# John 3:16 and God's Love for the World



## Travis Fentiman

Thoughts on this article anyone?

John 3:16 - God's Love for Mankind in the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel


(Please read the brief article before commenting)


John 3:16 – God’s Love for all Mankind in the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## MW

> This was also the majority view of the Reformation and Puritan eras as documented at Calvin and Calvinism.



Travis, I think that site has led you astray.

As you have a place for John Kennedy of Dingwall on your site, may I recommend his book, Man's Relations to God, and especially the chapter dealing with man as evangelised. He provides the biblical balance that is needed to put your article back on the right track.

As for Samuel Rutherford, why not quote his precisely stated views on John 3:16 as found in Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, pp. 484-488. It is available at Google Books and will well repay a perusal. He states very clearly, "This world is the only believing elect world, the loved world, John 3:16, the world saved, v. 17, the world of which Christ is Saviour, John 4:42, the world that Christ giveth his life unto, John 6:33, and for which life he giveth his life, v. 55." (Pp. 487-488).


----------



## MW

George Gillespie, 'Treatise of Miscellany Questions,' in Works 2:119-120:



> the world which God loved is not divided into believers and unbelievers, but, by _the world_, is meant the elect of all nations, and this whole world is subdivided into its parts by the word _whosoever_; that is, whether Jew or Gentile, whether Barbarian or Scythian, whether bond or free, &c. For this the Apostle explaineth the very same words, pas ho pistewn, Rom. 10:11, 12, "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him;" so Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Acts 10:34, 35. And though some have, with much scorn, set at nought that expression, "The world of the elect," i.e. the elect of all the world, yet it will puzzle them to give any other sense to John 6:33, where it is said that Christ "giveth life unto the world;" or to John 16:8, where the Spirit is said to convince the world of sin, of righteousness and judgment;" or John 17:21, where Christ prayeth "that the world may believe;" and the Father heareth him always, as in other petitions, so in this.


----------



## Pergamum

Am I a bad Calvinist if I believe that God loves the entire world?

John Calvin on John 3:16, 

*"[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."*


----------



## MW

James Durham, Commentary on Revelation (1739 ed.), 300:



> if world, in this place, be to be understood of particular persons, and an universality of them, it must be understood of the Elect World, as in the verse following is clear, where God's purpose of sending his Son, is expressed to be, that the world through him might be saved. Now, there can no other universality be thought to be intended, to be saved by God (as was formerly cleared) but the universality (to speak so) or, the World of the Elect. Neither will the reading be absurd, to understand it thus, That God so loved the Elect World, that be gave his only begotten Son to death for them, that by their believing on him they should not perish, but have eternal life.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Am I a bad Calvinist if I believe that God loves the entire world?



What do you mean by "the entire world?"

God's love for the human race is shown in that He did not leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew,

Thank you for the quotes by Rutherford, Gillespie and Durham. I appreciate the recommendation to Kennedy's Man's Relations to God, which I have read, as well as his other writings. 

In regards to the website Calvin and Calvinism, I am very aware of the webmaster's Amyraldianism, which I do not agree with, though he has much helpful information on the site.

With respect to your interpretation of John 3:16 as meaning the elect world, what do you make of the 4 or 5 arguments in my article under section 2, which directly addresses that interpretation?


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> With respect to your interpretation of John 3:16 as meaning the elect world, what do you make of the 4 or 5 arguments in my article under section 2, which directly addresses that interpretation?



Travis, unconvincing, I must say.

First, as you can see from the quotations from the Scottish divines, they argue from the Gospel of John itself and the surrounding context of John 3:16. It is incorrect to portray this position as arguing from "other books" of Scripture and importing it into the text.

Secondly, the attempt to divorce the word of salvation from the deed of salvation might be "well-meant" but in the final analysis it will prove destructive. Scripture as a whole does not know of a salvation in word only. The context in John 3 makes it plain that this salvation is accomplished, not simply offered. By universalising salvation you make it something other than an accomplished fact.

Thirdly, what love is this if it is ineffectual to save? You are holding out a love that is conditional on the will of man and has been powerless to save the multitude of sinners who suffer eternal torment. That is not much of an encouragement to a sinner to cast the weight of his soul's salvation on this love.

The universal offer of the gospel is not an offer of universal salvation. The gospel is stated in indefinite terms so as to preserve the particularity of the salvation and the wide extension of the offer. I urge you to "seriously" consider the true reformed and puritan gospel. It is the gospel of the blessed God, not the God of wishful thinking.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, 

Thank you for your feedback. I'll respond to just one point you made:

"the true reformed and puritan gospel. It is the gospel of the blessed God, not the God of wishful thinking."

All three of the men you quoted above, Rutherford, Gillespie and Durham, all held to the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel in addition to limited atonement, and speak of it clearly, continuously and at length throughout their writings. Volumes could not hold the amount of quotes from the writings of the reformers and puritans (not to mention all the people that came after them) expressing the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel.

How can you claim that your denial of such is "the true reformed and puritan gospel"? The opposite, it seems, is surely the case.


----------



## MW

If by "sincere" is meant that God desires the salvation of all men, it is an error. These men counteracted the doctrine, as will be seen from their writings. They rejected the idea that the fulfilment of God's desires depends upon the free will and choice of man. Man should not make God speak in respect of want. He is perfectly blessed in Himself. He satisfies the desire of every living thing, and must surely be able to satisfy His own desire!

Consider Rutherford's adamant stance against the doctrine:



> Christ's love is a pursuing and a conquering thing. I shall never believe that this love of redemption stands so many hundred miles aloof on the shore, and the bank of the river and lake of fire and brimstone, and cries afar off, and wisheth all mankind may come to land and more, and casteth to them, being so many hundred miles from them, words of milk, wine and honey, out of the gospel, and crieth that Christ loveth all and every one to salvation; and if wishes could make men happy, Christ earnestly wishes and desires, if all men were alike well-minded to their own salvation, that all and every one might be saved.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Man should not make God speak in respect of want.



Consider this line now stolen by me.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, or anyone else:


If one takes world to mean the elect world, how is it that one must equivocate on the meaning of the "world" just a few verses later (with no contextual indicators) to mean reprobate in verses 19 and 20, and why would the hypothetical be posited about Christ coming into the world to condemn the elect in verse 17, as related in point 2 of my article?


----------



## Sovereign Grace

Travis Fentiman said:


> Thoughts on this article anyone?
> 
> John 3:16 - God's Love for Mankind in the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel
> 
> 
> (Please read the brief article before commenting)
> 
> 
> John 3:16 – God’s Love for all Mankind in the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online



Brother Travis,

This is something in my studies that I have truly struggled with. I have wondered does He, in fact, love all mankind, or only those He chose from before the foundation of the world? I am leaning heavily towards the latter, and not the former. 

If the Arminian view of the atonement rings true, then there wasn't really any one in particular Christ died for. He died for everyone, called everyone, pleaded/pleads with everyone, and sits backs and waits for them to complete the salvation process. In this schema, fallen, sinful creatures control their own destiny.

If the Calvinist view of the atonement rings true, you have a definite atonement, for a definite people...insert sheep here, and He then goes and calls His sheep out from the goats. He will accomplish salvation in their lives, seeing He actually propitiated their sins. The Arminians rip 1 John 2:2 to rags, btw.

So God only has love for His sheep, in my opinion......


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Regarding the sincerity of John Kennedy's offer of the gospel to the reprobate:


“Whatever your case may be, however unpromising, however different from every other case on the face of this earth, though you should feel that yours is an utterly hopeless case, do not hestitate, but pass it into the hands of Him who says “I will in no wise case out.” *It is the desire of his heart and the cause of his glory, as it is the promise of his word, that everlasting salvation in Himself should be yours*, to the glory of His Father’s name, to the praise of His rich grace, and to your joy throughout eternity. Oh, do not leave this house to-night without seeking to leave your spirit in the hands of the Lord Jesus, and may the gracious Spirit help you so to do.”

Sermons, “The Precious Deposit,” Note that Kennedy draws a connection between God’s desire (disposition toward all sinners) and the promise found in God’s revealed Word.​


“God, calling you to His Annointed, speaks to you from His throne go grace, and *invites you to Himself* as His is seated there . . . And think of the love which God hath commended in the gift and in the bruising of His own beloved Son, as His Lamb. * It is to receive the embrace of that love that the call of the text invites you *. . . There is the mistake of hampering your faith by conceiving of the purpose of God as fettering His love, instead of *being guided by the revealed character of God, as it appears in the cross.* *The love of God, as “commended” in the gift and death of Christ, is love to sinners. *It is on that revelation your faith has to act, and *it is to the bosom of that love you are called to come through Christ crucified *. . . while, because believing it to be love to sinners, I perceive it to be such that its provision must be free to such as I am, and that I may reckon, which I come to God, on such being his character, that He shall certainly embrace and bless me. *I have to do with the revealed name, not with the secret purpose of God, in dealing with the call of the gospel*, and no sinner who comes to Him in response to His call, has any cause to fear that he shall be cast out. “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” Here these words, sinner, and ask God to write them no your heart… *The divine call of the text is addressed to you – and to you because it is addressed to sinners*… God’s voice is always speaking through the written word…”​
Sermons, “Jehovah’s Call to Sinners,” Note that again Kennedy is rooting the free offer of God’s love in the gospel with the revealed character of God found in His Word.​


“*These words indicate what Christ would fain have. He would fain have sinners coming unto Him in faith for the salvation of their souls.* How different this is from coming to crave signs and wonders in order to a bodily cure! This was the errand of the nobleman. *This Christ would have, because he would fain be acknowledged as the Annointed and Son of God, because He had delight in salvation, and because He would have God honoured by a simple faith in His testimony*. *How the heart of Christ rejoiced in faith! How intensely He craved it! How painful to Him was the want of it!”*​
Expository Lectures, on John 4:43-54, p. 80, Note that Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “fain” as: to be happy, pleased, desirous, compelled, willing, inclined.”​

Just in case anyone would like to read these quotes later, I put them up in a more permanent place on the internet here:

John Kennedy on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Travis Fentiman

That Matthew's Samuel Rutherford quote above was out of context, referring to the Arminian scheme of salvation and not to the sincere free offer of the Gospel, I provide this:


Rutherford observes that objections justly raised against the deficient Arminian view of God's decree are not pertinent respecting God's revealed will, because it does not purpose to effectuate anything.

(Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himselfe, London 1647, pp. 443-45 [irregular pagination: colophon lll2-lll3] and 440-42 [colophon: Kkk4-Lll1])


It's much worthy of observation, how that sweet evangelic invitation is conceived, Isa. 55:1, Ho, everyone that thirsts, come to the waters, and he that hath no silver, come buy, and eat: as if the Lord were grieved, and said, Woe is me, *Alas that thirsty souls should die in their thirst, and will not come to the water of life, Christ, and drink gratis, freely, and live*. For *the interjection, Ho, is a mark of sorrowing, as ah, or woe*, everyone that thirsts. *It expresseth* two things, 1.* A vehemency and a serious and unfeigned ardency of desire that we do what is our duty, and the concatenation of these two, extremely desired of God, our coming to Christ and our salvation*. This moral connection between faith and salvation* is desired of God with his will of approbation, complacency, and moral liking, without all dissimulation, most unfeignedly* [margin: What the revealed will of God is]; and whereas Arminians say, we make counterfeit, feigned, and hypocritical desires in God, they calumniate and cavil egregiously, as their custom is. 2. The other thing expressed in *these invitations is a sort of dislike, grief, or sorrow (it's a speech borrowed from man, for there is no disappointing of the Lord's will, nor sorrow in him for the not fulfilling of it), or an earnest nilling and hating dislike that these two should not go along, as approved efficaciously by us, to wit, the creature's obedience of faith and life eternal*. *God loveth, approveth the believing of Jerusalem and of her children, as a moral duty, as the hen doth love to warm and nourish her chickens*; and he hateth, with an exceeding and unfeigned dislike of improbation and hatred, their rebellious disobedience and refusing to be gathered: but there is no purpose, intention, or decree of God, *holden forth in these invitations called his revealed will, by which he saith he intendeth and willeth that all he maketh the offer unto shall obey and be saved*. But it's to be observed, that the revealed will of God, holden forth to all, called voluntas signi, doth not hold forth formally that God intendeth, decreeth, or purposeth in his eternal council, that any man shall actually obey, either elect or reprobate; it formally is* the expression only of the good liking of that moral and duty conjunction between the obedience of the creature* and the reward, but holdeth forth not any intention or decree of God, that any shall obey, or that all shall obey, or that none at all shall obey.

And what Arminians say of Christ's intention to die for all and every one, and of the Lord's intention and catholic good will to save all and every one, to wit, that these desires may be in God though not any be saved at all, but all eternally perish, which maketh the Lord's desires irrational, unwise, and frustraneous -- that we say with good reason of God's good will, called voluntas signi, it might have its complete and entire end and effect though not any one of men or angel obey, if there were not going along with this will of God another will, and eternal decree and purpose in God, or working by free grace in some chosen ones what the Lord willeth in his approving will.

Now *this desire of approbation* is an abundantly sufficient closing of the mouth of such as stumble at the gospel, being appointed thereunto, and *an expression of Christ's good liking to save sinners*. Expressed in *his borrowed wishes*, Deut. 5:29. *O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me*, and keep my commandments. Ps. 81:13. O that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel walked in my ways. Which wish, as relating to disobeying Israel, is a figure, or metaphor borrowed from men, but otherwise showeth how acceptable the duty is to God, how obligatory to the creature. But the Lord's expostulations, Ezek. 18:31. Why will ye die, O house of Israel? Verse 32. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies. In the Lord's crying to sinners, Prov. 1:20. Wisdom cries, she uttereth her voice in the streets. The word is to cry with strong shouting, either for joy, Ps. 81:2, or sorrow, Lam. 2:19, which expresseth Christ's desire to save sinners.

[Margin: No lip-love, nor any empty love in God, but that which is effectual and real to work the good he desireth to the party loved.] We are hence taught to acknowledge no love to be in God which is not effectual in doing good to the creature; there is no lip-love, no raw well-wishing to the creature which God doth not make good. We know but three sorts of love that God has to the creature, all the three are like the fruitful womb; there is no miscarrying, no barrenness in the womb of divine love.

[Margin: A threefold love in God effectual.] *He loves all that he has made, so far as to give them a being*, to conserve them in being as long as he pleaseth. He had a desire to have sun, moon, stars, earth, heaven, sea, clouds, air. He created them out of the womb of love and out of goodness, and keeps them in being. He can hate nothing that he made.

There is *a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies*, makes the sun to shine on the unjust man as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors, as Christ teacheth us, Matt. 5:43-48. *Nor doth God miscarry in this love. He desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forbearance* suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lord's general love fall short of what he willeth to them.

