Free Offer Divided Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I realize that I have strayed from the original post.

You quoted a lot of Turretin but not much of the scriptures (I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, just pointing something out)

I just want to push back a little bit - and ask this question: Is a gift good in and of itself? Is it not the disposition of the giver that matters? God sends rain on the just and the unjust - but is the rain on the unjust a sign of his love for them? Scripturally, how does one prove that?

Is it really gracious to let a person live a long life on this earth and yet not be saved? Does not such a person simply accrue more and more guilt every day they are alive? Jesus said "to whom much is given, much will be required", and we know that those who receive more revelation (and reject more revelation) will face stricter punishment. The punishment for Chorazin and Bethsaida will be greater than that of Sodom and Gomorrah - yet Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, yet God spared Chorazin and Bethsaida and let those people lead normal lives as far as we know - was it gracious for him to do so?

I am currently studying common grace and the various positions and find it pertinent to this topic.

God Bless,
Izaak
This is straying from the narrow question asked by Jacob, but in the Turretin quote you will see that there is a creaturely love to be admitted.

The answer is not simply that God either loves absolutely or hates absolutely everybody and it is as simple as that. Most theologians speak of a 3-fold love of God. He loves all of His creation, and all men, but loves his elect in a special way.

And thus we affirm the concept of Common Grace; and this common grace is borne out of love rather than a desire to fatten the wicked for the slaughter (a good gift misused is still a good gift).

Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: "...God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is pleasing to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do."

Therefore, an evangelist may say that it is pleasing to God for all who hear to be saved and that God truly wants it.
 
We know that the Elect is a group of individuals predestined to eternal life by God the Father (Ephesians 1:3-4). Only God knows who is elect. We also know that the Gospel is the means of salvation (Romans 1:16). So, from our perspective, we can confidently proclaim the Gospel to all knowing that God will use it to call in His elect. From God's perspective, is it truly proclaimed freely to all, even the reprobate? It is one of the questions where we want to grit our teeth when answering. We have less problem with definite atonement (a term I prefer over limited atonement), but the Gospel is the core of our message to a lost world. After reading most of the commentators on this topic, I tend towards the belief that the sincere or free offer of the Gospel is not dependent on whether the hearer is elect. Perhaps it is a judgment on the reprobate that they will not believe? Just like my view on Amillennialism, I am holding on to this with a loose grip. I remain teachable.
 
Also, Turretin and others state clearly that God does not choose to ordain all that is said to be pleasing to his will. Turretin says: "...God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit. will, yet there is no contradiction here...The former denotes what is pleasing to God and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of salvation, but the latter what God himself has decreed to do."

I think this is the crux of the issue. The free offer is based on Revelation and not what we might wish to believe about God's "intention". God is not like man where we sort of learn things or evolve in our thinking. We can get in a lot of trouble trying to "reach backward" from what is revealed about God and trying to inquire into His natural knowledge as if we have any fruition there.

God never reveals the fact that election and reprobation exist as categories to then permit us to inquire into his "emotional state" regarding this or that person when we're commanded to preach the Gospel to sinners.

The knowledge of election is given to us as a comfort but we turn it into an object of curiosity. The knowledge that reprobation exists is given to show us that God will one day demonstrate His justice but we think we're wise enough to determine things.

It is not so much that God has a "divided opinion" on something but His natural knowledgte and what He decrees will come to pass by that knowledge belong to Him alone. What He has revealed to us belongs to us that we might live by it. The only "will" we can live by is that which God has condescended, as a father talks to a baby, what His will is for us to live by. It is an analogy of His natural knowledge and not a "I now know exactly what its like to think as God does on this topic".

We need to be bound by what the Word reveals. Preach the Gospel to all men and let God be God.
 
