being evil, disobedient and refractory, he renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.
> 
> Article 12. And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture, and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. - Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received.
> 
> Article 13. The manner of this operation cannot be fully comprehended by believers in this life. Notwithstanding which, they rest satisfied with knowing and experiencing, that by this grace of God they are enabled to believe with the heart, and love their Savior.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

BertMulder said:


> "Just as I thought. So Christ is not offered. You are contradicting yourself. As you say, I need His Spirit to work faith in me."
> 
> So you can keep your worthless offer. Instead I will rely on the free grace that God will work in my heart, through the preaching of the Gospel. As our Canons so beautifully teach us:



I have no clue what you are objecting to. I completely agree with teh articels quoted and so would the Marrow men. What I said is sharing the gospel in practical daily terms. How would you respond to the same question? 

Just as Lazuras could not rise without Jesus giving him power to respond to his command, so the imperative to believe goes forth from the preachers of Christ and Jesus enables them to respond. Its really quite simple. We proclaim the good news and demand a response from men, and Jesus enables response. I think you are just picking a fight because you don't want to admit that perhaps your understanding of the Marrow men is wrong.


----------



## JOwen

BertMulder said:


> Glad we get that straight! Thus to sum up:
> 
> When you of your pulpit proclaim the Gospel, you are not making a welmeant offer of grace to every hearer.
> 
> The call of the Gospel, to everyone without exception, is to repent and believe. But the call of the Gospel, from what you say above here, is an outward calling, not the efficacious internal calling of the Spirit in our heart.
> 
> This is just what we believe. So how does your church differ from our church?



To sum us: When I preach the fullness of Christ from the pulpit, I preach the free offer of salvation to all sinners as sinners. A rich Christ for poor sinners. If you can live with that, you have no problem with the Marrow Men, or me. 

The difference, I believe between your Church and mine is we preach the free offer, general call, the well meant offer (whatever name you wish to give it), and the PRC does couches its presentation within election.

Here are a few other differences:
We believe in the Covenant of Works
We believe in an internal and external Covenant of Grace.
We do not believe in the eternal justification of the elect, but the elect are under eternal wrath until the time of conversion.
We believe in Common Love (general benevolence, general love etc).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

satz said:


> However, it is still true that all who come to Christ will be saved, for only the elect who have been born again by the Spirit will come to Christ. It seems to me, though, that the apostles when performing _initial_ conversions, did not worry too much about telling men they were spiritually dead and unable to understand the gospel without regeneration. What was important to them was that men recognised their sin and their need for a savior. When dealing with unbelievers in need of initial gospel conversion, the apostles seemed quite happy to simply present the gospel as 'Believe on Christ and you will be saved'. They would not, I am sure, have shyed away from teaching about election, but understanding the mechanics of how total depravity relates to regeneration and the ability to understand the gospel is not necessary for initial conversion. I believe making certain of your election comes after that, as per 2 Peter 1 which tells believers to add certain things to their faith in order to make their calling and election sure.



Exactly. We don't convert anyone. We are only messengers making Christ known. God converts sinners and enables the response. If someone objects that they are unable, I can only respond that there is only One who can make you able, you must go to Him. And he has given a promise that he will receive you if you come. If they still complain then they are just fishing for an excuse not to believe the promises of God and must be left to wallow in the slough of despond a little longer until God brings them to conversion.


----------



## turmeric

But why did you not look for the Steps?


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> So you would agree then that this invitation is made to all regardless of their status as elect or reprobate?



*A. *The invitation is proclaimed to all. (all hear it)
*B.* The invitation is however directed to the elect.(the elect respond)


----------



## AV1611

satz said:


> Patrick and Bert,
> 
> Forgive my intrusion, but these are some thoughts I had while reading this thread.
> 
> The gospel says that all who come to Christ by faith will be saved.
> 
> The gospel says only the elect whom God chose in Christ will be saved.
> 
> The gospel says that only the elect will come to Christ by faith.
> 
> So when a preacher presents the gospel and calls upon men to come to Christ, though the external call goes out to everyone, internally the call is only for the elect, as only the elect would every answer the call in a meaningful way. So when a preacher calls for men to repent and trust the gospel, he is by necessity calling only those regenerate elect persons in the audience. Anyone else would never answer the call and would gain no benefit from the call.


----------



## Scott Bushey

AV1611 said:


> *A. *The invitation is proclaimed to all. (all hear it)
> *B.* The invitation is however directed to the elect.(the elect respond)



Directed or efficacious?

There are two types of call; the inward and the outward. The outward is to everyone and efficacious to no one unless accompanied by the inward. The inward is only efficacious to the elect.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> *A. *The invitation is proclaimed to all. (all hear it)
> *B.* The invitation is however directed to the elect.(the elect respond)



How do you direct the invitation to the elect and all at the same time? Do you mean it is effectual to only the elect? I'm just curious how you see this working in every day life.


----------



## BertMulder

AV1611 said:


>


----------



## BertMulder

Scott Bushey said:


> Directed or efficacious?
> 
> There are two types of call; the inward and the outward. The outward is to everyone and efficacious to no one unless accompanied by the inward. The inward is only efficacious to the elect.


----------



## BertMulder

Puritan Sailor said:


> How do you direct the invitation to the elect and all at the same time? Do you mean it is effectual to only the elect? I'm just curious how you see this working in every day life.



the Gospel is a two edged sword. As the Scripture teaches, a savour of life to life, and a savour of death to death.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> How do you direct the invitation to the elect and all at the same time? Do you mean it is effectual to only the elect? I'm just curious how you see this working in every day life.





> Directed or efficacious?
> 
> There are two types of call; the inward and the outward. The outward is to everyone and efficacious to no one unless accompanied by the inward. The inward is only efficacious to the elect.



Patrick and Scott,

*1.* Matthew 11:28 "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." In this verse the call of Christ is to "all ye that labour and are heavy laden" and it is to them the promise of rest is made. The promise is for the elect, however the call is heard by both reprobate and elect. So the call of "Come unto me" is heard by all (is general) but is directed unto the "all ye that labour and are heavy laden". The promise of rest is then directed towards the elect alone although here we find God making known what is "pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him."

*2.* God's promise, whilst made know to all, is only for the elect: So Canons II, 5 states "Moreover, *the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life*. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel."

*3.* I find Canons III/IV, 8 most helpful:

"As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him."

In the preaching of the gospel God makes known to all his will of command i.e. "that those who are called should come to him." Further, the promise of God is to the elect only, hence the Article continues saying that God "seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him."

Hope this clears things up.

Try reading this.


----------