[Margin: Christ's love of election cannot miscarry.] There is a love of special election to glory; far less can God come short in the end of this love. For the work of redemption prospereth in the hands of Christ, even to the satisfaction of his soul; saving of sinners (all glory to the Lamb) is a thriving work and successful in Christ's hands.​

It is also posted here on the internet, along with quotes from Francis Turretin to the same effect:

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: Robert Murray M'Cheyne, John Duncan, William Cunningham, Charles Calder Mackintosh, James MacGregor, John Kennedy and Hugh Martin - The Westminster Presbyterian


----------



## NaphtaliPress

N.B. Matthew's quotation comes from the discussion of the third type of God's love (electing) which Rutherford posits, p. 442. https://archive.org/stream/christd00ruth#page/440/mode/2up3. There is a love of special election to glory; far lesse can God come short in the end of this love: For 1. the work of redemption prospereth in the hands of Christ, even to the satisfaction of his soule; saving of sinners, (all glory to the Lamb) is a thriving work and successfull in Christ’s hands, Esa. 53.10, 11. “He shall see of the travell of his soule and be satisfied. 2. Christ cannot shoot at the rovers and misse his marke: I should desire no more, but to be once in Christ’s chariot paved with love, Cant. 3. Were I once assured I am within the circle and compass of that love of Election; I should not be affrayed that the chariot can be broken or turned off its Wheels; Christ’s chariot can goe through the red Sea, though not dryed up: he shoots arrows of love and cannot miss, he rides through hell and the grave, and makes the dead his living captives and prisioners. 3. This love is natively of it self active; Ezechiah saith in his song, Esia. 38.17, “Behold for peace I had bitterness, but thou hast in love to my soule (delivered) me from the pit of corruption,” but in hebrew [sic; Hebrew in margin] it is, “thou hast loved my soule out off the pit of corruption, because thou hast cast all my sinnes behind thy back;” he speaketh of God’s love [margin: Christ’s love active], as if it were a living man with flesh and bones, armes, hands, and feet, went down to the pit, and lifted up Ezechiah’s soul out of the pit; so has the love of Christ loved us out of hell, or loved hell away to hell, and loved death down to the grave, and loved sinne away, and loved us out of the armes of the Devill; *Christ’s love is a persuing and a conquering thing; I shall never believe that this love of redemption stands so many hundreth miles aloof on the shoare; and the bank of the river, and laek of fire and brimstone, and cryes afar off and wisheth all mankind may come to land & shoar, and casteth to them, being so many hundreth miles from them, words of milk, wine and honey, out of the Gospel, and cryeth that “Christ loveth all and everyone to salvation;” and if wishes could make men happy, Christ earnestly wishes and desires, if all men were alike well-minded to their own salvation, that all and every one might be saved, *that there were not a Hell; but he will not put the top of his little finger in their heart to bow and incline their will, and Christ cryeth to the whole world perishing in sin, I have shed my blood for you all, and wish you much happinesse; but if ye will not come to me to believe: I purpose not to passé over the line of Arminian decency or Jesuiticall congruity, nor can I come to you to draw your hearts, by way of efficacious determination, if yee will do for your selves and your own salvation, the greatest part of the work, which is to apply redemption, by your own free-will (though I know you cannot be masters of your selves, of one good thought, and are dead in sinnes) as I have done the other lesser part, purchased salvation for you, or made you all reconciliable and savable, its well; otherwise Ilve the salvations of you and every one; but I will not procure it, but leave that to your free-will; chose fire or water, heaven or hell as the counsels of your own heart shall lead you; and I have done with you; Oh such a love as this could never save me! If the young heire had wisedom, he should pray that the wise Tutor lay not the falling or the standing of the house on his green head and raw glassie and weather-**** free will; we shall cast down our crowns at the feet of him that sitteth on the Throne, because he has redeemed us out of all nations, tongues and languages and left these nations to perish in their own wicked way: sure in heaven I shal have no Arminian thoughts as now I have, through corruption of nature. I shall not then divide the song of free Redemption between the Lamb and free-will: and give the largest share to free-will; my soule enter not into their counsels or secrets, who thus black Christ, and shame that faire spotless and excellent grace of God.​


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Willis,

To distinguish that the majority, historic reformed view of the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel, in harmony with Limited Atonement, is decidedly different from Arminianism, please see this brief articulation:

The Free Offer of the Gospel in the Free Church of Scotland | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Also, to demonstrate that the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel is the "the true reformed and puritan gospel. It is the gospel of the blessed God," please see here:

The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


This is only a fraction of the hundreds of articles and documentation that I will put up in the future regarding the majority, historic reformed view, but it should be a start.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There have been previous threads on whether the universal offer of the gospel must posit desires in God for the salvation of the nonelect. I thought there were more but the below is what I found with a brief search. Matthew Winzer's paper critiquing the Murray-Stonehouse view can be found at the last links.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/neonomianism-offer-gospel-83252/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/universal-will-destroys-sincerity-gospel-83298/
opc-minority-report-free-offer
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/well-meant-offer-gospel-calvin-will-s-god-81892/
Murray on the Free Offer: A Review
*The Blue Banner, Volume 9 Issue 10-12. October-December 2000 (PDF). 
*HTML: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm


----------



## py3ak

Samuel Rutherford is quite clear in his remarks. It can only lead to confusion to fail to maintain his insistence on the efficacy of divine love. The voluntas signi/beneplaciti distinction to which he alludes is also critical. The voluntas signi is effectual because it makes binding our duty, whether we keep it or not. His voluntas beneplaciti is effectual because it is always fulfilled - Isaiah 46:10, Psalm 115:3, Psalm 135:6.


----------



## Afterthought

I don't think it's right to include Dabney on this issue as representing the "historical" view. Since I don't have a lot of time, the best I can do is appeal to the footnote on the website you linked to, which suggests it (although it also suggests in the parentheses that perhaps Turretin is not inconsistent):

"Fourth topic, seventeenth question, "Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny." Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), 1:395-417. Here Dabney subtly criticizes one of his favorite theologians for dealing with this question in an imbalanced and incomplete way. Turretin was somewhat inconsistent on this question. (Or at the very least this section of Turretin ought to be read in light of what he wrote elsewhere, in which case it is mitigated by Turretin's other convictions, which make it clear that he would not be sympathetic with the views of modern high-Calvinists who oppose even the notion of common grace.) Turretin clearly saw the necessary distinction between the preceptive will and the decretive will of God (Third topic, fifteenth question, 1:220ff). He further taught that God shows a general mercy to all (1:12); that the external call of the gospel is a bona fide and sincere proposal of salvation to all (1:415); that there is a general love and philanthropy from God to all His creatures (1:396); and that God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked (1:229-30)." God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy



Here's an old thread on the two wills of God: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/two-wills-god-47586/


----------



## Travis Fentiman

For your reading pleasure, here is more *Rutherford on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel*, expounding on God's desire for the salvation of gospel hearing reprobates:


*The Trial and Triumph of Faith*

p. 302-303, 1845 edition

3. Faith can stand upon one foot, even on a general word; hence, this is a gospel word in the Prophets, which requires faith, Turn to the Lord for He is merciful, (Jer. 3:12; Joel 2:13; John 4:2). And because *a general promise* received with heart-adherence and confidence gives glory to God; and if it be *held forth to a humbled soul, who is now within the lists and bounds of grace*, and, for anything that the person thus laden with sin knows on the contrary, (for the secrets of election and reprobation belong to the Lord) *Christ minds and intends to him salvation, therefore he is to believe*.

4. This would be considered, that unbelief breaks with Christ first, before Christ break with the unbeliever; and the elect of God finds no more, nor any higher favor in the kind of external means to open the Lamb’s book of life, which is sealed and closed with God’s own hand, than the commandment of believing. Now, *when our Lord makes offer of the kingdom* of sons, to slaves, *and casts his jewel of Christ offered in the gospel*, in the lap and bosom of a bastard, whatever be the Lord’s secret decree and purpose in so doing, *the bastard is to take God as his word, and to catch the opportunity of God’s love in so far*; and if he do it not, *the gospel offer to the reprobate being a treaty of peace*, then the treaty breaks off first upon his side; *for Christ comes within a mile of mercy, to meet the sinner*, and the sinner comes not the fourth part of a mile, yea, not half a step of love and thankful obedience, to meet Christ; and so, *Christ kills the unbeliever with the sweetness of the preventing courtesy of offered mercy.*

5. But if the sinner be wearied and laden, and sees, though through a cloud only, Christ only must help and save; if not, he is utterly and eternally lost. What is there upon Christ’s part to hinder thee to believe, O guilty wretch? *Oh, (saith he,) I fear Christ only offers Himself to me, but he minds no salvation to me? * Answer: *Is not this to raise an evil report and slander on the Holy One of Israel? For Christ’s offer is really an offer, and in so far, it is real love*, thought it cannot infer the love of election to glory, yet the total denial of this offer opens up the black seal of reprobation to heathens without the church. * And therefore it is love to thee*, if thou be humbled for sin; 2. And have half an eye to the unsearchable riches of gospel mercy; 3. And be self-condemned; 4. And have half a desire of Christ: thou mayest *expound love by love*, and lay hold on the promise, and be saved. An error of humble love to Christ, is no error.​ 

*
A Sermon*

Preached to the Honorable House of Commons, Jan. 31, 1643, p. 28-29

“God’s decree of election or his intention to save me is not the proper object of my faith, but rather of my sense and feeling; we go mightily beside the line, in the method of believing, when we got to believe at first God’s intention to save me. The order is, being humbled for sin, *we are to adhere to the goodness of the promise*, not to look to his intention to persons, but *to his complacency and tenderness of heart to all humble sinners; so Paul, I Timothy 1:15*, embraceth by all means that good and faithful saying, Jesus Christ came to save sinners; *before he put himself in as the first of these sinners, as the condemned man believeth first the king’s grace and clemency to all humbled supplicants*, who sue for grace, before he believe grace to himself; and if this were not, the method of applying Christ were unreasonable. The woman diseased with the bloody issue heard of Jesus, and therefore came and touched the hem of his garment. What had she heard? Nothing of his exorable kindness and tender mercy towards herself, but towards others, and upon this believed; *so a rope is cast down in the sea to a multitude of drowned men, and all are bidden, for their life, lay hold on the rope that they may be saved*, it were unseasonable and foolish curiosity, for any of these poor men, now upon death and life commanded to hold fast the rope, to dispute whether did the man who cast down the rope intend and purpose to save me or not, and while my mind be at a point in that, I will not put out one finger to touch the rope; but fool, dispute with hands and arms, and lay hold on the remedy, and do not thou begin a plea with Christ, and leave that question to another time. *A prince proclaimeth a free market of gold, monies*, fine linen, rich garments, and all precious jewels to a number of poor men, *upon a purpose to make honorable courtiers and officers of estate*, all these men are now not to dispute the king’s secret purpose, but* to repair to the market, and to improve their prince’s grace*, and buy without money. *Christ holdeth forth his rope to drowned and lost sinners, and layeth out an open market of the rich treasures of heaven*; do thou take it for granted, without any further dispute, as a principle after to be made good, that *Christ hath thoughts of grace and peace concerning thee*, and do but now husband well the grace offered, lay hold on Christ, ay while he put thee away from him, and if there be any question concerning God’s intention of saving thee, let Christ first move the doubt, but do not thou be the first mover.”​

For more quotes from Rutherford on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel, feel free to visit the newly created page devoted to such:


Samuel Rutherford on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Travis:

I think it's clear both that Rutherford affirmed, as you put it, "a sincere free offer of the gospel" and that he did not believe that _kosmos_ ("world") in John 3:16 meant every person in the world. This demonstrates, at least in part, that one's interpretation of "world" in John 3:16 is not decisive for affirming the sincere free offer of the gospel. 

I heartily affirm the well-meant free gospel offer. I believe, with Murray, that such is biblically justified and grounds the warrant for faith. I understand that Matthew W. constructs things differently and we differ on this matter. As I understand his position from his criticism of Murray, he does, on other grounds, affirm a vigorous gospel proclamation. We need not agree on all points of exegesis in affirming vigorous gospel preaching. I tend to agree that however we understand "world" in John 3:16, the question of the extent of the atonement is not most immediately in view in that verse. 

With respect to the atonement and its extent, safety lies, biblically and theologically, in putting it like the Synod of Dort did in the Second Head of Doctrine, Articles 3 and 8: "Christ's death is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." At the same time, "it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father."

This is the Reformed position: the Westminster Divines looked to this international Reformed Synod as a model and the Westminster Standards do not decisively and directly address the question of the extent of the atonement (I think it is implied but much scholarship has focused on the Assembly's refusal directly to address the question of the extent of the atonement). I don't think that Dort or Westminster rule out all other constructions of this (anymore than they rule anything other than infralapsarianism out, while taking infralapsarian positions). 

The whole Second Head of Dort should be carefully read, as it is the fullest Reformed confessional statement on how we should understand both the extent of the atonement and how the gospel ought to be freely preached (Article 5 and elsewhere). 

I greatly admire your and Rob McCurley's vigorous preaching of the sincere free offer of the gospel. I think that such "Marrow" preaching, if I may put it that way, is sorely needed in all of our churches. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I am admittedly not nearly as learned as many others on this board who have already commented, however I will venture to say that this entire argument is rather pointless. Unless we confess universalism, which I would pray that none of us on this board do, then it is clear that there is a distinction between the general love of God towards the entirety of his creation, and the particular love that God has for his elect. We know from Scripture that God loves even those who hate and curse him and that he causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust, but this should not be construed to suggest that God has the same kind of love for all of his creatures. One could argue that the first half of John 3:16 has the general love of God toward humanity in view as his motivation, however it is clear that this general love is manifested in a particular way to a particular group of people, regardless of how those people came to find themselves the object of such love.


----------



## py3ak

The problem is that a vital distinction in Rutherford's thought is not being preserved. On whichever side one comes down, the positions of individual theologians should be accurately represented. 
Every person who subscribes to the Westminster Standards by that act has professed a belief in the free offer of the gospel. But when other qualifiers are added (sincere, well-meant) the intention is sometimes to convey that God really wants non-elect persons to be saved. Whether or not one is willing to live with the further issues that view raises, it is clear just from the quotes posted from Rutherford's writings on this thread that he did not adopt that approach. 
There are three positions portmanteaud into one in the language of sincerity and well-meantness. One is the question of a universal presentation of the gospel; another of the conditional presentation of the gospel; a third as to what this says about God's desires. The Standards commit us to a particular answer on the first two points; but if they commit us to an affirmative answer to the question of God desiring what will never happen, then Rutherford could not have approved them on that point.
For Rutherford, God's love is so powerful that it is always effectual. So he would rather assert that God effectually loves those who are already in hell than say that God's love could ever be ineffectual. Where, in that scheme of universal efficacy, is there room for a wishing or velleity or unfulfilled desire or non-executive volition on God's part? This is why Rutherford's own precise references (e.g., to the voluntas signi) have to be carefully remarked.
It is perfectly possible to preach the gospel promiscuously and feelingly as Rutherford did without taking the line that Dabney and Murray, among others, confidently argued.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

From the site, Calvin was quoted,

“…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.”

I'm just curious about Calvin's wording here. Did he actually think God desires the salvation of the whole human race in some sense?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I agree that Rutherford believed in promiscuous and ardent gospel proclamation without necessarily adopting all that might be conveyed by later writers who add qualifiers like "sincere" and "well-meant" to the free gospel offer. And we ought to be careful, as I noted in my post at #23, not to attribute to theologians positions that they didn't hold (as has been noted by several with respect to Rutherford). 

My concern in this discussion at this time is not what any particular theologian holds, including Calvin or Rutherford. None of them is binding. The doctrinal standards are (the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards). We can contend, as some have called the positions, for a "high Calvinism" or a "moderate Calvinism," though it is simply not the case that with respect to the issues under discussion either Dort or Westminster teach Rutherford's or Murray's position with respect to God's desires. I do not believe that they rule out such positions, any more than I believe that they rule out supralapsarianism, although they do rule out, as some have rightly suggested, any position contrary to the imperative to preach the gospel to all mankind alike and to call every single listener who hears such gospel proclamation to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to repent of his sin.

Neither Travis nor Matthew would disagree with that last statement (the gospel is to be preached to all without distinction and every hearer called to believe and repent). My concern is that we don't attribute to Rutherford something that he didn't teach about John 3:16 _and_ that we don't call our brand of high-Calvinism "the true reformed" gospel when such is not taught explicitly by the Reformed Standards (nor Calvin for that matter), though it may be taught by various Calvinist theologians.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Travis Fentiman

I have a question for anyone who wants to take a stab at it:


Was everyone in the crowd Jesus was speaking to Elect in John 6:32?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven?"​

Surely not, because in John 6:66 it says "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him."

Yet, the text says that the Father gave Christ, not to the elect only, but to the world, including the unbelieving reprobate.


Was the woman at the well Elect?​
If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.​

Of course whether the woman at the well was Elect or not is irrelevant, God gave His Son not only for the Elect, but for all sinners indescrimately, elect or not. "Gift" has no meaning if God does not intend to give the gift to the recipients.

As the text says, Christ is a conditional gift to the world: a gift non-meritoriously, and instrumentally conditioned upon the person (elect and reprobate) receiving the gift by faith, as the text says: "If thou knewest the gift of God... thou would have asked of Him and He would have given thee living water." If the said condition is supplied through the electing purposes and love of God, then the intended blessing is bestowed.


These two passages follow immediately from John 3:16 and help to explain it, demonstrating that John 3:16, as argued in the article above, is God's gift ("gave His only begotten Son") not to the elect alone, but to the world of sinners as human-sinners, stemming from and being a token of His love for the human race, the gift being well-meant and intended to be received by faith.


If someone can answer my questions several posts above:

Why Christ be sent into the world to condemn the elect, John 3:17?​
And how can John equivocate on the word "world" and only mean the Elect in v. 16, and then mean the reprobate in verses 19 through 20, without giving any contextual indicators that he is equivocating?​


----------



## irresistible_grace

Warfield On “Love” And “World” In John 3:16 | The Heidelblog


----------



## MW

Travis,

John 3:16. The ultimate referent is the elect world in the eternal counsel of God. This is insisted upon against Arminianism. The proximate reference point so far as the temporal outworking of God's gracious purpose is concerned is the world of mankind sinners _indefinitely_. This is the doctrine of the Marrowmen. There is no _definite_ reference to all men, but only a general reference to sinners as such. Exegetically, I take "world" in context to refer to the universal expansion of God's purposes beyond Israel in contrast to the particularist nationalism which characterised Dr. Nicodemus and the College of Pharisees. They expected the world to be destroyed with the coming of the Messianic kingdom and for Israel to be exalted above the nations. I am also inclined to agree with people like John Murray that "world" has an ethical quality of opposition to God. In this latter sense it is used in v. 19, and this should answer your query on that usage. Concerning v. 17, "the world" cannot be taken to mean "all men" without nullifying the condition of v. 16, "whosoever believeth."

