# Is The Gospel Offer to the Reprobate A "Sincere" Invitation?



## heartoflesh (Oct 25, 2005)

It's not that I doubt it isn't, I'm just trying to work through this. I was reading this guy's blog and he raises some interesting points-- to my mind anyway. I want to make sure I get this right. I don't want to be called a hypercalvinist either, so I'd like to know: Is the gospel offer to the reprobate "sincere", or isn't it?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 25, 2005)

See
Murray on the Free Offer, A Review, by Matthew Winzer
&
The Gospel and the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892,  James Sinclair
&
Rutherfurd on Gospel Faith, by Richard Bacon


----------



## Saiph (Oct 25, 2005)

Chris,

Some of our silent readers might not have time right now to go read those links. Could you put it in a nutshell for us ?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Oct 25, 2005)

It seems as though the offer is "sincere", as much as anything can be "sincere" in a world controlled by God's providence. It certainly seems "sincere" from our perspective here on Earth, because we do not know who is and who is not elect, and its not for us TO know. I know that still leaves a little bit lacking...

But on God's side, can we still say the offer is "sincere"? Again, would it not take the question back to the whole issue of free will, and that man has total free will to go to Hell, but none to go to Heaven (paraphrased from a great theologian), because man will "freely" choose autonomy and the absence of God when left up to his own designs.

So the offer can be given to the reprobate, and it is sincere, especially as its given in our minds because we are not controlling the person, and we ARE hoping that he will choose life.
And it is also sincere because the person stands in the hearing of the offer with a choice to make, and he can make it freely, can he not? But we know that when he does make his "free" choice, he will choose to go his own way. Only the Holy Spirit can overcome this "free" choice made by the unregerate, and carry him on to make a new choice.

So the offer is to everyone, and everyone can make his own choice. But only the Holy Spirit can "overcome" that choice by giving the person a new "chooser."

My


----------



## Saiph (Oct 25, 2005)

What if the offer is actually never given to the reprobate ? When the offer is spoken to them, it is in fact only an offer to the elect. And since they are not elect, and do not have ears to hear, they hear the offer audibly presented, but it is not really effectually for them.

Lazarus heard the offer, and rose, because of the effectual power of the offerer. "My sheep HEAR(listen to and follow) my voice, all that the father gives me . . . . "

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## heartoflesh (Oct 25, 2005)

I guess I'm wondering if this issue boils down to semantics. If a person believes in preaching the gospel to all, indiscriminately, what difference does it make in trying to decide how "sincere" it is? Is this the deciding factor in determining what makes a hypercalvinist?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I guess I'm wondering if this issue boils down to semantics. If a person believes in preaching the gospel to all, indiscriminately, what difference does it make in trying to decide how "sincere" it is? Is this the deciding factor in determining what makes a hypercalvinist?



I do not know what hyper-calvinism is. I have heard a thousand definitions. I have even been called one for subscribing to supralapsarianism, and double predestination. However, aside from that, we are commanded to preach the gospel to all. We preach it with our words, and our actions. We live it. And throughout the course of our lives many will reject it. We should not stop offering the gift of salvation because someone rejects it. We simply do not know whose eyes God will open and whose ears He will unstop.



[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> It's not that I doubt it isn't, I'm just trying to work through this. I was reading this guy's blog and he raises some interesting points-- to my mind anyway. I want to make sure I get this right. I don't want to be called a hypercalvinist either, so I'd like to know: Is the gospel offer to the reprobate "sincere", or isn't it?



It's not about "sincerity." The question is, do you believe God's Word or not? If you believe you will be saved. He who has the Son has life. God's Word is true regardless of whether you are elect or reprobate. Christ is the only Savior of mankind. You can only be saved by going to Him. And God displays Christ to the world as the only Mediator, the only way of redemption. Whether you are elect or reprobate, you need Christ to be saved. Election and effectual calling is God's secret work. Making Christ known is ours. It is God who makes the general call effectual or not.


----------



## heartoflesh (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Agreed. That's why I'm wondering what all the fuss is about, unless the end result is that the gospel is not preached, or people are not told to have faith and believe--then I see a problem.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



The trouble is caused when a ministers pleads for sinners to be reconciled to God. Somehow, that is thought to be Arminian because it somehow contradicts election. This is nonsense of course. But that is what is alleged. A study in the history of reformed preaching will show that election and fervent preaching are not contradictory.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 25, 2005)

I think some people espouse predestination without coming to terms with the Fall. The reason that some don't believe is that they're sinners. The reason others believe is because they're sinners that God chooses to enlighten.