I think people on both sides often forget to make a proper archetypal/ectypal distinction. Scripture is absolutely clear that:

1. All things are decreed by God (Eph. 1:11)
2. God loves righteousness (Psalm 11:7)
3. God hates wickedness (Psalm 5:5, 11:5)

Does God decree that which He hates? Yes. Even what men use for evil God uses for good (Gen. 50:20). Does that translate to God loving the evil itself? No. Simply put, God's decree is good because it is the means which He brings about the greatest good.

With this in mind, we cannot derive from Scripture that God takes equal pleasure in every aspect of His decree. Rather, He is pleased that every aspect of His decree will bring about the greatest good.

Applying to the subject at hand, we cannot say that God is equally pleased with the obedience of the elect in coming to faith in Christ as He is with the rejection of Christ by the reprobate, though both are decreed. To illustrate the point, I think about my adopted children. Am I pleased that God would decree that their biological parents would fornicate and proceed to not properly care for their children? No. Am I pleased that they are now my children by adoption? Yes. I can hold these two seemingly contradictory views because I believe that though God decrees evil, he then uses it for good (Rom. 8:28). This is God's own witness about His own works! We know that God is displeased with the sin that brought my children into the world, though He is pleased that we exercise "pure and undefiled religion" in bringing these children in our family (James 1:27).

Sometimes those who reject the WMO do this on account that since a) God is pleased with his decree and b) He decrees the rejection of the gospel by the reprobate, then c) the offer cannot be well-meant. There are some basic flaws with this. 1. It assumes that God is equally pleased with every aspect of His decree. 2. It assumes that God can only be pleased, not displeased (and sometimes displeasure is equated with lack of control).

If we make the argument that God can only be pleased, not displeased, we both deny God's own witness about Himself in the Word, and we channel an ectypal pleasure to the archetype. When we are pleased with something, that which pleased us is often out of our control. Likewise when we are displeased, the event is often out of our control. If we see God's pleasure/displeasure through the human lense, we also attribute our own limitations to God. Some have effectively explained this simply by attributing God's displeasure with anthropomorphic language. However, these same people often do not do the same with God's pleasure, only displeasure, arguing that God can only be pleased. The fact is, a proper evaluation should affirm the whole counsel of God and try its best to remove the imperfections of our own limitations when we weigh what God reveals about Himself.

Because God loves obedience, I am confident that the call to faith and repentance is well-meant (Ez. 18). Men are called "unfeinedly" (Dort 3&4, Art. 8). We can rightly say that insofar as God desires obedience and loves mercy, God desires them to obey (Jer. 36:3, 44:4, Lam. 3:33-36, Ezek. 3:6, 18-19, Hosea 6:4-6, 11:8, Zech. 1:3-4, Matt. 23:37, Luke 7:30). God has decree that the reprobate would not obey, but to then logically conclude that the offer was not well-meant does not account for all of the biblical data.
 
I think this is the crux of the issue. The free offer is based on Revelation and not what we might wish to believe about God's "intention". God is not like man where we sort of learn things or evolve in our thinking. We can get in a lot of trouble trying to "reach backward" from what is revealed about God and trying to inquire into His natural knowledge as if we have any fruition there.

God never reveals the fact that election and reprobation exist as categories to then permit us to inquire into his "emotional state" regarding this or that person when we're commanded to preach the Gospel to sinners.

The knowledge of election is given to us as a comfort but we turn it into an object of curiosity. The knowledge that reprobation exists is given to show us that God will one day demonstrate His justice but we think we're wise enough to determine things.

It is not so much that God has a "divided opinion" on something but His natural knowledgte and what He decrees will come to pass by that knowledge belong to Him alone. What He has revealed to us belongs to us that we might live by it. The only "will" we can live by is that which God has condescended, as a father talks to a baby, what His will is for us to live by. It is an analogy of His natural knowledge and not a "I now know exactly what its like to think as God does on this topic".

We need to be bound by what the Word reveals. Preach the Gospel to all men and let God be God.