Samuel Rutherford. I concur that he was refuting Arminian universal redemption, but the foundation of the Arminian doctrine was "catholic [universal] goodwill to save all." In refuting universal redemption Rutherford demolished the argument from "catholic goodwill." Those who include "catholic goodwill" in their view of a well-meant offer will find themselves in the firing line of his sharply pointed arguments. He was directly opposed to it regardless of what quarter it came from.

Concerning the quotation from Trial and Triumph, this only shows what he explicitly states in Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners, namely, that there is a general, conditional, and indefinite offer of salvation to all men in the gospel. Any attempt to conclude from his statements that he held to an universal, unconditional, definite desire in God for man's salvation is an unwarranted imposition on his words and directly contrary to his stated views.

John Kennedy. The same applies to John Kennedy. By removing the conditionality with which he offered the gospel one can make him speak contrary to his own mind. When the condition "him that cometh to me" is understood, the invitation falls in its place. Again, I recommend the section on Man as Evangelised in Man's Relations to God. There is also a sermon on the Father's Drawing which should be available online somewhere. Likewise, his remarks on the United Presbyterian Declaratory Statement show clearly that he rejected the doctrine of universal love and will.

 Francis Turretin expressly rejects the doctrine of universal will as Amyraldian. Such respected theologians as R. L. Dabney, James Willson, and William Cunningham represented him as such. William Cunningham utliised his arguments against the Amyraldians to refute the teaching that God has an inefficacious will.

John Murray. While I dissent from Prof. Murray's view on two contrary wills in God I can appreciate that he kept his view within very strict limits. He did not adduce texts like John 3:16 and 1 Tim. 2:4 to support his position. These lead in an overt Arminian direction when taken in an universalist sense.

The Confession and Catechisms do not teach or countenance the doctrine of contrary wills, or of an inefficacious universal will in God. Hence the Declaratory statements which were made towards the close of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries in order to add this sentimental universalism to the teaching of the subordinate standards. Consitutionalist Freechurchmen saw that this form of universalism was in fact detrimental to and subversive of the clear scriptural teaching of the standards and therefore opposed it. To quote Dr. Kennedy,



> To trace election to love is to make it impossible to conceive of a relation of love between God and those not elected. To trace the purpose of salvation to love is to make it impossible to conceive of those as loved on whom that purpose does not bear. To trace to love the provision made for the fulfilment of that purpose is to make it impossible to conceive of those as loved on whom the purpose does not take effect. But election is traced to love in chap iii. 5. And so in chap. iii. 6 is the provision for the fulfilment of the purpose bearing on the elect. Love, according to the Confession, accounts for the election; election defines the bearing of the purpose, and the purpose requires, and determines the destination of, the provision. The following extracts from the Confession make this abundantly plain. “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, and of His mere free grace and love.” And “as God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”



I might also add that the teaching of WCF 2.1, following holy Scripture, which says, "working all things after the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will," and the teaching of Shorter Catechism answer 24, "the will of God for our salvation," directly counteracts the teaching of two contrary wills in God, or of an inefficacious will dependent on the free will of man, or of the attempt to separate the Word and Spirit in the offer of salvation.


----------



## KMK

Travis Fentiman said:


> These two passages follow immediately from John 3:16 and help to explain it,



I would argue that verses 14 and 15 are more relevant to the context of 'world' in verse 16.



> And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: *15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. *16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. *17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.



"And as...even so..."

Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness as a means of atonement by faith for the sin of Israel as a nation. However, the serpent was not lifted up as a means of atonement by faith for each and every Israelite.



> And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; *and much people of Israel died*. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned... Num 21:6,7



"Much people of Israel died" of the serpent bite _before_ the serpent was lifted up. Therefore, the serpent was lifted up as a means of atonement by faith not to each and every Israelite who was bitten by the serpents, but to Israel as a whole.

"Even so..." Jesus is lifted up as an atonement by faith, not to each and every person who ever lived, but to the world in general contrasted with Israel in general.

Whereas God loved Israel in general by providing the serpent on the pole, God so (in this manner) loved the world in general by providing His only begotten Son.

The emphasis is on 'world' in distinction from Israel, not 'world' in distinction from 'the elect.' I am not even sure John's original audience would have understood the concept of 'election' the way we do since it was Paul who really crystalized that particular doctrine.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Rev. Matthew Winzer,

If I may ask, what about John Calvin? Did he affirm the doctrine of universal will? If not, can you explain the quote I mentioned in my previous comment?


----------



## MW

Stephen Charnock helps us to think in biblical terms on the blessedness of God (Works 2:169):

The blessedness of God is hence evidenced. If God be almighty, he can want nothing; all want speaks weakness. If he doth what he will, he cannot be miserable; all misery consists in those things which happen contrary to our will. There is nothing can hinder his happiness, because nothing can resist his power. Since he is omnipotent, nothing can hurt him, nothing can strip him of what he hath, of what he is. *If he can do whatsoever he will*, *he cannot want anything that he wills*. *He is as happy*, *as great*, *as glorious*, *as he will*; *for he hath a perfect liberty of will to will*, *and a perfect power to attain what he will*: his will cannot be restrained, nor his power mated. *It would be a defect in blessedness to will what he were not able to do*. Sorrow is the result of a want of power, with a presence of will. *If he could will anything which he could not effect*, *he would be miserable*, *and no longer God*; he can do whatsoever he pleases, *and therefore can want nothing that pleases him*.


----------



## MW

Stephen Charnock helps us to see that the doctrine of a "contrary will" is nothing other than the sinful propensity in men to subject God to their lusts. Far from conceding to this sinful propensity God overpowers and overrules it to the praise of His glory and the preservation of His blessedness (Works 1:189):

*Sin* in its own nature endeavours to render God the most miserable being. *It is nothing but an opposition to the will of God*. The will of no creature is so much contradicted as the will of God is by devils and men; and there is nothing under the heavens that the affections of human nature stand more point blank against, than against God. There is a slight of him in all the faculties of man; our souls are as unwilling to know him as our wills are averse to follow him: Rom. viii. 7, 'The carnal mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, nor can be subject.' *It is true God's will cannot be hindered of its effect*, *for then God would not be supremely blessed*, *but unhappy and miserable*; all misery ariseth from a want of that which a nature would have and ought to have ; besides, if anything could frustrate God's will, it would be superior to him; God would not be omnipotent, and so would lose the perfection of the deity, and consequently the deity itself; *for that which did wholly defeat God's will would be more powerful than he*. But sin is a contradiction to the will of God's revelation; to the will of his precept, and therein doth naturally tend to a superiority over God, and would usurp his omnipotence, and deprive him of his blessedness. *For if God had not an infinite power to turn the designs of it to his own glory*, *but the will of sin could prevail*, *God would be totally deprived of his blessedness*. Doth not sin endeavour to subject God to the extravagant and contrary wills of men, and make him more a slave than any creature can be? For the will of no creature, not the meanest and most despicable creature, is so much crossed as the will of God is by sin: Isa. xliii. 24, 'Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins;' thou hast endeavoured to make a mere slave of me by sin. *Sin endeavours to subject the blessed God to the humour and lust of every person in the world*.


----------



## MW

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> If I may ask, what about John Calvin? Did he affirm the doctrine of universal will? If not, can you explain the quote I mentioned in my previous comment?



No; he rejected contrary wills. God's "wishes" are fulfilled. He "wishes" the human race _should not_ perish and has therefore provided the way of salvation. The human race in fact does not perish. Faith is given to the elect. God's "wishes" are effected in the salvation of the elect.


----------



## MW

Travis,

To follow up my comment on the Free Church constitutionalists, I note a link on your website to James Macgregor. In this linked excerpt he clearly stated that the view of an unfulfilled desire in God is Amyraldian:



> The more malignant aspects of Amyraldism are as follows: --
> 
> First, The notion of any saving purpose of God that does not infallibly determine salvation, or, in other words, of a frustrated intention, *or disappointed desire*, of His; this notion is not only on the face of it unscriptural, but in the heart of it offensive even to our natural reason, because inconsistent with the very nature and perfections of Deity.



In the second excerpt he expressly identifies the teaching as Arminianism:



> Arminianism seeks a warranting ground in a doctrine of "general grace"; that is, *of a certain wistfulness on God's part that all men should be saved*, which so far is a saving purpose: -- a purpose, however, that does not secure the actual salvation of any one, but only puts it into the minister's power to say with truth to every sinner, "God loves thee," where Calvinism only enables him to say, "God's love, with its graces, is offered to thee in the gospel."



It is very clear that James Macgregor regarded the teaching of universal love and will as Amyraldian and Arminian. Whereas the old Calvinist offers God's love and grace to the sinner to be embraced by faith, the Arminianising Calvinist seeks to assure the sinner of that love and grace before he has believed, and makes this the warranting ground of the offer.


----------



## MW

Travis,

I also note that James Durham is referenced on your site. Specifically, the following statement:



> Why will God have Christ in the offer of the gospel brought so near the hearers of it? Answ. 1. Because it serves to commend the grace and love of God in Christ Jesus: when the invitation is so broad, that it is to all . . . It’s this, which gives us warrant to receive that which God offers: *it’s not because* we are elected or beloved of God before time, or because *he purposed to do us good* . . . *these are not the grounds of faith*, being God’s secret will: but we believe, because God calleth and maketh the offer, inviteth and promiseth, know that he is faithful, and we may trust him . . for the word in *its offer speaks alike to all, and to none particularly* . . .”



Here, again, is clear evidence that "God's desire" for particular persons forms no part of the basis on which the gospel is offered. Those who speak of universal desire are attempting to pry into the heart of God and seek out a warrant that He has not revealed.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, I appreciate all of your posts above and thank you for them.


I hope you will appreciate as well this passage from Francis Turretin's Institutes affirming the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel (at the bottom of the page): 

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: Samuel Rutherford and Francis Turretin - The Westminster Presbyterian


And, speaking of Stephen Charnock, here he clearly affirms the Sincere Free Offer:


The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: John Howe, John Flavel and Stephen Charnock - The Westminster Presbyterian


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew,

Regarding James MacGregor, I agree with you that he speaks against Amyraldianism. However, in the same article he also supports, in the words of Rev. Sherman Isbell, "a beneficent benevolence in God toward man which involves no saving purpose."


The Will of God and the Gospel Offer: Robert Murray M'Cheyne, John Duncan, William Cunningham, Charles Calder Mackintosh, James MacGregor, John Kennedy and Hugh Martin - The Westminster Presbyterian


If you desire to see it in context in the full article, it is here:

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/issue3.pdf


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Samuel, 

Regarding your question about John Calvin's views, you can read him for yourself here:

John Calvin on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online

John Calvin on God’s love for Mankind | Reformed Books Online

This is just a start, I will be adding multitudes more quotes as time allows.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Also, if it is of interest, David Murray recently wrote a very simple article on how to respond when your child asks:

"Daddy, Does God Want to Save Me?"

Daddy, Does God Want To Save Me? | HeadHeartHand Blog


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, 

Regarding Durham, I agree with you insofar as what you quoted. However, how do you explain his second sermon in Christ Crucified, as quoted on that same page on my site?

But more than this, how do you interpret otherwise his two sermons in the Unsearchable Riches of Christ on Isa. 55, unleashing the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel on poor penny-less sinners? It is all over his writings.


----------



## MW

Travis,

The sincerity for Durham is in the indefinite terms. When you make those terms definite by preaching "universal desire" it ceases to be sincere, for God has not purposed salvation for all, the Saviour has not wrought salvation for all, and the Spirit does not apply salvation to all. It suffices to say that God desires to save those who will believe and come to Christ. By maintaining a Scriptural conditionality one is free to offer an all-sufficient and effectual salvation to all without discrimination or qualification.

Concerning Turretin, he stated clearly that universal will is absurd. If you understand his statements so as to preclude the idea of an ineffectual will in God his comments are well adapted to show the sincerity of the gospel offer. But introduce a contrary will in God and the sincerity of the offer is lost.


----------



## MW

On Stephen Charnock,



> the excellency of his nature is above the passions of men, but such expressions of himself manifest to us the sincerity of his goodness.



Nothing more is required. An intrinsic desire that is left unfulfilled is by definition a passion. Both Edward Reynolds and William Pemble define it as such.

On John Howe, who was very influential in the formation of Dabney's "psychological" view, I concur that he taught an unfulfilled will in God. It should be noted that in order to argue this view he denied the traditional reformed distinction of God's will into signi (sign) and beneplaciti (good pleasure).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may ask, what about John Calvin? Did he affirm the doctrine of universal will? If not, can you explain the quote I mentioned in my previous comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; he rejected contrary wills. God's "wishes" are fulfilled. He "wishes" the human race _should not_ perish and has therefore provided the way of salvation. *The human race in fact does not perish.* Faith is given to the elect. God's "wishes" are effected in the salvation of the elect.
Click to expand...


Do'h! I'm so stupid for not realizing that!


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, 

With regard to William Cunningham (who you mentioned in support of your position), and his understanding of God's Sincerity in the Free Offer of the Gospel, this page may be of help:


William Cunningham on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## nick

Travis Fentiman said:


> Also, if it is of interest, David Murray recently wrote a very simple article on how to respond when your child asks:
> 
> "Daddy, Does God Want to Save Me?"
> 
> Daddy, Does God Want To Save Me? | HeadHeartHand Blog



Murray clarifies his position in the comments. There are some good responses in those comments as well... some disrespectful ones as well, but hey, it wouldn't be the inter webs without 'em.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I was personally very disappointed in David Murray's article. He made the presumption that God's preceptive will means that "God desires all people keep His moral law." It all comes down to failing to distinguish between the *relation* of God's will to the *futurition* of things and the *obligation* of creation (which is under God's law).

This has been said again and again in this thread in different terms, but I think it needs to be said once more.

Properly, the preceptive will is God's desire that all men *should* do according to His law, not what they *will* do (that belongs to God's decretive will).

However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of *disposition*. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment *itself*, but rather the *justice* of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in *suffering itself*.

So, we see that God only has one will, yet multiple relations of it.

There are times when the relations of God's will overlap in the Bible, but it is of vital importance that they are not confused with each other.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> With regard to William Cunningham (who you mentioned in support of your position), and his understanding of God's Sincerity in the Free Offer of the Gospel, this page may be of help:



Travis, The emphasised words only state, "and of his desire to save men," with which all are in agreement. It says nothing about "all men." Further, in the non-emphasised portion he states, "in full consistency with *all* the attributes of his nature and *all* the principles of his moral government." In Historical Theology (2:454-455) Principal Cunningham very clearly stated that an ineffectual will in God is contrary to His attributes and contrary to the principles of His moral government.



> And thus they represent God as willing what never takes place, and what, therefore, He must be either unable or unwilling to effect. To say that He is unable to effect it, is to deny His omnipotence and supremacy. To say that He is unwilling to effect it, is to contradict themselves, or to ascribe to God two opposite and contrary wills, – one of which takes effect, or is followed by the result willed, and the other is not. To ascribe to God a conditional will of saving all men, while yet many perish, is to represent Him as willing what He knows will never take place, – as suspending His own purposes and plans upon the volitions and actions of creatures who live and move and have their being in Him, – as wholly dependent on them for the attainment of what He is desirous to accomplish; and all this, surely, *is plainly inconsistent with what we are taught to believe concerning the divine perfections and government*, – the relation in which God stands to His creatures, and the supremacy which He exercises over them.


----------



## nick

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I was personally very disappointed in David Murray's article.



I tried to emphasize the "responses" to the article in his comments section. 

We could probably start a new thread discussing that article, so this one doesn't get derailed.


----------



## whirlingmerc

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

When Jesus said Father forgive them, they know not what they do, it didn't sound like He meant only the elect. It sounded like a more general plea.
It's possible for God to display love the world at large and show His long suffering and other blessings in a general way and apply love to the elect more intensely

Psalm 145:16 You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing. ( this satisfaction has limits, it appears, to this life for many)
Psalm 145:19 He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them. ( this enjoyment is without end )


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

whirlingmerc said:


> 1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
> 
> When Jesus said Father forgive them, they know not what they do, it didn't sound like He meant only the elect. It sounded like a more general plea.
> It's possible for God to display love the world at large and show His long suffering and other blessings in a general way and apply love to the elect more intensely
> 
> Psalm 145:16 You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing. ( this satisfaction has limits, it appears, to this life for many)
> Psalm 145:19 He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them. ( this enjoyment is without end )



Michael,

Nobody here has suggested that God does not love every person that has ever lived. However, attributing a desire to God for the salvation of everyone is just a silly idea because God always fulfills His desires. See, Is. 46:10-11; Eph. 1:11; Dan. 4:35; Ps. 135:6; Job 23:13; Is. 14:24; Is. 14:27; Is. 45:9; Is. 55:8, 9; Rom. 9:19; John 1:13; Rom. 9:16.