Maybe it's like the Law. God said "Do this and you shall live." Was it a sincere offer? It was; Christ did it and it is imputed to the elect. Just because He was the only one who could "do this and live" didn't make that an untrue statement.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Good points, Patrick. While we cannot consistently tell everyone we meet, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," we certainly _can_ honestly tell each person individually that he or she will be saved if he or she trusts in Christ.

Another point regarding this question, especially as the question is used by unbelievers in an attempt to discredit the Gospel, God's sovereignty, or both, is that regardless of the different senses in which the "offer" may or may not be "sincere," in any case _they ultimately rejected it_.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think some people espouse predestination without coming to terms with the Fall. The reason that some don't believe is that they're sinners. The reason others believe is because they're sinners that God chooses to enlighten.



Exactly. One point that was helpful to me in initially thinking through the question of God giving everyone a "chance" or not, especially in relation to Limited Atonement, is that the Cross and the offer of the Gospel is not a first chance, but a second. Objecting that Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement do not give people a "fair chance" from God's perspective is like a serial killer in prison who objects that it is unfair that he is not given parole (as if he is somehow owed it by the government).



> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Maybe it's like the Law. God said "Do this and you shall live." Was it a sincere offer? It was; Christ did it and it is imputed to the elect. Just because He was the only one who could "do this and live" didn't make that an untrue statement.



 Excellent observation.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> See
> Murray on the Free Offer, A Review, by Matthew Winzer
> &
> ...



It might be well to actually read what Murray wrote on the well meant offer (WMO) or the free offer of the gospel (FOG!):

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Offer.html

See also:

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

rsc


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 25, 2005)

Of course! which is why the note at the head of the Winzer article gives a link and makes notice of this very article Dr. Clark. 

Oh, I see this [post] makes me a sophmore (hopefully only in the PB since... ).


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> ...



[Edited on 10-25-2005 by NaphtaliPress]

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 25, 2005)

From our perspective, unable to "read" the heart, we must promiscuously proclaim the Gospel (NOTE: THE Gospel). This is quiet easily cleared up if one delivers a true Law & Gospel message, AND then let the word of God do its work. Which may be that moment in your presence OR may come sometime later in the hear's life never known to you this side of eternity.

If you take a man to the holy law where it may slay him, then set forth the freeness of the Gospel at the cross you have presented well. The foul up always comes when we appeal to the will of a man - be it "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life (will appeal on the level of salesmanship) OR have you, repented of all your sins, given all your heart, using the RYR as Gospel, etc...(again will worship/appeal). 

L


----------



## Robin (Oct 26, 2005)

Larry!

Surprisingly, no one has yet mentioned what the Gospel IS.

It is a legal "SUMMONS" much like subpoena to court (jury duty) empowered with the Spirit of God to restore life in the "living" dead. (Ezek. 36) It is God's chosen means of reversing the Curse and dreadful Fall from the splendid excellence of the pure Imago Dei Adam forfeited by his treason. The message of the Christ means that the work of Jesus restores the true humanity to mankind (as Calvin says "Christ, the true Natural Man.") Btw, sin is not "natural."

The Great Judge is *calling* His people through the Gospel. We must remember that the saints are ambassadors of the "message of reconciliation" to a dying world. 


2 Corinthians 5:18--20

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 

Selah

God is making his appeal through us!

Robin


----------



## alwaysreforming (Oct 26, 2005)

From Robin above:
"It is a legal "SUMMONS" much like subpoena to court (jury duty) empowered with the Spirit of God to restore life in the "living" dead. (Ezek. 36) It is God's chosen means of reversing the Curse and dreadful Fall from the splendid excellence of the pure Imago Dei Adam forfeited by his treason. *The message of the Christ means that the work of Jesus restores the true humanity to mankind (as Calvin says "Christ, the true Natural Man.") Btw, sin is not "natural."*


As a side note, when my fellow Christian friends say, "Well, that's just human nature for ya!" I always try to follow with the correction, "No, that's SINFUL human nature. Jesus Christ had a human nature, and He wasn't sinful."
You can always see a light go on in their heads after that...


----------



## cupotea (Oct 26, 2005)

A good book on the subject is "Spurgeon vs.e Hyper-Calvinism" by Ian Murray (published by Banner of Truth).

Murray tends to define Hyper-Calvinism here in terms of Spurgeon's difficulties with the self-styled heirs of Gill (who may or may not have been a hyper-calvinist, even by Murray's definition, and to his credit, Murray points this out).

Hyper-Calvinism then, to Murray, is the denial that the Reprobate have a duty to believe the Gospel.

I think that's a good, historically rootable place to start.

A great quote from the book: "Every unregenerate Arminian is a Pelagian, and every unregenerate Calvinist an Antinomian." -John Duncan


[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Steadfast]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 1, 2005)

So actual salvation is not offered to all, but the way of salvation is proclaimed to all.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So actual salvation is not offered to all, but the way of salvation is proclaimed to all.