----------



## Sovereign Grace

Okay, let's take a look at a few verses that the Arminians tear to rag dolls, and find the true meaning of each:

*1 John 2:2* and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,*(YLT)*

The Arminians are all "goody, goody, Christ propitiated the sins of everyone who ever lived, even those babies who died in their mother's womb". To quote Lee Corso, "not so fast, my friend". The word "propitiate" means an actual payment, and appeasement of God's wrath concerning sin. If this was a propitiation for everyone who would ever live, then there's a myriad of uncondemned people living in sin. There are people who had their sin debt paid in full, yet they go there anyways...a double payment, if you will. It makes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection of no value to them. Now, the propitiation He made is world wide in scope, but only in that it goes to His sheep scattered all over the world, and to not every individual who ever lived.


*1 Peter 3:9* the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation,*(YLT)*

Another verse that the Arminiand rip in itty bitty pieces. The context in the text, as the KJV put it, is to "us-ward", and the YLT states "us". Regardless, the context is that God is long-suffering....patient, not willing that any of us...the church, His sheep, would perish. Again, God is not willing that any of the elect, His chosen sheep, to perish, but that all would come to repentance/reformation. He chose them with an electing love, chose them from before the foundation of the world(Eph. 1:4), and will make all means possible to procure salvation for them. None of them will persih.


*1 John 4:10* in this is the love, not that we loved God, but that He did love us, and did send His Son a propitiation for our sins.*(YLT)*

Here we see that pesky little word again. And there's that pesky little word "us" again. The context always refers to the elect in regards to propitiation, atonement, sanctification, justification, &c. No goat is ever sanctified, justified, atoned for, and glorified on the last day. 


*John 3:16* for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that *every one who is believing in him* may not perish, but may have life age-during.*(YLT)*


Notice the context here. Christ died so that "every one who is believing in Him", may not perish. Believing is faith, and faith is a gift of God, who is the Author and Finisher of our faith. So then, Christ didn't die for everyone, but for His sheep. In John 10, He said He was the good Shepherd, and the Shepherd would give His life for His sheep. I rest in this.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> However, attributing a desire to God for the salvation of everyone is just a silly idea because God always fulfills His desires.



Samuel,

What do you make of God not fulfilling His desires in Ps. 81?:


11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.

13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!

14 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.

15 The haters of the Lord should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.

16 He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.


And what about 1 Thess. 4, where God's will goes unfulfilled when we break His commands?


2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,


----------



## Travis Fentiman

convicted1 said:


> Okay, let's take a look at a few verses that the Arminians tear to rag dolls, and find the true meaning of each:




Also, this discussion has nothing to do with Arminianism. 

Arminians posit a will of God to save at the level of decree (for which Matthew kindly quoted Rutherford against). The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel posits a revealed will of God to save, not at the level of decree, and has nothing to do with futurition. Sincere Free Offerists gladly agree in all critiques of Arminianism. The two things are apples and oranges.

The heart of the matter is that Limited Atonement does not infer that there is no revealed will of God to save all. To make such an inference is invalid and a misunderstanding of Limited Atonement.


----------



## Mushroom

Travis Fentiman said:


> The heart of the matter is that Limited Atonement does not infer that there is no revealed will of God to save all. To make such an inference is invalid and a misunderstanding of Limited Atonement.


If you say a blue thing is red, and that to differ with that is invalid and a misunderstanding, does that make the blue thing red?

Limited atonement is itself a term that _represents_ _the very concept_ that God has not willed to save all.

We don't get to rewrite what we find incongruous to our (fallen) sensibilities. God is, well... GOD. He does exactly what He wants.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Travis Fentiman said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, attributing a desire to God for the salvation of everyone is just a silly idea because God always fulfills His desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel,
> 
> What do you make of God not fulfilling His desires in Ps. 81?:
> 
> 
> 11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.
> 
> 12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.
> 
> 13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!
> 
> 14 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.
> 
> 15 The haters of the Lord should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.
> 
> 16 He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.
Click to expand...


What exactly is God's desire here? That His people would have hearkened unto Him? It doesn't say that. God's speech here is hypothetical. IF His people would have done this, God would have done that. That was God's desire.



> And what about 1 Thess. 4, where God's will goes unfulfilled when we break His commands?
> 
> 
> 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
> 
> 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,



God's will for our sanctification always comes to completion. Whether it is hindered by our sinning doesn't negate this fact. If God did actually wish for us to be fully sanctified right at this moment, it would happen. However, it is God's secret will that we fall into various sins in our way to full sanctification. God means all things for our good, all things, including our sin, somehow work _together_ for our good. However, this must not encourage us to sin, because the way of righteousness is always better for us than sinning, and most importantly, righteousness is commanded, while sin is forbidden.


----------



## Sovereign Grace

Travis Fentiman said:


> convicted1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's take a look at a few verses that the Arminians tear to rag dolls, and find the true meaning of each:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this discussion has nothing to do with Arminianism.
Click to expand...


I agree. I was just using those verses to show you that God has a purpose...to save sinners. He chose these sinners before the foundation of the world. The others will remain in their fallen state. God is willing to save sinful elect peoples and to cast into eternal torment sinful non-elect goats.


> Arminians posit a will of God to save at the level of decree (for which Matthew kindly quoted Rutherford against). The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel posits a revealed will of God to save, not at the level of decree, and has nothing to do with futurition. Sincere Free Offerists gladly agree in all critiques of Arminianism. The two things are apples and oranges.
> 
> The heart of the matter is that Limited Atonement does not infer that there is no revealed will of God to save all. To make such an inference is invalid and a misunderstanding of Limited Atonement.



If the atonement isn't Limited/Definite, then what do you have? Universalism. God's purpose was to send Jesus to redeem His sheep, period. Nothing more, nothing less.....


----------



## KGP

And the interesting thing about that is the Bible doesn't really outline how to become a sheep; it just acknowledges they exist, what they are like and how they behave, and that Jesus in coming to gather them will not lose one of them.

According to the Bible, sheep just are. Some lost, some found. Some in the fold, some wandering astray.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Matthew1344

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.



I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months! 

And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.


----------



## Matthew1344

Also, for everyone who says "no" to the general offer, would you say its ok to say "God demands that everyone believe on his Son!" 

I hope that makes sense...


----------



## Matthew1344

NaphtaliPress said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/well-meant-offer-gospel-calvin-will-s-god-81892/



The youtube video made the comment: 

*"The gospel is neither well meant, nor is it an offer. The gospel is not well meant or sincere, because salvation cannot be sincerely offered to people where no provision has ever been made for their sins, nor ever will be. Likewise the gospel is not an offer because the atonement has already accomplished the work of putting away the sins of particular people. To say that it is well meant or an offer.... is an denial of salvation by sovereign grace taught in the scriptures.

It also is not a command."*

What are you guys think about what he said? it is only a 5 min video, i encourage you to listen to the whole thing.


----------



## Loopie

Matthew1344 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/well-meant-offer-gospel-calvin-will-s-god-81892/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The youtube video made the comment:
> 
> *"The gospel is neither well meant, nor is it an offer. The gospel is not well meant or sincere, because salvation cannot be sincerely offered to people where no provision has ever been made for their sins, nor ever will be. Likewise the gospel is not an offer because the atonement has already accomplished the work of putting away the sins of particular people. To say that it is well meant or an offer.... is an denial of salvation by sovereign grace taught in the scriptures.
> 
> It also is not a command."*
> 
> What are you guys think about what he said? it is only a 5 min video, i encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
Click to expand...


The gospel is well meant because it means what it says:

John 6:37 (NASB) 
37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Jesus' promise is not that everyone on the planet will come to him. Jesus' promise is that the one coming to him will not be cast out. If we ask the question: "Who comes to Jesus?" the answer is "Those that are given to him by the Father." People naturally do not have the ability nor the will to come to Christ. They have to be made willing by God who performs heart surgery on them (replacing the heart of stone with a heart of flesh). 

Acts 2:38 (NASB) 
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

This is certainly a well-meant offer (as well as being a command). The beautiful offer of the gospel is that if anyone repents and believes they will be forgiven of their sins. When we ask the question: "Who will repent and believe?" the answer is "Those that have been drawn by the Father." The promise IS NOT that everyone will be drawn by the Father, but that those who repent will be saved. It is not speaking to the secret work of God, but to the activity of men (which is the result of the work of God).

Consider the fact that all men are naturally rebels against their King, who is God. They set his castle on fire, kill his servants, and curse his name. The King is poised to send in his army and destroy every rebel. Of course, rebels themselves are dying as the castle continues to burn. The beautiful offer that the King makes is that if any rebel repents he will be forgiven. The problem is that the rebels hate the King and have no desire to repent. Their hearts must be changed, and that only happens by a divine act. But that does not mean that the offer is not well-meant. If the offer was not well-meant, it would mean that a person could repent and believe but still be put to death for rebellion. It would mean that the King was lying.

Acts 17:30 (NASB) 
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent"

Sounds like a command to me.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matt,

If it is of help, the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel interpretation of Eze. 18 was the virtually universal position of the puritans. One example amongst many is Thomas Manton's two sermons on it found here:


Thomas Manton on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


Also, here is David Dickson (Scottish puritan pastor and professor, and co-author of the Sum of Saving Knowledge) on God sincerely desiring, by His revealed will, the salvation of the reprobate. From his Commentary on the Epistles:



“And with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved.”

2 Thess. 2:10​


"'Because' – Article 7: Touching the subjects of Antichrist, and their perdition, and the causes thereof: The retinue of Antichrist, properly called his household, and familiars, are described to be such as with obstinate minds stubbornly cleave unto him, even to the end, and in whom the Devil is very effectual.

(1) From the property of Reprobates, They perish, they are of the number of those that perish.

(2) From the meritorious cause of their perdition, because they receive not the Truth offered in the Word of God with love, that they might be saved."


http://reformedbooksonline.com/topi...kson-on-the-sincere-free-offer-of-the-gospel/


----------



## earl40

Travis Fentiman said:


> Matt,
> 
> If it is of help, the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel interpretation of Eze. 18 was the virtually universal position of the puritans. One example amongst many is Thomas Manton's two sermons on it found here:
> 
> 
> Thomas Manton on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online
> 
> 
> Also, here is David Dickson (Scottish puritan pastor and professor, and co-author of the Sum of Saving Knowledge) on God sincerely desiring, by His revealed will, the salvation of the reprobate. From his Commentary on the Epistles:
> 
> 
> 
> “And with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved.”
> 
> 2 Thess. 2:10​
> 
> 
> "'Because' – Article 7: Touching the subjects of Antichrist, and their perdition, and the causes thereof: The retinue of Antichrist, properly called his household, and familiars, are described to be such as with obstinate minds stubbornly cleave unto him, even to the end, and in whom the Devil is very effectual.
> 
> (1) From the property of Reprobates, They perish, they are of the number of those that perish.
> 
> (2) From the meritorious cause of their perdition, because they receive not the Truth offered in the Word of God with love, that they might be saved."
> 
> 
> David Dickson on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online




Allow me to express something I learned in 1st grade? God gets everything He desires. I wish not to be contentious but I am suggesting you look into resources that do not contradict what I learned in grade school which is contrary to many of the reformed today.

Start here, for this review is like stepping into a room with the lights on at night.

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Matthew1344 said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
> 
> And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
Click to expand...


Matt,

When the Bible says in Isaiah 53:10 that "it pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]," do you honestly think that the Father delighted in the unspeakable sufferings of the Son just because He delights in suffering itself? Of course, you don't. God loves justice, but He is not malicious. The only reason why any suffering in the universe delights God is because it glorifies His righteousness. As Lamentations 3:33 says, "He doth not afflict _willingly_ nor grieve the children of men." He does not inflict suffering for its own sake.


----------



## Matthew1344

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
> 
> And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matt,
> 
> When the Bible says in Isaiah 53:10 that "it pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]," do you honestly think that the Father delighted in the unspeakable sufferings of the Son just because He delights in suffering itself? Of course, you don't. God loves justice, but He is not malicious. The only reason why any suffering in the universe delights God is because it glorifies His righteousness. As Lamentations 3:33 says, "He doth not afflict _willingly_ nor grieve the children of men." He does not inflict suffering for its own sake.
Click to expand...


I see your point


----------



## MW

Travis,

David Dickson did not teach that God sincerely desires the salvation of the reprobate. You are putting words in his mouth. Please stop misrepresenting the historic reformed position.

"The Lord's will is the sovereign and absolute cause of all his working, and that whereon all men's faith and reason must rest: _whatsoever he pleased_, _he did_. -- David Dickson, Explication of the Psalms, 2:453.


----------



## MW

David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error: " Note, That *the cause of this reprobation is* not man's sin, but *the absolute will and good pleasure of God*. Man's sin indeed is the cause why God will punish, but no occasion why he did ordain to pass by, or to punish man. This decree is just, because God has power over man, as the potter hath power over the clay. Neither is the end of this decree the condemnation of the creature, but the manifestation of God's justice."


----------



## MW

David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 176-177: "There is indeed an Offer to be made to all the Hearers of the Gospel, to whom God in His Providence doth send His Messengers, who are appointed to make offer of Peace and Reconciliation through Christ, upon condition of hearty receiving it, even to such as the Lord knoweth will reject the Offer altogether... *But this doth no ways import or infer an universal conditional Redemption or any conditional Decree of God*: For there is a vast difference between a conditional Decree of God and a Decree for bringing about God's Purpose by offering Peace unto Men upon a Condition. A conditional Decree presupposeth that God is not resolved what to do about them, to whom He shall make offer of Peace upon condition, but that He doth suspend the Determination of His own Will, till the Offer be made and the Man hath refused or accepted of the Condition propounded unto him; *which sort of Decree cannot be in God*, to whom are known all His own Works, and all Men's Works from the Beginning, Acts 15.18. And Who doth all things according to the determinate counsel of His own will, Eph. 1.11. But a Decree to offer Peace upon Condition of Believing in Christ is a wise mean both of hiding and executing His own secret Decree, and putting the Persons to whom He makes the Offer unto Trial; that after the drawing forth of the natural Enmity & Backwardness, which is in all Men to come unto Christ, till they be drawn by God, *He may have Mercy on whom He will*, *and take the Refuse at the Hands of Others for the Glory of His Justice and Grace*, *according as He hath determined in Himself*. The one way determineth Man as God willeth; the other way determineth God as Man willeth."


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew, 

You are absolutely right that *Dickson *argued against a conditional redemption and any conditional decree in God, all of which I affirm as well. However, it is clearly the case that Dickson believed that God sincerely desires the well-being and salvation of all the reprobates that the Gospel comes to. You will notice that Dickson takes Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel interpretations of Ps. 27:7-8; Matt 22:1-7; Matt 11:16-17; Matt 23:37; Rom 10:21; Isa. 65:2; 2 Thess. 2:10 and John 4:10 as documented here:


David Dickson on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


Below are a few quotes:

---------------

*Commentary on Ps. 81:13*​

"Next, *this manner of speech shows how acceptable and pleasant unto God it is to see the faith, obedience and welfare of His [visible church] people*, all joined together in His appointed order. 

…

4. Fourthly, that *God delights not in the death or destruction of His people, but that they should repent and live*. 

…

6. Sixthly, that God requires a suitable meeting of His people to His dispensations, that is, that they may be so willing to hearken to His voice, and so loath to offend Him, *as He does manifest by word and works His willingness to save them, and His loathness to destroy them*."



*Therapeutica Sacra
Book 1, Chapter 3*​
Wherefore, whosoever in the preaching of the Gospel, are charged and commanded to repent, to believe in Christ, or turn unto God, they are commanded also to use all these external means [“hear a Sermon preached, to read the Scripture, to be informed by Catechizing, and conference of Religion…”] whereby they may be informed of the duty required, and of the means leading thereunto;* in the exercise of which external means, they may meet with sundry common operations and effects of Gods Spirit, before they be regenerate or converted*, whereof the use may be sound not only in, but also after, conversion; And if any man shall refuse, slight or neglect to follow these preparatory exercises, which may prepare him for conversion, he is inexcusable before God and man, and *guilty of rejecting of the offer of reconciliation, yea guilty of resisting of the Holy Ghost*, of which sin and guiltiness the holy martyr Stephen charges the misbelieving Jews, *Acts 7:51 [ Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost*: as your fathers did, so do ye.].



*Book 1, Chapter 6​*
“Together with *these external means, serving for drawing on the covenant* and going on in it, *the common operations of God do concur; common to all the called, both elect and reprobate, and gifts common to both, are bestowed, such as illumination, moral persuasion*, *historical, dogmatic and temporary faith, moral change of affections, and some sort of external amendment of their outward conversation*, saving grace being the special gift of God to His own.”



*Book 1, Chapter 6*​
4. Of this manner of covenanting and taking into Church-fellowship, *all the called that consent in a moral way to the condition of the covenant, regenerate and unregenerate*, we have a pattern in the Lord’s covenanting with all Israel, Ex. 19,* the covenant is offered to all the Israelites, without exception; all are invited** to enter in covenant without exception, arguments, motives and moral inducements are made use of*, *from their experience of the Lord’s goodness and gifts given to them before*; most ample promises of spiritual benefits, are made unto them, conditionally to be bestowed on them both in this life, and in the life to come, verses 4-6, the people embrace the condition of the covenant, v. 7-8, the people are sanctified, and prepared to receive the holy commands and will of God, in the rest of the chapter;


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> You are absolutely right that *Dickson *argued against a conditional redemption and any conditional decree in God, all of which I affirm as well.



You affirm a conditional decree in God even if you deny the expression. As Francis Turretin stated, "For since no act of proper and intrinsic will in God concerning the event of anything can be granted (which does not imply a decree), whoever recognizes a conditional will in God must necessarily admit a conditional decree in him." Institutes, 1:397. You claim God has desires for events which are conditional on the will of man. That is a conditional decree, whether you like to admit it or not.

Again, your quotations from David Dickson do not speak to the point you are trying to make. It is a futile errand. Messrs. Dickson and co. stood firmly in the centre of the reformed faith and refuted Arminian doctrines from beginning to end.


----------



## Matthew1344

Did CH Spurgeon believe in the well meant offer? When I read his stuff, it looks like he did.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matt Ford,

Yes you are correct that Spurgeon very much preached and defended the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel against the hyper-calvinists of his day. Great book by Ian Murray, going for 21 cents before shipping:

Amazon.com: Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (9780851516929): Iain H. Murray: Books


----------



## Loopie

Matt and Travis,

What do you believe a well-meant offer is to look like, and what would a not-well-meant offer look like? It seems that we need to work out some of our definitions and concepts of what constitutes a 'well-meant offer'.

For instance, let's say that you and I all live in the same neighborhood. Let's also say that I post a flyer/announcement on the town center bulletin board in preparation for a coming storm/natural disaster. The announcement reads as follows: "Anyone who comes to my house will be given shelter, food, and clothing until the storm passes."

Now, to make it more akin to humanity's spiritual deadness, let's say that everyone in the town hates me and wishes that I would leave. On their own, left to their own devices none of them want to come to my house for shelter, food, and clothing, even though there is no other place that can keep them safe.

So if no one shows up at my house, is my offer not well-meant? It still certainly is, because I will do what I promised I would do. What if everyone shows up at my house? The same thing applies, and I will do what I promised I would do.

But the offer says nothing about who specifically will be provided with a change of heart so that they actually want to come to my house. Everyone in the town hates me, and so only if something changes their heart will they come to my house.

This analogy of course is not perfect because I am human, not God. In the case of salvation, God's offer is well-meant. Those who come to him will never be cast out. But the situation is that NO ONE is going to come to him unless God does something first. God is surrounded by human rebels and he must change their hearts so that they actually desire to come to him and be saved. 

I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts regarding what you think constitutes a well-meant offer.


----------



## Matthew1344

Loopie said:


> What do you believe a well-meant offer is to look like, and what would a not-well-meant offer look like?


No idea, im just a spectator trying to figure this out myself. I havent decided what side of the fence im on.

And on another note, if you deny the well meant offer do you also say that God has no love for the reprobate at all?


----------



## Matthew1344

Loopie said:


> So if no one shows up at my house, is my offer not well-meant? It still certainly is, because I will do what I promised I would do. What if everyone shows up at my house? The same thing applies, and I will do what I promised I would do.


I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Matthew1344 said:


> Loopie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one shows up at my house, is my offer not well-meant? It still certainly is, because I will do what I promised I would do. What if everyone shows up at my house? The same thing applies, and I will do what I promised I would do.
> 
> 
> 
> I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.
Click to expand...


Yes, and that is sadly how Travis defines the terms "sincere" and "well-meant." 

This false doctrine of the Well-meant Offer of the Gospel is actually closely related to the false doctrine of Common Grace which would have us believe that the goodness God bestows on people demonstrates His favour for them, while in reality whether God means it as a blessing or a curse depends on whether they will receive it with thanksgiving (that is from the heart) or not. And it is the same thing with the Gospel offer.

Of course, there are those who insist that God's goodness IS the very definition of His favour, but if they took into consideration the fact that the more good things God gives to the reprobate, the more good things will be rejected by them and the more wrath will be stored for them for the judgment day. Surely, God does not think that the temporary pleasures He grants for the reprobate in this life compensates for their increased suffering under the wrath of God.


----------



## Loopie

Matthew1344 said:


> I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.



Yes but the offer that God makes is not that he will regenerate all men and draw them all to himself in a salvific way. The offer is simply that whoever comes will not be cast out. Those who repent and believe will be saved. We are not warranted in assuming that since God is commanding everyone to repent that everyone is able and willing, in and of themselves, to actually do this (Romans 8 suggest that no one is able to please God naturally). 

Now it is clear that God does not 'desire' all men to repent. If that is the case then God will be 'eternally bummed' by the fact that so many people are in hell when he tried as hard as he could to save them. We must not ignore the spiritual deadness of men. No one is ever going to exercise saving faith unless God regenerates their hearts and gives them the gift of faith. So the simple fact of the matter is that God chooses to save some and not others. That alone is enough to suggest that clearly he does not desire the salvation of everyone, because if he really did want everyone to be saved he alone has the power to make that happen. 

As for God loving the reprobate I hope you recognize that God's love is multi-faceted, much like our own love. I love my wife differently then I love other peoples' wives (and rightly so). I love my children differently than I love other peoples' children (again, rightly so). So even though I affirm that God has a general benevolence for his creation, including all of humanity, he has a specific, salvific love for his people. I would affirm that he does not love the reprobate 'salvifically'. Yet to say that God therefore has no love at all for the reprobate is to suggest that the ONLY love that God can have is salvific love. That is overly simplistic and not at all fair to the Biblical text.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> You affirm a conditional decree in God even if you deny the expression. As Francis Turretin stated, "For since no act of proper and intrinsic will in God concerning the event of anything can be granted (which does not imply a decree), whoever recognizes a conditional will in God must necessarily admit a conditional decree in him." Institutes, 1:397. You claim God has desires for events which are conditional on the will of man. That is a conditional decree, whether you like to admit it or not.




Matthew,


1. I agree with Turretin and you that a conditional will in God would infer a conditional decree in God. However, the revealed will of the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel is not conditional upon anything, and none of the 50 historic reformed writers I have posted on my website ever say that it is conditioned upon anything. God's revealed will that reprobate gospel hearers should come to Christ and be saved is not conditioned on anything in them. God's will for such is true whether they have faith or not, whatever the state of their will is. To insinuate that the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel is a conditional will in God is to widely misunderstand the historic reformed position and miss the target completely.

You apparently are trying to lump together the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel with Amyraldianism or Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism. But it is the same reformed theologians that were arguing against Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism that were preaching and defending that it is God's revealed will that all gospel-hearers, including the reprobate, should be saved. 


2. Here is *Turretin *repeatedly affirming and defending explicitly that it is God's sincere will (which is not conditioned upon anything in the will of man) for gospel hearers (including the reprobate) to receive the gospel and be saved.

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, topic XV, question II, paragraphs XIV-XVI and XXI, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992-97, vol. 2, pp. 507-09

"XIV. Although God does not intend the salvation of the reprobate *by calling them, still he acts most seriously and sincerely; nor can any hypocrisy and deception be charged against him* -- neither with respect to God himself (because he seriously and most truly shows them the only and most certain way of salvation, seriously exhorts them to follow it and most sincerely promises salvation to all those who do follow it [to wit, believers and penitents]; nor does he only promise, but actually bestows it according to his promise); nor as to men because the offer of salvation is not made to them absolutely, but under a condition and thus it posits nothing unless the condition is fulfilled, which is wanting on the part of man. *Hence we cordially embrace what is said on this subject by the fathers of the Synod of Dort: "As many as are called through the gospel are seriously called. For God shows seriously and most truly in his word, what is pleasing to him, to wit, that the called should come to him*. He also seriously promises to all who come to him and believe rest to their souls and eternal life" ("Tertium et Quartum: De Hominis Corruptione et Conversione," 8 Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:[302]).

XV. *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."​


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts regarding what you think constitutes a well-meant offer.



Eric, the serious and sincere offer of the gospel is put forth in indefinite terms -- sinners, mankind, world. It is not directed to all men without exception. Jesus Christ did not obtain salvation for all men without exception. The salvation held forth in the gospel is a particular salvation which has been obtained by Christ for His people. It is offered to all men indiscriminately on condition that they come to Christ and believe in Him for the salvation of their souls. God desires to save them who believe. This is the express testimony of Scripture. When this "desire" is broadened beyond the terms of Scripture it is followed by ill consequences.

First, universal desire makes the offer insincere because it extends the terms beyond what has actually been accomplished. Christ did not obtain salvation for all men yet God is presented as if He desired the salvation of all men. The "desire" is not supported by any saving action on God's part, which introduces duplicity and simulation into His dealings.

Secondly, insincerity is generally defined as promising one thing and intending another. The doctrine of universal desire severs the preceptive will from the decretive will and creates two contrary wills in God -- one which says God desires the salvation of every man and another which effectively excludes some men from salvation. This can be understood as nothing other than double-dealing. Universal desire thus destroys the sincerity of the gospel offer.

Thirdly, like universal redemption, the doctrine of universal desire creates a bridge that is wide enough to cover the world but not long enough to reach to the other end. If God desires it for every man, and every man is not in fact saved, the salvation offered in the gospel is something other than finished and accomplished work of Christ. What that other thing might be is left to one's imagination to decipher.

Fourthly, universal desire makes salvation an object of the preceptive will rather than the decretive will. This makes the salvation offered in the gospel a duty to be performed by man rather than a gift of God. This is traditionally identified as neonomianism.

Fifthly, universal desire introduces an ineffectual quality into the word of God, so that it does not accomplish that for which God has sent it. The idea that God does not always fulfil His word, or that the word of God can be made of no effect, will only undermine faith in the promise of the gospel. How can the hearer be assured that God will save him?

Sixthly, universal desire obscures the threatening which is attached to the gospel. "He that believeth not shall be damned." If the promise is an expression of desire on God's part, the threatening must be also. If the desire is unconditional and universal, God is presented as desiring to save all men and to damn all men, which is absurd.

Seventhly, and finally, God is blessed for ever. His chief end is His own glory, not man's happiness. It is for God's glory to damn those who do not believe. If He desired their salvation He would desire their happiness above His own glory, which is idolatry. Universal desire makes the happiness of God to depend upon the will of the creature. It thereby introduces an element of conditionality into the intrinsic will of God. His desires are left unfulfilled whilst all men are not saved. As some men shall be damned for eternity the end result is that God must either change His desires (which introduces mutability into the Godhead) or be eternally unsatisfied.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> I agree with Turretin and you that a conditional will in God would infer a conditional decree in God. However, the revealed will of the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel is not conditional upon anything



Travis, the more you multiply effort to support this error the more you multiply errors. You are now claiming that the revealed will is absolute. The only absolute will of God is the decretive will. The revealed will is always set forth in conditional terms. Please take some time to think about it. You are digging a hole you will not easily climb out of.


----------



## MW

The doctrine of conditional universal desire is subject to the same objections which reformed divines have raised against the doctrine of conditional universal decrees. It makes God dependent upon the creature for the fulfilment of His desires.

Thomas Boston: "Such conditional decrees are inconsistent with the infinite wisdom of God, and are in men only the effects of weakness; and they are inconsistent with the independency of God, making them depend on the creature."

James Fisher: "What is the absurdity of conditional decrees? A. They make the will of God, which is the first cause, to depend upon the will of the creature: and they plainly suppose, that either God is ignorant of the event, or incapable to accomplish it, or that he has determined nothing certainly about it; all which are blasphemously absurd."

Replace the word "decrees" with "desires" and the same criticism applies.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Loopie said:


> Matt and Travis,
> 
> What do you believe a well-meant offer is to look like, and what would a not-well-meant offer look like? It seems that we need to work out some of our definitions and concepts of what constitutes a 'well-meant offer'.




Eric, you are very right that definitions are key to this discussion.

From your writings above, it appears that you mean that God in truth gives a sincere conditional offer, that if the gospel-hearer repents and believes, then they will be saved. I believe Matthew Winzer would probably agree with this. I, and others that affirm the sincere, well-meant offer, agree as well.

Though usually, as the long history of this issue has unfolded, the sincere free offer of the gospel has come to mean something more, and historically almost always more has come along with the concept.

The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel means that God, in some way, shape or form, by His revealed will (not his decrees), wills that the gospel-hearer (including the reprobate) should come to Christ and be saved. The very offer itself is an expression of benevolent love (though not complacent love) and mercy to the gospel hearer, including the reprobate, and expresses God's desire that they should receive what He offers to them. 

All of this has been expressed in a wide variety of language throughout church history.

Here is *Matthew Henry*, a puritan, and author of the most popular Bible commentary in church history, on John 3:16:

"(3) *Herein God has commended his love to the world*: God so loved the world, so really, so richly. *Now his creatures shall see that he loves them, and wishes them well. He so loved the world of fallen man *as he did not love that of fallen angels; see Rom. v. 8; 1 John iv. 10. *Behold, and wonder, that the great God should love such a worthless world! *That the holy God should love such a wicked world *with a love of good will, when he could not look upon it with any complacency. * This was a time of love indeed, Ezek. 16:6,8. The Jews vainly conceited that the Messiah should be sent only in love to their nation, and to advance them upon the ruins of their neighbours; *but Christ tells them that He came in love to the whole world,* Gentiles as well as Jews, 1 John ii. 

2. *Though many of the world of mankind perish, yet God’s giving his only-begotten Son was an instance of his love to the whole world, because through him there is a general offer of life and salvation made to all.* *It is love to the revolted rebellious province* to issue out a proclamation of pardon and indemnity to all that will come in, plead it upon their knees, and return to their allegiance. *So far God loved the apostate lapsed world that he sent his Son with this fair proposal*, that whosoever believes in him, one or other, shall not perish. Salvation has been of the Jews, but now Christ is known as salvation to the ends of the earth, a common salvation."​

For a bunch more quotes from Henry expressing the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel, see here:

Matthew Henry on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Matthew1344

Travis Fentiman said:


> You apparently are trying to lump together the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel with Amyraldianism or Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism. But it is the same reformed theologians that were arguing against Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism that were preaching and defending that it is God's revealed will that all gospel-hearers, including the reprobate,


Can you explain how what you are saying is different than those two?


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> The only absolute will of God is the decretive will. The revealed will is always set forth in conditional terms.



Matthew,

You have just said that God's revealed will is always conditional. You previously very clearly, deliberately and pronouncedly said that all conditional willing is the same as conditional decreeing. 

According to necessary inference, that means either 

(1) you affirm the revealed will of God and full under your ban against Arminianism.​
(2) or, you deny that God has a revealed will, and go against all reformed theology and are left with no ethics or commands of God.

To not fall into this disjunction you must agree that the Sincere Free Offer does not fall into your forced categories.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel means that God, in some way, shape or form, by His revealed will (not his decrees), wills that the gospel-hearer (including the reprobate) should come to Christ and be saved. The very offer itself is an expression of benevolent love (though not complacent love) and mercy to the gospel hearer, including the reprobate, and expresses God's desire that they should receive what He offers to them.



Samuel Rutherford identifies this as the first universalistic tenet of Arminianism: "Arminians run upon six universalities. 1. They say, God beareth to all, and every man, of what kind soever, an equal, universal, and catholic good-will; yea, to Esau, Pharaoh, Judas, as to Jacob, Moses, and Peter, to save them all." (Christ Dying, 427.) Again, "but the truth is, God's general love to Arminians, is a faint desire, and a wish that all and every one, men and angels, be saved: and bestowing on them means, 1. Which the Lord knows shall plunge them deeper in hell, and make their everlasting chains heavier and more fiery; better he love them not." (Ibid., 474.) Samuel Rutherford spends a good 100 pages refuting this unloving love and undesiring desire.

Obadiah Sedgwick likewise identifies this doctrine as the first universalism in the system of Arminian errors: "Before I present you some Arguments against this Opinion, I shall crave your favour, that I may spread the whole sum and frame of it, as it is by the Arminians themselves set forth in their writings; they teach: 1. That upon the fall of mankind, in Adam, there was a gracious affection in God, by which he was yet mercifully affected to love all and every man (alike) so as seriously to desire the salvation of all men, and of every particular man, _Ut nullus omnino homo sit_, _cujus salutem non velit_; so that there was not any one man, whose salvation God did not will." (Bowels of Tender Mercy, 295.) Quite a number of pages is taken up with refuting this opinion.

John Brown of Wamphray also identifies this universalism as one of the foundations-stones of Arminianism: "An universal will in God to save all, which they call an antecedent will; and hold forth as a velleity, or a wish and desire, that all might be saved; as if God could not effectuate whatever he desired, or could have a velleity towards any thing, which either he could not or would not effectuate.” (Life of Justification, 551 [561].)

THIS DOCTRINE IS ARMINIAN, NOT REFORMED!