That's one way to look at it. But the focus must be upon the divine imperatives, the divine judgment of their sin, and the promise of God to any who come to be delivered from that judgment, and then compel people to embrace that promise in Christ. This is the Word of God we are dealing with and therefore it demands a response from all men, elect or reprobate. To reject it is to remain in condemnation. It's not about just saying "here's how you can be saved" and leave it there but instead "Here's how to be saved, now go to Jesus! Flee the wrath to come!!!"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 1, 2005)

I think problems arise often when we try to understand God's eternal decrees in a temporal sense, and God's temporal demands of us (and our subsequent actions and reactions to such demands) in an eternal decretive sense.

God loves the kosmos, because He created it good, and by the CoG He means to restore it to its pre-Fall condition. However, God only has mercy on those who He will have mercy. If men refuse this call, by their own sinful rebellion and will, they are guilty before the judge and stand condemned, it makes no sense to say that God is to blame for their rejection of His salvation, nor can say God didn't "love" them as much, can we?


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 15, 2005)

Presenting the gospel also has to do with experiencing these truths. No one has mentioned praying for the salvation of those around us, and having an assurance that is more than just head knowlege. Salvation can be caught through excitement as well as responding to in the gospel. I had an interesting experience in this area. I prayed for the salvation of a person and in our relationship there was no desire from him for the things of salvation until he came down with cancer. Then he was more than willing to listen. Yet at that time i was sick and so someone else gave him the gospel because he requested to hear it. I dont even think it is just a moral persuasion that we are offering in the way we live. It is experiencing assurance in a profound way . Heres the confession.III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14] 
If you are experiencing this kind of assurance you are going to have a profound effect on those around you.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Dec 15, 2005)

The WSC is helpful on this topic:

"WSC 31 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel."

It affirms that the offer of the gospel is sincerely made to all. The *ability* to respond positively to the gospel, however, is a work of the Holy Spirit. To those who would respond that an offer made to one who cannot accept it is not sincere, I would respond that God deals with us in terms of our *responsibility* to believe, not our ability to believe.


----------



## CDM (Dec 20, 2005)

"Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate. "

When you say "God's love for all" do you mean in a common grace kind of way? Or equally the same as with His elect?

And, does he love Satan and his demons, along with those in hell?  

Could you clarify please?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> "Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate. "
> 
> When you say "God's love for all" do you mean in a common grace kind of way? Or equally the same as with His elect?
> ...



According to van Mastricht, God loves all his creatures, even the reprobate. Obviously, if they are reprobate, it is not a saving love. 

I couldn't speculate about the damned or the evil one. 

The question is his revealed attitude toward humans relative to the free/well-meant offer of the gospel.

rsc


----------



## CDM (Dec 21, 2005)

*God\'s hatred for sinners*



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by mangum_
> ...



I understand it when you say "not a saving love." Although, I confess it somewhat confuses me how God can have different degrees or levels of love.

What should we do with all the Scripture that underlines God's hatred for sinners? Such as:

_
Leviticus 20:23 - And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Psalm 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 11:5 - The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Zechariah 11:8 - Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.

Leviticus 26:30 - And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Deuteronomy 32:19 - And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Psalm 5:6 - Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 10:3 - For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

Psalm 53:5 - There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.

Psalm 73:20 - As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Psalm 78:59 - When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:

Psalm 106:40 - Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Malachi 1:3 - And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13 - As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Proverbs 22:14 - The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.

Lamentations 2:6 - And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

Hosea 9:15 - All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
_

You say the question is what is his "œrevealed attitude toward humans relative to the free/well-meant offer of the gospel." Do you mean to say that God hates the sin and not the sinner? And wouldn´t these passages communicate God´s revealed attitude toward sinners at least in part?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Each of these passages has to be read carefully and in context. We know God hates sin and sinners, and will punish those who are impenitent and unbelieving in time and eternity. 

We also know, however, that God loves sinners. Consider e.g., "Esau have I hated..." This refers to God's decree of reprobation about which we know only because it was revealed specially in the canon. Otherwise we would not know. There is no question whether God hated Esau from eternity, the question is what should be our stance toward the Esau's of the world today? 

How do we know one is an Esau? We can't know! The canon is closed. No one knew Esau was reprobate in his life. We know now, because we're given a narrator's pov. Those in the history of redemption didn't have that pov. We don't know the decree. 

So, what is our stance toward all who make no credible profession? Do we play, "Guess the Reprobate?" or do we preach the law and offer Christ "indiscriminately" and "seriously" and "freely" to all? 

The historic answer is that we preach the law and the gospel and we leave the results to God.