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> First, universal desire makes the offer insincere because it extends the terms beyond what has actually been accomplished. Christ did not obtain salvation for all men yet God is presented as if He desired the salvation of all men. The "desire" is not supported by any saving action on God's part, which introduces duplicity and simulation into His dealings.
> 
> Secondly, insincerity is generally defined as promising one thing and intending another. The doctrine of universal desire severs the preceptive will from the decretive will and creates two contrary wills in God -- one which says God desires the salvation of every man and another which effectively excludes some men from salvation. This can be understood as nothing other than double-dealing. Universal desire thus destroys the sincerity of the gospel offer.




Matthew,


If I had ceaseless time and energy I would happily respond to all of your points above. But since I don't, I will let *Samuel Rutherford *respond to the first 2.


Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners

It [Isa. 55] expresses two things,

1. *A vehemency and a serious and unfeigned ardency of desire that we do what is our duty*, and the concatenation of these two, extremely desired of God, our coming to Christ and our salvation. This moral connection between faith and salvation *is desired of God with his will of approbation, complacency, and moral liking, without all dissimulation, most unfeignedly; and whereas Arminians [and those who deny the Sincere Free Offer] say, we make counterfeit, feigned, and hypocritical desires in God, they calumniate and cavil egregiously, as their custom is.*​

A Survey of that Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline
Book 1, Chapter 16, in the immediate context of the Sincerity of the Free Offer


2. Whereas *he [Hooker, wrongfully] says, The distinction of voluntas beneplaciti [will of good-pleasure, God's decrees and election], and voluntas approbans [will of approval, God's commands including the sincere offer of the gospel], contains apparent contradictions. * *It seems he never heard of this distinction allowed by the Reformed Churches; and that he joins with the Arminians [and those who deny the sincere free offer of the gospel], who teach, That this distinction places in God two contrary wills*; and that he wills and decrees one thing from eternity, and commands and approves the contrary to his creatures: *Hence there must be guile and dissimulation, and no serious dealing in the Lords commands, says Arminius, Corvinus, and the Arminians at the Conference at Hague, and the Synod of Dort*.​


----------



## MW

Travis, the revealed will is general and indefinite; it concerns things, not events. While it is so it does not invade the sphere of the decretive will. When you seek to make it relate to specific people (all men) and specific events (to be saved) you have entered the sphere of the absolute decretive will of God. You call it revealed, but it is in fact decretive, and when it is conditional on man and left unfulfilled, you have taught a conditional, unfulfilled decretive will.

Consider the following from Jonathan Edwards: "There is no inconsistency or contrariety between the decretive and preceptive will of God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may hate the thing itself, and yet will that it should come to pass. Yea, I do not fear to assert that *the thing* itself may be contrary to God's will, and yet that it may be agreeable to his will that it should *come to pass*, because his will, in the one case, has not the same object with his will in the other case. *To suppose God to have contrary wills towards the same object*, *is a contradiction*; but it is not so, to suppose him to have contrary wills about different objects. *The thing itself*, *and that the thing should come to pass*, *are different*, as is evident; because it is possible that the one may be good and the other may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may be a good thing that an evil thing should come to pass; and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and proves so."

Your doctrine of divine desires extends beyond the thing (salvation) to the event (that all men would be saved). You end up with two wills which are contrary to each other relative to the same object.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

While I could easily list out half a dozen (or more) charges against those who deny the Sincere Free Offer (as has been done against those that hold to it), I'll keep it to two:

(1) They must explain away all the universal language in the Bible as if it is always and only speaking to the elect. This should rightly appear to any normal reader as being seriously strained, in explaining away all the general language as if it was all particular. 


(2) They strip God of so much of His love. This is the most tragic consequence.


----------



## MW

Travis,

Your Rutherford quotation against Hooker is aimed at the Arminian objection to the Reformed distinction between the decretive and preceptive will. Rutherford answers both of them: "But we answer to both: God by his Decree ordains what shall come to pass or not come to pass, or what shall fall out or not fall out, be it good in his effective Decree, or be it evil in his permissive Decree: For all things were written in his book, when as yet they were not, even all Davids Members, Ps. 139.16, Eph. 1.11. But God by his approving Will does not decree what shall come to pass or not come to pass, but onely commands what is good, and promises rewards accordingly, and forbids what is evil, and threateneth punishment, whether the good or the evil come to pass, or never come to pass."

Rutherford specifically distinguishes between thing and event. He does not make your error of applying the revealed will to events.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Since we are quoting *Jonathan Edwards* now, for anyone interested, feel free to read his very strong defense of the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel:


Jonathan Edwards on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> While I could easily list out half a dozen (or more) charges against those who deny the Sincere Free Offer (as has been done against those that hold to it), I'll keep it to two:
> 
> (1) They must explain away all the universal language in the Bible as if it is always and only speaking to the elect. This should rightly appear to any normal reader as being seriously strained, in explaining away all the general language as if it was all particular.



They are indefinite universals, as has been pointed out many times. Your view makes definite what is indefinite and entangles the word of God in contradictions.



Travis Fentiman said:


> (2) They strip God of so much of His love. This is the most tragic consequence.



An unloving love, a love in word but no deed, as Rutherford explains. This love cannot be in God, as much as it appeals to the sentimentality of those who make human happiness to be the chief end of God.


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> Sixthly, universal desire obscures the threatening which is attached to the gospel. "He that believeth not shall be damned." If the promise is an expression of desire on God's part, the threatening must be also. If the desire is unconditional and universal, God is presented as desiring to save all men and to damn all men, which is absurd.


Good point


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> Samuel Rutherford identifies this as the first universalistic tenet of Arminianism: "Arminians run upon six universalities. 1. They say, God beareth to all, and every man, of what kind soever, an equal, universal, and catholic good-will; yea, to Esau, Pharaoh, Judas, as to Jacob, Moses, and Peter, to save them all." (Christ Dying, 427.) Again, "*but the truth is, God's general love to Arminians, is a faint desire, and a wish that all and every one, men and angels, be saved: and bestowing on them means, 1. Which the Lord knows shall plunge them deeper in hell, and make their everlasting chains heavier and more fiery; better he love them not." (Ibid., 474.) Samuel Rutherford spends a good 100 pages refuting this unloving love and undesiring desire.*



What does this mean exactly? Is Rutherford saying that God only has true love for elect, and that any other goodness that he gives to creatures is actually just a curse from God that will damn them more?




armourbearer said:


> Obadiah Sedgwick likewise identifies this doctrine as the first universalism in the system of Arminian errors: "Before I present you some Arguments against this Opinion, I shall crave your favour, that I may spread the whole sum and frame of it, as it is by the Arminians themselves set forth in their writings; they teach: 1. That upon the fall of mankind, in Adam, there was a gracious affection in God, by which he was yet mercifully affected to love all and every man (alike) so as seriously to desire the salvation of all men, and of every particular man, Ut nullus omnino homo sit, cujus salutem non velit; so that there was not any one man, whose salvation God did not will." (Bowels of Tender Mercy, 295.) Quite a number of pages is taken up with refuting this opinion.
> 
> John Brown of Wamphray also identifies this universalism as one of the foundations-stones of Arminianism: "An universal will in God to save all, which they call an antecedent will; and hold forth as a velleity, or a wish and desire, that all might be saved; as if God could not effectuate whatever he desired, or could have a velleity towards any thing, which either he could not or would not effectuate.” (Life of Justification, 551 [561].)


These are good quotes. Any from Calvin or Luther?

Also Matthew Winzer,

I have a couple question for you, sorry if i do not state them clearly, and sorry if my questions seem out there. I am really just trying to keep up and figure out what you and Travis are saying.

1) *If you do not believe that God has any desire for reprobates to be saved, then is the the invitation to be saved ever really given to them in the gospel?*
Example: And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 ESV)
*Was that said to all men but really only meant and sincere (from God) towards the elect?*

2)Does God love the reprobate at all?


----------



## Matthew1344

I guess a good example is the rich young ruler in Mark. Did Jesus really desire him to be saved? If yes, is it because you think he was elected and came back later or because he has a general love for his creation as a creator or because we has a general love to save him because by nature Jesus is a savior or maybe something else? If no, then what does the txt mean when it says Jesus loved him?


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matt Ford,


*Samuel Rutherford* answers your question about God's love for the reprobate here:


From his Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners


1. *He loves all that he has made*, so far as to give them a being, to conserve them in being as long as he pleases. He had a desire to have sun, moon, stars, earth, heaven, sea, clouds, air. *He created them out of the womb of love and out of goodness, and keeps them in being. He can hate nothing that he made*.

2. *There is a second love and mercy in God*, *by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies*, makes the sun to shine on the unjust man as well as the just, and causes dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors, as Christ teaches us, *Matt. 5:43-48*. *Nor doth God miscarry in this love. He desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance* and with longanimity and forbearance suffers pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity,* yet does not the Lord’s general love fall short of what he wills to them.*


As far as Calvin, you can read him on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel here:


John Calvin on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Travis Fentiman

*Is Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Bible Arminian?*


1 Tim. 2:4

"...in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."​

Verse 4

The apostle produces a clear, convincing reason, that the duty of charity in *praying for all men is pleasing to God, from his love extended to all, in his willing their salvation, and their knowledge and belief of the gospel*, which is the only way of salvation. From hence our Savior’s commission and command to the apostles was universal: Go and teach all nations, Matthew 28:19; Preach the gospel to every creature, that is, to every man, Mark 16:15; He excludes no people, no person. And accordingly the apostles discharged their office to their utmost capacity, Colossians 1:24. But a question arises, how it can be said that God would have all men saved, when that the most of men perish? For the resolving this difficulty, we must observe, that *in the style of Scripture the will of God sometimes signifies* his eternal counsel and decree; that things should be done either by his immediate efficiency, or by the intervention of means: or, secondly, *His commands and invitations to men to do such things as are pleasing to him. *The will of God in the first sense always infallibly obtains its effect, Psalms 115:3; thus he declares: My counsel shall stand, I will do all my pleasure, Isaiah 46:10; for otherwise there must be a change of God’s will and counsel, or a defect of power, both which assertions are impious blasphemy. * But those things which he commands and are pleasing to him, are often not performed without any reflection upon him, either as mutable or impotent. Thus he declares, that He wills things that are pleasing to him; as, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn and live, Ezekiel 33:11; and sometimes that He will not those things that are displeasing to him, as contrary to holiness, though he did not decree the hindering of them*: thus he complains in Isaiah 55:12: Ye did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. *This distinction of the Divine will being clearly set down in Scripture, answers the objection; for when it is said in the text, that God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and in the same sense by St. Peter, that God will have none perish, but come to repentance, 2 Peter 3:9; we must understand it, not with respect to his decretive will, but his complacential will, that is, the repentance and life of a sinner is very pleasing to his holiness and mercy. And this love of God to men has been declared in opening the way of salvation to them by the Mediator, and by all the instructions, invitations, commands, and promises of the gospel*, assuring them that whoever comes to Christ upon the terms of the gospel shall in no wise be cast off; that no repenting believer shall be excluded from saving mercy.​
Verse 5

*The apostle proves the universal love of God to men* by two reasons, the unity of God, and the unity of the Mediator: though there are divers societies and vast numbers of men, yet there is but one God, the Creator and Preserver of all. If there were many gods in nature, it were conceivable that the God of Christians were not the God of other men, and consequently that His good will were confined to his own portion, leaving the rest to their several deities; but since there is but one true God of the world, who has revealed himself in the gospel, it necessarily follows that *He is the God of all men in the relation of Creator and Preserver. And from hence he concludes: God will have all men to be saved*. He argues in the same manner that salvation by faith in Christ belongs to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, Romans 3:29,30. The apostle adds, *for the clearest assurance of his good will of God to save men*, that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. When the sin of man had provoked Divine justice, and the guilt could not be expiated without satisfaction, God appointed his Son incarnate to mediate between his offended Majesty and his rebellious subjects. And it is observable, the parallel between the unity of God and the unity of the Mediator; as there is one God of all nations, so there is one Mediator of all. The strength of the apostle’s argument from the unity of the Mediator is this: If there were many mediators, according to the numbers of nations in the world, there might be a suspicion whether they were so worthy and so prevalent as to obtain the grace of God, every one for those in whose behalf they did mediate. But since there is but one, and that he is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God by him, it is evident that all men have the same Mediator, *and that every one may be assured that God is willing he should be saved*, and, for that blessed end, should by faith and repentance accept the covenant of grace. The apostle for the stronger confirmation specifies the Mediator,​

John Collinges on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## whirlingmerc

There can be blessings that go beyond seeing an offer. The rain God sends on the righteous and the unrighteous, that grace could have been bought by Jesus on the cross as well.

1 Timothy 4:10 ESV For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

whirlingmerc said:


> There can be blessings that go beyond seeing an offer. The rain God sends on the righteous and the unrighteous, that grace could have been bought by Jesus on the cross as well.
> 
> 1 Timothy 4:10 ESV For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.



No, it could not. What Christ bought on the cross is clearly revealed to us in Scripture. Furthermore, the passage you quoted simply means that God is the preserver of life for the whole creation, including the wicked, but those in Christ have been "especially," that is, spiritually provided for. Check the word "Savior" in any greek lexicon and you will see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Matthew1344

Travis Fentiman said:


> 1. He loves all that he has made, so far as to give them a being, to conserve them in being as long as he pleases. He had a desire to have sun, moon, stars, earth, heaven, sea, clouds, air. He created them out of the womb of love and out of goodness, and keeps them in being.* He can hate nothing that he made.*
> 
> 2. There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies, makes the sun to shine on the unjust man as well as the just, and causes dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, *whom the Lord abhors, *as Christ teaches us, Matt. 5:43-48. Nor doth God miscarry in this love. He desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forbearance suffers pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lord’s general love fall short of what he wills to them.


????



Travis Fentiman said:


> yet does not the Lord’s general love fall short of what he wills to them.


What does this mean? It sounds like he is saying God failed at loving them enough to bring to bring them to repentance.


----------



## Matthew1344

whirlingmerc said:


> that grace could have been bought by Jesus on the cross as well.


 Do you believe in the definite atonement? Because if you do, i want to encourage you to look into it a little more. 

You should read Death of Death by John Owen. Its AWESOME. At least read the introduction by Packer.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

*Are the Geneva Bible Notes Arminian?*


The Geneva Bible Notes on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> Sixthly, universal desire obscures the threatening which is attached to the gospel. "He that believeth not shall be damned." If the promise is an expression of desire on God's part, the threatening must be also. If the desire is unconditional and universal, God is presented as desiring to save all men and to damn all men, which is absurd.





Not a great argument. The argument assumes everything, both good and negative are equally parallel in scripture and God's nature and will. Unless one is a rapid Herman Hoeksema-ian, who is peculiar to hyper-calvinism, then the answer is No.

Clearly in scripture God's desire to save men and to damn them are not exactly parallel in every respect. And God's threatening to punish them manifests that God is not, by his revealed will, desirous of damning them, Eze. 18:23,32.

To answer the specific contextual/hermenuetical issue: the larger theology of scripture, specifically as it relates to the fairly obvious aspects of God's nature and will, informs our interpretation of such language of threatening. Thus no one but someone desperately trying to condemn the Sincere Free Offer has ever thought such a thing.


Nor does the universal desire obscure the threatening attached to the gospel. Both are true in different senses.


Here is *John Trapp* on this exact point:


“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

*Matt 23:37*​


"Verse 37. ‘_How often would I,_ &c.’ *How then could they perish whom God would have saved? It is answered, Voluntas Dei alia est praecepti, revelata antecedents, alia beneplaciti, arcana consequens [The will of God is diverse: (1) of precepts, of revealed antecedents, and of (2) good pleasure, secret consequents]. By the former [(1)] God willed their conversion, but not by the latter [(2)]. A king wills the welfare of all his subjects; yet he will not acquit those that are laid up for treason, murder, and the like foul crimes. A father is willing to give his son the inheritance; yet if he prove an unthrift, he will put him beside it, and take another.* “How oft would I have gathered?” that is (say some), by the external ministry of the prophets, sent unto thee, Matthew 23:34-35. Not by internal regenerating operation of the Spirit."


John Trapp on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Is Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Bible Arminian?*



Please read on to verse 6, Travis. Collinges takes the view that Christ gave Himself a ransom for each and every man in a certain sense. You have denied universal redemption in a previous post.

Once the word "all" is interpreted to mean each and every man, there is no ground for restricting the "all" of verse 6 to the elect alone. As David Silversides writes, "If 'all' were interpreted more broadly so as to include the non-elect, a concession would have been made to the unscriptural doctrine of universal atonement in view of the repetition of the word 'all' in verse 6." The Free offer, 86.

As already noted from Rutherford, Sedgwick, and Brown, the Arminians build their case for universal redemption on this unscriptural doctrine of universal will. It is good that you deny universal redemption, but the weed needs to be removed by the roots.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Samuel Rutherford* answers your question about God's love for the reprobate here:



And what does he say? The qualifying statement is, "yet does not the Lord’s general love fall short of what he wills to them." There is no unfulfilled desire of doing good to them, whereas the poorly named "well meant offer" teaches God's desire falls short of saving those whom He would. Once again, one of Travis' sources testifies against his view.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> Not a great argument. The argument assumes everything, both good and negative are equally parallel in scripture and God's nature and will. Unless one is a rapid Herman Hoeksema-ian, who is peculiar to hyper-calvinism, then the answer is No.



Rutherford made the same ad absurdum argument: “Upon the same ground, it may well be said, God willeth the damnation of all and everyone of mankind.” Christ Dying, 444.

Rutherford was appalled at the Arminian exegesis of Ezek. 18 and kindred texts because of their failure to interpret them covenantally and anthropopathically. He stated the doctrine of catholc goodwill was "repugnant to his will which is irresistible, and cannot miss its end. 2. To his immutability, which cannot be compelled to take a second port, whereas he cannot fail the first. 3. To his omnipotency, who cannot be resisted. 4. To his happiness, who cannot come short of what his soul desires. 5. To his wisdom, who cannot aim at an end, and desire it with his soul, and go about it by such means as he seeth shall be utterly uneffectual and never produce his end; and not use these means which he knoweth may, and infallibly doth, produce the same end in others." Ibid, 513.

The view of John Calvin was the same: “it is deserving of notice, that if God does whatsoever he pleases, then it is not his pleasure to do that which is not done.”

Likewise:

Paul Baynes: “God’s will were not omnipotent, should it not effect whatever it willeth."

John Owen: “Now, surely, to desire what one is sure will never come to pass is not an act regulated by wisdom or counsel.” “Our God is in the heavens,” saith the psalmist: “he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Ps. 115:3. Not only part, but all, whatsoever he pleased should come to pass, by any means.” 

David Clarkson: “they ascribe to him a will of universal salvation; when they discern it can be no other than a mere velleity, an incomplete intention, a weak, ineffectual desire, a faint and fruitless wishing of such general happiness, when he knows it will never be effected, and is resolved not to take the course to effect it. This is such a mercy, as jostles out and clashes with his other perfections, and is inconsistent with his knowledge, power, sincerity, wisdom, blessedness, and mercy itself in the true notion of it.”

Stephen Charnock: “God’s will cannot be hindered of its effect, for then God would not be supremely blessed, but unhappy and miserable; all misery ariseth from a want of that which a nature would have and ought to have.” 

Herman Witsius: “it is unworthy of the divine majesty, to imagine, that there is an incomplete, unresolved, and ineffectual volition in God.” 

Christopher Ness: “He desires, and he doth it; no created being can interpose between the desire and the doing, to hinder their meeting together.”

The doctrine of universal will and unfulfilled desire is consistently opposed and refuted by the Puritan and Reformed tradition.


----------



## MW

Matthew1344 said:


> 1) *If you do not believe that God has any desire for reprobates to be saved, then is the the invitation to be saved ever really given to them in the gospel?*



Yes, but it is indefinite and conditional. It is not addressed to them as reprobate but in common with mankind sinners, and the offer of salvation requires faith and repentance. God desires to save those who believe and repent.



Matthew1344 said:


> 2)Does God love the reprobate at all?



He does not love them as reprobate but He loves His creatures in general and grants them creature-benefits as an expression of His loving-kindness, as in Psalm 136, including the punishment of the wicked as a means of maintaining order and fulfilling His gracious purpose to His people. God loves judgment and delights in doing what is right.


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) If you do not believe that God has any desire for reprobates to be saved, then is the the invitation to be saved ever really given to them in the gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, but it is indefinite and conditional.* It is not addressed to them as reprobate but in common with mankind sinners, and the offer of salvation requires faith and repentance. God desires to save those who believe and repent.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Does God love the reprobate at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He does not love them as reprobate but He loves His creatures in general* and grants them creature-benefits as an expression of His loving-kindness, as in Psalm 136, including the punishment of the wicked as a means of maintaining order and fulfilling His gracious purpose to His people. God loves judgment and delights in doing what is right.
Click to expand...


1) so since they never meet the condition, then he never desired to save them? And he never desired to save them because it was his will that they be damned?

2) but he knows who is who (reprobate or elect). So is his goodness (earthly blessings) to the reprobate an act of love towards them? My line of thinking leads me to pharaoh. God gave him everything, but it was only to humiliate him. He raised him up y'all just so he would fall harder. Is that really a good _towards pharaoh_ or was it _something good from God that was meant to curse_ Pharaoh?

And are we saying that "earthly fortune" is God loving someone? Because that's not always the case. I might be totally wrong, but it seems like the opposite is true, not all the time, but most times. It seems like God gives good things "earthly blessings" to people, but it is not for their good. And if that's true, that he gives good things "earthly fortunes" to people but not for their good, then it would be for their bad. Then whoever God is giving good things to them for their harm, is that really acting in love towards them?

Sorry if I didn't communicate this very clearly. 1) I'm on my phone and it is HARD to type on my phone. 2) I'm not a writer. 3) I'm in over my head in this question, just trying to hang with you guys. 

Thanks for answering my question and trying to help Matthew. I really appreciate it.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Matthew1344 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) If you do not believe that God has any desire for reprobates to be saved, then is the the invitation to be saved ever really given to them in the gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, but it is indefinite and conditional.* It is not addressed to them as reprobate but in common with mankind sinners, and the offer of salvation requires faith and repentance. God desires to save those who believe and repent.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Does God love the reprobate at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He does not love them as reprobate but He loves His creatures in general* and grants them creature-benefits as an expression of His loving-kindness, as in Psalm 136, including the punishment of the wicked as a means of maintaining order and fulfilling His gracious purpose to His people. God loves judgment and delights in doing what is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) so since they never meet the condition, then he never desired to save them? And he never desired to save them because it was his will that they be damned?
> 
> 2) but he knows who is who (reprobate or elect). So is his goodness (earthly blessings) to the reprobate an act of love towards them? My line of thinking leads me to pharaoh. God gave him everything, but it was only to humiliate him. He raised him up y'all just so he would fall harder. Is that really a good _towards pharaoh_ or was it _something good from God that was meant to curse_ Pharaoh?
> 
> And are we saying that "earthly fortune" is God loving someone? Because that's not always the case. I might be totally wrong, but it seems like the opposite is true, not all the time, but most times. It seems like God gives good things "earthly blessings" to people, but it is not for their good. And if that's true, that he gives good things "earthly fortunes" to people but not for their good, then it would be for their bad. Then whoever God is giving good things to them for their harm, is that really acting in love towards them?
> 
> Sorry if I didn't communicate this very clearly. 1) I'm on my phone and it is HARD to type on my phone. 2) I'm not a writer. 3) I'm in over my head in this question, just trying to hang with you guys.
> 
> Thanks for answering my question and trying to help Matthew. I really appreciate it.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I see what you're saying. First, it should be noted that God's love is by definition goodness, but there are *different levels of goodness* God demonstrates toward His creation. This means that God *prioritises the well-being of one creature over another*. The glorification of God's righteousness requires that some people be damned, and this is done by God *in view of the well-being of the elect*. Thus, although *God would rather give than take*, He must strip the reprobate of His gifts at some point. God truly delights in giving, whether it is for the elect or the reprobate, whether it is for eternal or temporal well-being of the creature.


----------



## Loopie

Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB) 
5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep. 
6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this: 
7 *That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore. *
8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever. 
9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered. 

Perhaps this passage can shed some light on the fact that God sends earthly 'blessings' to the wicked, but for the ultimate purpose that they might be destroyed forevermore. This does not seem to suggest that God 'loves' the reprobate. Of course, it is also true that EVERYONE deserves immediate destruction. The fact that God does not immediately destroy everyone is a testimony to his long-suffering and patience. Again, there are different degrees or kinds of love. God has a general love for all of mankind, but a salvific love only for the Elect. We must not make the mistake of suggesting that God can only have one type of love and that it has to be shown equally to everyone.


----------



## Matthew1344

Loopie said:


> Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB)
> 5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
> 6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
> 7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
> 8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
> 9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
> 
> Perhaps this passage can shed some light on the fact that God sends earthly 'blessings' to the wicked, but for the ultimate purpose that they might be destroyed forevermore. This does not seem to suggest that God 'loves' the reprobate. Of course, it is also true that *EVERYONE deserves immediate destruction*. The fact that God does not immediately destroy everyone is a testimony to his long-suffering and patience. Again, there are different degrees or kinds of love. God has a general love for all of mankind, but a salvific love only for the Elect. We must not make the mistake of suggesting that God can only have one type of love and that it has to be shown equally to everyone.



I love what you said. I do have one question though. What makes you think immediate? 

And also thank you Samuel for giving your answer. I really appreciate it!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One of the things that needs to be protected in this discussion is that our knowledge of God is by condescension. I'm always wary of any doctrine built on viewing something in God's will or desire precisely as we would understand it. I also find it puzzling to speak of God's judgment against sin as something He does grudgingly. It's spoken of as something that He _must_ do but is gritting His teeth to do it. His real desire is to save souls and doesn't desire to punish sin so He'll be theoretically miserable forever over the punishment of the wicked. What, precisely, is there, outside of Himself that is forcing Him to punish the wicked eternally for their sin? How can it be said that He does not desire to do something He accomplishes?

The wrath of God against sin is seen as some sort of third-party compulsion. We may understand that a human judge may, out of a duty to justice, be forced to render a sentence upon someone he does not desire to punish but he is bound to a law higher than himself. The same cannot be said of God. How can God be said to not desire something that He does given that there is nothing outside of Himself that can cause Him to accomplish some purpose that is not His own?


----------



## Matthew1344

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm always wary of any doctrine built on viewing something in God's will or desire precisely as we would understand it.


rightly so!


Semper Fidelis said:


> I also find it puzzling to speak of God's judgment against sin as something He does grudgingly. It's spoken of as something that He must do but is gritting His teeth to do it. His real desire is to save souls and doesn't desire to punish sin so He'll be theoretically miserable forever over the punishment of the wicked.


 Good point.




Semper Fidelis said:


> What, precisely, is there, outside of Himself that is forcing Him to punish the wicked eternally for their sin? How can it be said that He does not desire to do something He accomplishes?


Good questions.



Semper Fidelis said:


> The wrath of God against sin is seen as some sort of *third-party compulsion.*


What does that mean?



Semper Fidelis said:


> We may understand that a human judge may, out of a duty to justice, be forced to render a sentence upon someone he does not desire to punish but* he is bound to a law higher than himself.* The same cannot be said of God. How can God be said to not desire something that He does given that there is *nothing outside of Himself* that can cause Him to accomplish some purpose that is not His own?


I like your questions.

I am curious as to how you would answer my question "Does God love the reprobate?" 




Loopie said:


> We must not make the mistake of suggesting that God can only have one type of love and that it has to be shown equally to everyone.


I have heard this said before by someone. Their example was: "I love my wife, friends, and dog. I love them all differently, but that does not mean that I dont love them all. Same with God. He loves his elect (wife) much more than he loves the reprobate (dog)."

But what I think isn't lining up with that is the fact that my wife, friend, and dog are not my enemies. I genuinely want them to be well off. Some more well off than others, but nevertheless, well off. I mean no harm to either of them. But that is not the case with God, well as far as I see Romans 9 or Psalm 92 are concerned, he prepared them for destruction, he let them flourish so that they could be destroyed. I do not have that end in mind at all with my wife, friend, or dog.


----------



## MW

To follow up on Rich's comments, the method of interpretation is shown to be faulty by the fact it cannot be consistently followed through. If it were followed through one would have to impute to God limited knowledge and ability, change of mind, with continual sorrow and vexation of spirit, among other things. It is the language of moral persuasion, in which God reasons with men as if on an equality with them in order to show them what is for their own good. It cannot be taken in an absolute sense without robbing God of His absolute dominion over men.

The very word "pleasure" which is used in Ezek. 18, 33, is used in Ps. 135, and Isa. 46:10, where God Himself says that He will do all His pleasure, including executing judgment on the wicked. Ezekiel cannot be understood of an absolute displeasure in the death of the wicked without directly contradicting this clear testimony of Scripture.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Wow, I just realized that by saying "God would rather give than take," I'm suggesting that God desires something that won't and can't be, that God would rather see a world where His righteousness would be glorified without suffering. The reason why I think this way is because of God's own expressions of displeasure to suffering _itself_ in Scripture. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I'm lost.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Matthew1344 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wrath of God against sin is seen as some sort of third-party compulsion.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
Click to expand...


What I mean to say is that people say that God will punish sinners but He takes no pleasure in that punishment. It is presented as if God is under some sort of external compulsion to do so. There's some sort of "law of the universe" that God has to punish sin so He does it, but grudgingly.

It implies a denial of the aseity of God. Arminianism and Molinism posit these ideas of God somehow doing things on the basis of forces outside of Himself. He factors in external criteria and then acts in accordance with the data. To speak about God somehow executing wrath for sinners, but not because He desires to, is to create a situation where some third-party or other condition outside of God is forcing Him to do so. Some will say it in the sense that, because God is just, He is forced to do this as if the idea of "Justice" is an external factor that God is forced to live up to. He must be Just but He doesn't take any delight in doing so.

In other words, none of this has to do with hyper-Calvinism but to speak this way calls into question the aseity of God.


----------



## Matthew1344

Matthew1344 said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently are trying to lump together the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel with Amyraldianism or Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism. But it is the same reformed theologians that were arguing against Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism that were preaching and defending that it is God's revealed will that all gospel-hearers, including the reprobate,
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how what you are saying is different than those two?
Click to expand...


Can you?


----------



## Matthew1344

Rich, what would you say to this...


Matthew1344 said:


> Originally Posted by InSlaveryToChrist
> Originally Posted by Matthew1344
> Originally Posted by InSlaveryToChrist
> However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
> I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
> 
> And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
> Matt,
> 
> When the Bible says in Isaiah 53:10 that "it pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]," do you honestly think that the Father delighted in the unspeakable sufferings of the Son just because He delights in suffering itself? Of course, you don't. God loves justice, but He is not malicious. The only reason why any suffering in the universe delights God is because it glorifies His righteousness. As Lamentations 3:33 says, "He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." He does not inflict suffering for its own sake.
> I see your point


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Wow, I just realized that by saying "God would rather give than take," I'm suggesting that God desires something that won't and can't be, that God would rather see a world where His righteousness would be glorified without suffering. The reason why I think this way is because of God's own expressions of displeasure to suffering _itself_ in Scripture. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I'm lost.



Now I see where I went wrong. I was so focused on the wording "suffering itself," that I ended up understanding it so that God desires a world where there is no suffering at all, when what it was meant to convey was that God does not desire meaningless suffering. Better use that term from now on. Language can be tricky sometimes.

I recant of this "God would rather give than take" nonsense.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Matthew1344 said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently are trying to lump together the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel with Amyraldianism or Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism. But it is the same reformed theologians that were arguing against Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism that were preaching and defending that it is God's revealed will that all gospel-hearers, including the reprobate,
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how what you are saying is different than those two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you?
Click to expand...



Matt, yes. There begins to be so much to respond to in one thread, that one can't possibly respond to all, which is the reason for the delay.

There is a lot of convoluted distinctions regarding the differences between Arminianism, Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism, but to keep it simple:

Arminians/Amyraldians/H.U.'s, etc, posit a certain general atonement at the level of God's eternal decrees that is frustrated by man (the creature) and never fulfilled. Thus there are effectual saving purposes in God that are never effected. This is bad.

The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel, as historically presented by the vast majority of reformed history, holds to limited atonement for the elect alone in God's eternal decrees which is always effectual and irresistible, and also a revealed saving purpose in God's revealed will that gospel hearers (including the reprobate) should come to Him. This revealed will, as demonstrated by the numerous historic reformed quotes I have put up, especially Rutherford, is not intended to be effected, and so is not frustrated in that sense, because God never intended to effect it.

The difference is whether the saving purpose of God is at the level of decree (Arminians, etc) or in His revealed will (Calvin, the reformed, puritans, etc.).

Winzer denies that God has any saving purpose in His revealed will beyond that to the elect, and unfortunately we don't know who those are, so the unconverted Gospel hearer can never know if God wills that he should come to Him.

Winzer also is trying in various ways to force the Sincere Free Offer into the level of decree to make it Arminian. He's making a valiant attempt, but one that I, and most of reformed history, finds to be unpersuasive.

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thanks Travis, it was very helpful.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Bible Arminian?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read on to verse 6, Travis. Collinges takes the view that Christ gave Himself a ransom for each and every man in a certain sense. You have denied universal redemption in a previous post.
> 
> Once the word "all" is interpreted to mean each and every man, there is no ground for restricting the "all" of verse 6 to the elect alone. As David Silversides writes, "If 'all' were interpreted more broadly so as to include the non-elect, a concession would have been made to the unscriptural doctrine of universal atonement in view of the repetition of the word 'all' in verse 6." The Free offer, 86.
Click to expand...



Matthew,

I am not a *Collinges *scholar, but going off of this passage, I do believe your claim that he is asserting a universal redemption in a certain sense is mistaken.