How do we preach the gospel? With the adverbs above.

rsc


----------



## just_grace (Dec 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> It's not that I doubt it isn't, I'm just trying to work through this. I was reading this guy's blog and he raises some interesting points-- to my mind anyway. I want to make sure I get this right. I don't want to be called a hypercalvinist either, so I'd like to know: Is the gospel offer to the reprobate "sincere", or isn't it?



Rick, the judgment is that they PREFERRED darkeness.

That is the words of Christ, although some say it is the words of the Baptist.

God is Just Rick, you know it, I know it.

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## jacobiloved (Jan 23, 2006)

Most Arminians never differentiate between the Inner call and the Outer call , and in my experience many Calvinists are guilty of placing great emphasis on the inner call , and ignoring or paying lip service to the 'Outer Call' ..........

God is always sincere , there is no insincerity with God , the reason God is so angry with those who despise Christ and forgiveness is that sinners are not rejecting a fake message of forgiveness.


Remember , no-one gets angry when fake diamonds are stolen ...........


----------



## Civbert (Jan 24, 2006)

I think the question is confusing. "Sincere" seems to imply free will of some form. The offer is certainly free - that is, there is nothing we offer in exchange for the promise of the Gospel. But we can not believe the Gospel unless we are called, given the faith to believe the Gospel. 

If the "reprobate" are the un-elect, and "sincere" means "free to accept or reject"; then no, there is no sincere offer of the Gospel to the reprobate. If "sincere offer of the Gospel" means "everlasting life is offered freely to those who are given faith to believe", then yes, the offer is sincere.

But to even ask the question, is God is sincere, seems to question God's motives, or to imply man has free will. We are in no place to question God's motives, and human free will undercuts God's sovereignty.


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 31, 2006)

R. Scott Clark writes:



> Each of these passages has to be read carefully and in context. We know God hates sin and sinners, and will punish those who are impenitent and unbelieving in time and eternity.
> 
> We also know, however, that God loves sinners. Consider e.g., "Esau have I hated..." This refers to God's decree of reprobation about which we know only because it was revealed specially in the canon. Otherwise we would not know.



Great point and for my belated  this is all I´ve ever heard anyone who denies the so-called "œWell Meant Offer" assert. If it´s agreed that God hates sin and sinners and hated Esau in accordance with His decree of reprobation, then it would follow that God does not love all sinners since we do know of at least one that He does not so love. I would say God loves sinners because of Christ and the specific class of sinners that He loves are the ones for whom Christ died. Not one drop of Jesus´ blood fails to secure the salvation of each and every one for whom it was shed. 1 John 3:16a; We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us . . . ." Now, clearly the "œus" John has in mind isn´t everyone head for head or it would follow that Jesus Christ laid down His life for those 1) God hates in accordance to His decree of reprobation which puts into question Christ´s deity, or, 2) the love of Christ as evidenced by His shed blood is ineffectual in accomplishing its intended purpose in at least some. 




> There is no question whether God hated Esau from eternity, the question is what should be our stance toward the Esau's of the world today?
> 
> How do we know one is an Esau? We can't know! The canon is closed. No one knew Esau was reprobate in his life. We know now, because we're given a narrator's pov. Those in the history of redemption didn't have that pov. We don't know the decree.



Now this I don´t understand. So what if we don´t know the Esaus of the world today? How would that impact the message that is to be preached in accordance with the Scriptures and the promiscuity of its proclamation? The point is we know Esau and therefore to infer God´s universal love for all men through the preaching of the gospel is to paint a caricature of the God of Scripture and is to misrepresent God´s plan of salvation. Jesus Christ came to die to save a particular people for Himself; i.e., all those whom the Father gave Him from the foundation of the world and not one will be lost. 



> So, what is our stance toward all who make no credible profession? Do we play, "Guess the Reprobate?" or do we preach the law and offer Christ "indiscriminately" and "seriously" and "freely" to all?



My point exactly. But, I think we should be clear, those who advocate the universal love of God which extends to all men even through the preaching of the Gospel want to add some very definite elements to the preaching which, per the above, do not comport with the teaching of Scripture. For what it's worth I can think of no example in Scripture where we see the Gospel being framed in terms of "œGod loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life . . . ." That´s not the Gospel nor can such a universally distributive proposition be validly inferred from Scripture. It may be true some cases, but then it may not be in others. As Dr. Clark correctly infers, we just don´t know. 

I apologize if I´m digging up old remarks, but I´m just making my way around these boards and starting with familiar territory. Some really excellent discussions and insights. Makes me want to get my feet wet in areas where I am considerably less familiar. 

I think I can really benefit from the participants here. 

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Magma2]


----------