In verse 4 he posits the grounds of the universal will that God desires all men to come to Him in the Preceptive/revealed will. If he asserted a universal redemption in any sense, he would not have seen the dilemma that he directly addresses: the seeming discontinuity between God's preceptive will and his decretive will. He simply would have posited the grounds for the universal revealed will in his supposed universal decretive will. But he doesn't do that, and he in fact asserts that the decretive will is always effectual and particular.

In his commentary in verse six, due to his previous comments and argumentation, I take "This our Saviour has done for us." and other such first-person-plural language to be speaking of believers.

You seem to have no problem with his next comment: "We must distinguish between the sufficiency of his ransom and the efficacy of it;"

When he says "He paid a ransom worthy to obtain the salvation of all men," this is true on limited atonement. His atonement is meritoriously sufficient to obtain the salvation of all men, if God had decreed such. Due to this, the atonement is morally worthy for the revealed purpose to obtain the salvation of all men. That is, all men, due to the worth of the atonement and its inherent value, should be morally compelled to receive it. 

"and has done whatever was requisite to reconcile God, and make men capable of salvation;" It is true that Amyraldians talk about a conditional atonement making men "salvable", but that is not necessary to impute here. It is also the case that Limited Atonement provides the necessary preconditions to make all men salvable. That is, without an atonement at all, men are in no way salvable. An infinitely meritorious atonement, offered to all, though it is limited in its secret intention, also makes men salvable. And there is no reason to suggest that Collinges means anything more than this.



Your historical interpretations, it appears, are doing exactly what you (rightly) accuse Amyraldians and others of doing (on a different thread): "There has been a tendency in historical research to identify any "universal reference" with a denial of particular redemption." 

You believe all the salvific intentions revealed in the Bible only ultimately refer to the elect, and so in order to buttress your view you have to make sure your historical sources are saying that as well. When you come to persons that make universal references, such as Collinges, you, apparently, are quick to categorize them as holding to Universal Redemption in some sense because they disagree with your view.

However, Collinges and others, are saying things that are completely compatible with Limited Atonement, the Sincere Free Offer, and denying any form of Universal redemption, and there is in fact no warrant that there statements imply universal redemption. Thus you are doing in historical research what you accuse others of doing.

In reality most of these historical figures making universals referants did not hold to any kind of universal redemption, but simply were recognizing very carefully God's revealed purpose to save sinners indescriminately, and that is why so many historical figures were saying such things, which is contrary to your view.


I appreciate your quote from Silversides, though I disagree with it. If one takes a sincere free offer interpretation of verse 4, one can also take a sincere free offer interpretation of verse 6, namely that the sufficient, infinitely valuable atonement is for the revealed purpose for all men to take it. It is available to all, sufficient for all, and in a revealed way designed for creatures as creatures and all creatures, just as it is to be preached to all (Mark 16).


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Regarding the numerous comments above about God not desiring to punish and yet desiring to punish. Both are Biblical in different senses. We ought not, as Winzer suggested, to flatten as a pancake the one into the other.



*John Trapp on Eze. 18:23*


“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? 
saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?”​



"_And not that he should return_". Had not I rather pardon than punish? Is not this last my work, my strange work, *Isaiah 28:21*: "For *the Lord* shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, *that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act*."


This was the standard puritan interpretation of both Eze. 18 and Isa. 28:21, that judgment (punishing) sin, was something God was loth and reluctant to do, because it was so contrary to His revealed good-will to His creatures. 

To deny this is to make God a monster.


----------



## Loopie

Matthew1344 said:


> Loopie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB)
> 5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
> 6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
> 7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
> 8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
> 9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
> 
> Perhaps this passage can shed some light on the fact that God sends earthly 'blessings' to the wicked, but for the ultimate purpose that they might be destroyed forevermore. This does not seem to suggest that God 'loves' the reprobate. Of course, it is also true that *EVERYONE deserves immediate destruction*. The fact that God does not immediately destroy everyone is a testimony to his long-suffering and patience. Again, there are different degrees or kinds of love. God has a general love for all of mankind, but a salvific love only for the Elect. We must not make the mistake of suggesting that God can only have one type of love and that it has to be shown equally to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love what you said. I do have one question though. What makes you think immediate?
Click to expand...


Because if God were to bring his judgment and wrath upon the world right now he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Those that are under God's wrath do not 'merit' any sort of delay or patience on God's part. He is patient and long-suffering because he chooses to be so, not because he is forced to hold off from bringing punishment.

It was a mercy that he did not flood the world immediately but that there were many years between God's command to Noah to build the ark and the actual flood itself. We see throughout Scripture that God is perfectly justified in bringing judgment immediately. Yet he demonstrates his long-suffering and patience by not doing that.


----------



## Loopie

Travis Fentiman said:


> Winzer denies that God has any saving purpose in His revealed will beyond that to the elect, and unfortunately we don't know who those are, so the unconverted Gospel hearer can never know if God wills that he should come to Him.



You are confusing the terminology, albeit slightly. If the atheist who hears the gospel preached comes up to me and asks if it is God's will for him to repent and believe, I would say that it is God's COMMAND that he repent and believe. Now, if you are using the term 'will' in this instance as a synonym for 'command', then that is fine. But if you mean the term 'will' as in "this is God's desire and he is unsatisfied until it is fulfilled" then I think you go too far.

This is similar to people asking me if "Jesus died for them". There are many Christians that I know personally who use the apologetic technique of saying "Jesus died for you". Well, Jesus died "for sinners", but if you say to an unconverted person "Jesus died for you", you are essentially using an apologetic technique not used by the apostles. You are quite simply inviting the unbeliever to "do something for Jesus" (repent and believe) because "Jesus did something" for them already (died for them and already paid for their sins). 

From a Reformed perspective I would not use the "Jesus died for you specifically" technique when speaking to a professed unbeliever. In the same way, I would not say "God wills for you to repent and believe". The word 'will' has a large semantic domain, and in our language today it speaks of unfulfilled desires. Telling someone that "God commands everyone everywhere to repent" is an accurate (and Biblical) statement.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Reflecting on my earlier statements (those that are correct), I'll happily conclude that the _ideal_ world for God is one where there is _a certain amount_ of _meaningful _suffering, in other words, the exact world that we live in. This truth has just made me see God's sovereignty and wisdom more gloriously than ever before.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Some important questions,

Should we distinguish between God's will/desire/good pleasure and His delight/happiness?

Does God merely do all things _according to_ His delight, OR does God actually do all that delights Him?

Is it possible that God delights in both A and B, but has a greater delight in A than B, which results in the abandonment of B?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Matthew1344 said:


> Rich, what would you say to this...
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by InSlaveryToChrist
> Originally Posted by Matthew1344
> Originally Posted by InSlaveryToChrist
> However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
> I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
> 
> And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
> Matt,
> 
> When the Bible says in Isaiah 53:10 that "it pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]," do you honestly think that the Father delighted in the unspeakable sufferings of the Son just because He delights in suffering itself? Of course, you don't. God loves justice, but He is not malicious. The only reason why any suffering in the universe delights God is because it glorifies His righteousness. As Lamentations 3:33 says, "He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." He does not inflict suffering for its own sake.
> I see your point
Click to expand...


I would make the historic distinction between archetypal and ecytpal theology. By that I mean that God understands all things in Himself. He has a knowledge and perception of Himself and His acts that only the Creator has. All theology that we have is ectypal. By this is meant that it is theology that is accommodated to creaturely understanding. Calvin speaks of God "lisping" to us as a father would to a child.

What was noted earlier is the danger of applying antropopathetic understanding from the creature to the Creator. By this is meant that we look at things as the creature would and then apply that to how God would "feel" about something. That is backwards. We don't apply our categories of understanding a thing back to God but try to look at them, as best we can, understanding that the Creator is accomodating certain things to us using analogical language.

It's no more true to talk about God being "pleased" to do something by thinking of the way a creature is pleased by something any more than it is to speak of God being "grieved" by something in the same way we are. God is impassible. He is not taken aback by any of His decrees. He was not processing the sufferings of Jesus in the garden at the time they were occurring and either taking delight or being overwhelmed by grief as we would as the events unfolded.

This is the danger in what I'm reading from Travis. He is taking sources who are not casting aside the attributes of God and presenting a God Who is altogether like the creature. I would urge folks to take a closer look at theology of the archetype and ectype as that is central in Reformed hermeneutics. In many cases, it is really what distinguishes Reformed theology from others. Only when one clumsily misunderstands the distinctions that the Reformed writers made in analogical thinking can one ever conceive of God as monstrous. The result of this clumsiness is that the interpreter is filtering language through the lens of assuming that God is altogether like us and our knowledge of time and events is univocal (of the same kind) as God's.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Rich,

I appreciate your gentle and meek thoughts (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

I do believe, though, that archetypal and ecytpal theology is not the issue. Both sides affirm it.

All the multitudes of historic reformed figures that affirm the Sincere Free Offer also affirm that the language of the central passages in question (Eze. 18, etc.) is anthropopathic. The question is not if they apply univocally to God. They don't. Nor do we assume God is altogether like us. He's not. And, yes, God certainly is impassible.

But the language does not mean nothing. There is a positive truth in the analogy. The question is, what is that positive truth?

Nor is God altogether unlike us. While God has a simplicity of will, yet it is also complex. Just, in one sense, as our will is complex, being made in his image.

The question is whether the sentiment expressed in the anthropopathism is reflective of an aspect of God's will. It is actually pretty staightforward to recognize that it is, and there are no fundamental-defeaters of such an idea, despite Winzer's claims.

As to God's revealed will being expressed as His "desire", it is language the Holy Ghost has chosen to reflect his will to His creatures in scripture:

*Hos. 6:6 *

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Note that the mercy desired in the verse never came to pass. 


"Desire" is also the language that historic reformed theologians have described God's revealed will with, along with "wish" and "pleasure":

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive » God Desires Compliance to his Will and Commands as Standard Reformed Doctrine


Hope this is of help.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

As for the other anthropopathisms that others have lumped along with the Sincere Free Offer in this discussion, such as God having a body, being grieved, having hands, etc.:

Each anthropopathism is unique and must be considered in its own theological context.

No Sincere Free Offerman ever makes that slide into foolishness, because there are other theological principles that prevent him from doing so.

To argue a downhill slide is to ignore the principles of the theological system of the Sincere Free Offer and is to tear down a strawman that does not exist.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> Winzer denies that God has any saving purpose in His revealed will beyond that to the elect, and unfortunately we don't know who those are, so the unconverted Gospel hearer can never know if God wills that he should come to Him.
> 
> Winzer also is trying in various ways to force the Sincere Free Offer into the level of decree to make it Arminian. He's making a valiant attempt, but one that I, and most of reformed history, finds to be unpersuasive.
> 
> Hope this is helpful.



Travis,

Rutherford, Sedgwick, Brown, Cunningham, and Macgregor call your view of an unfulfilled desire in God Arminian. I have simply quoted their view in order to show that what you are peddling is not the historic reformed and puritan view of the sincere and free offer.

As for your gross misrepresentation of my position, you can account to God for it. I have repeatedly said that the offer is indefinite to sinners as sinners and that the terms of the gospel indicate that God desires the salvation of believers. The offer gives warrant for every hearer to come to Christ for salvation.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> In reality most of these historical figures making universals referants did not hold to any kind of universal redemption, but simply were recognizing very carefully God's revealed purpose to save sinners indescriminately, and that is why so many historical figures were saying such things, which is contrary to your view.



Collinges wrote, "How is it consistent with Christ giving himself a ransom for all, that so many perish in their sins?" He was specifically pointing to the act of giving Himself for the purpose of making a ransom, not the intrinsic worth of the act.

That you go beyond men like Murray and Silversides should be an argument for you to proceed with more caution and take time to think through the issues a liitle more. Why did they not go the length that you go? It is because they saw that you can take the universalistic language in an Arminian direction.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> The question is whether the sentiment expressed in the anthropopathism is reflective of an aspect of God's will. It is actually pretty staightforward to recognize that it is, and there are no fundamental-defeaters of such an idea, despite Winzer's claims.



Does God's will change? No. According to Travis' canon of interpretation he would have to say that there is a change in God's will expressed by the language of repentance. When God said He could do no more for His vineyard, Travis must take that to mean that there is a real limitation in the power of God.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Hos. 6:6 *
> 
> For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
> 
> Note that the mercy desired in the verse never came to pass.



The text does not say that God desired it to come to pass. It only says that God desired it as a thing in itself pleasing to Him. Please read the distinction in the quotation provided from Jonathan Edwards.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

armourbearer said:


> As for your gross misrepresentation of my position, you can account to God for it.




All,

I am not aware of how I misrepresented Winzer's position, but I am sincerely regretful to all of you and to God that I apparently did so, and caused this offense to a good man, and pray you will forgive me for it. It is not what I would want done to me.

Winzer has made his position very clear numerous times, and if you desire to know it, please read his remarks, not my understanding of his remarks. 

I would also commend to your reading all the writers and books that Winzer has recommended as well.

I am not sure there is much purpose left in this thread for my comments, so I am bowing out.

God bless you all.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

We'll call it done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Travis Fentiman said:


> But the language does not mean nothing. There is a positive truth in the analogy. The question is, what is that positive truth?
> 
> Nor is God altogether unlike us. While God has a simplicity of will, yet it is also complex. Just, in one sense, as our will is complex, being made in his image.
> 
> The question is whether the sentiment expressed in the anthropopathism is reflective of an aspect of God's will. It is actually pretty staightforward to recognize that it is, and there are no fundamental-defeaters of such an idea, despite Winzer's claims.



I suppose since I have "super-powers" here I don't want to let the thread close without making an observation about this.

I spent some time last evening reflecting on this topic a bit and it reminded me of a young man that James White debated on the Unbelievable radio program who was not debating the Free Offer but, instead, had abandoned the Reformed faith. His problem? If we cannot find any human analogy by which the Reformed understanding of election and reprobation is just then it is monstrous. Consequently, he rejected Reformed theology as monstrous.

I bring this up not to accuse Travis of going that far and I don't want to appear heavy handed here but I am concerned about the same line of reasoning. It is not, in fact, "pretty straightforward" to know exactly God's perspective on things based on verses that use anthropopathetic language. Open theists quote verses about God repenting to point out how straightforward the language is. Ectypal theology gives us, the creature, enough to understand and trust but it is still on another "plane" of knowledge. It is not really just an "analogy" because sometimes analogies on our level actually serve to give us a pretty full appreciation of how it is another person is thinking.

I would thus simply caution readers to be careful about how it is we apprehend certain truths. From a creaturely perspective it is OK to think of God's pleasure toward us as far as we can grasp it but we start getting into trouble if we push things too far. For example, Christ uses an analogy of a widow with an unjust judge to speak about how we ought to pray consistently. Some go too far and imagine a God who is changed by our prayers. From my own perspective, I've found that it's always best to simply obey the principle and not try to speculate too much about how precisely God "feels" about something. My problem with firm dogmatism about the sincere free offer of the Gospel is some language that speak in ways that cross that ectypal boundary. It's perfectly fine to say that God desires that the wicked should repent (because that's an article of Revelation). To start to talk about the precise emotional feeling that God has, in time, toward a paticular reprobate person. That's theology of the archetype. It goes beyond what is revealed into speculation. 

Do I need any more than the command of God to earnestly plead with sinners to repent? Do I need any more than the Promise of God to pray for my children every evening that they would lay hold of Christ and that His Spirit would move in their hearts? Why do I need to speculate about how God feels, exactly, toward them and grasp at things too high for me? In fact, I'm commanded not to even try - Deut 29:29.

I would simply urge the same readers to read the whole on these matters. The issues are nuanced because the issues are difficult. On the one hand these writers cited will very much affirm the creaturely injunction to lay hold of Christ or even that God desires that the wicked repent. But, you see, this is where the Reformed and other theologies (I believe are not Biblical) part ways because the Reformed then respect that there are things we leave to the hidden counsel of God. How often will you read an Arminian say: "Well, God desires that so this other aspect of what God desires cannot be true." The reason why it's happening is that their theology does not respect the archetypal/ectypal distinction. They cannot conceive of a knowledge of God that is not the same as our own. They cannot conceive that our knowledge is, at best, a "lisping" of what God knows. Yes, it's true but true only as far as we can understand it. Thus, it is true that I pray for the conversion of my children and it is true that the decree to save them is already established. I don't know the answer (nor am I permitted to speculate) about whether God has elected anyone but I pray because I'm commanded to and I desire to on my creaturely plane. I cannot help but pray for the one's I love and can't help of thinking of God as hearing my prayers and not once do I try to think as God and reckon it doesn't matter because His decision is made up.

I hope this helps to clear any misunderstanding because it's not always easy to read one portion of an entire corpus of work from men like Rutherford and assume that just because (like all of us) he's committed to the principle that God desires the repentance of the wicked that it also means that He has, IN HIMSELF, some "desire" that He has not decreed to be fulfilled. It bakes the noodle but is worth serious contemplation and not throwing out accusations of hyper-calvinism at the ready.


----------