Rich,

I really appreciate your concern to not try to understand God's "emotional state." I do hear what Perg is saying, though. I detailed some considerations in my last post. There are many passages (many of which I listed) that detail not simply a call to repent, but a desire on God's part that they do repent. I've heard too many of these passages glossed over as anthropomorphic and therefore don't teach us a positive truth about God's disposition. But we have to hold true that these passages teach us something about God, even if we cannot fully comprehend it. I'm not suggesting we just wrap it all in mystery as we should seek to understand it to the fullest possible extent, but I would also caution about neglecting these passages as those that don't really teach us about God's disposition toward the lost, since they are God's own self description.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh out the concern, as I believe that both you and Perg have a proper concern.
 
Rich,

I really appreciate your concern to not try to understand God's "emotional state." I do hear what Perg is saying, though. I detailed some considerations in my last post. There are many passages (many of which I listed) that detail not simply a call to repent, but a desire on God's part that they do repent. I've heard too many of these passages glossed over as anthropomorphic and therefore don't teach us a positive truth about God's disposition. But we have to hold true that these passages teach us something about God, even if we cannot fully comprehend it. I'm not suggesting we just wrap it all in mystery as we should seek to understand it to the fullest possible extent, but I would also caution about neglecting these passages as those that don't really teach us about God's disposition toward the lost, since they are God's own self description.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh out the concern, as I believe that both you and Perg have a proper concern.
Tim and Rich,

Me and Rich might (maybe) be almost agreed. Both of us are appealing to God's revealed will. This seems to be keeping in line with Dordt. Rich keeps referring to "emotional states" within God, something I've never stated, but I think he would agree with me that God has "dispositions" which are pleasing to him. And we can know these dispositions from Scripture.

In God's Revealed Will He plainly tells us that His disposition is that He desires us to repent and believe. Not knowing God's Decretive Will, and assuming that God is not a liar, I believe that God is thus pleased to save and that when He tells us to "Come" that He is actually sincere in doing so.

After all, we cannot think of God being insincere in what He reveals, so why the problem with calling the offer a sincere one?

The crux of the issue is whether God can be said to desire (in any manner) that which He (for His higher purposes) chooses not to ordain to come to pass.

I affirm that YES, God is said to desire some things in Scripture that He chooses not to ordain. If I need to, I will prove it below in my next post.

God sometimes ordains in His Decretive Will to bring about some things that are said not to be pleasing to Him in His Revealed Will.

This is not to say God has two wills, but merely that we cannot see God's Decretive Will and must trust in His Revealed Will alone. And we trust that this Revealed Will is a trustworthy (i.e. sincere) guide to the true nature of God.

Therefore, when an evangelist tells a sinner, "God tells you to come. This means God wants you to come. It is a thing pleasing to God if you do come." Then this is perfectly Scriptural. We are beseeching the sinner, just as if God were beseeching the sinner through us, to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).
 
We need to remember we are stuck in the realm of the ectypal and can never reach the world of Archetypal theology (theology as in the mind of God). BUT...the ecytpal is NOT a false portrait of the archetypal.

And therefore, the Revealed Will of God is a faithful guide to the disposition and nature of God. Therefore, if God says He is not pleased with the death of the sinner and loves all of His creation in at least some manner, We must believe this is a true description of God's nature.

To quote R. Scott Clark:

"According to Dort and both early orthodox theologians such as Olevianus and early Reformed dogmatic theologies such as the Synopsis purioris and the high orthodox theologian Peter van Mastricht, the praxis of the free and sincere offer of the Gospel is not controlled by the knowledge of archetypal theology (e.g. the decree), but by theologia ectypa. In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us."

https://heidelblog.net/2013/12/the-reformed-tradition-on-the-free-or-well-meant-offer-of-the-gospel/
 
I think the issue is what the Scriptures reveal about God's disposition to men as sinners with respect to the Gospel and we always want to change the equation to answer the question: "What is the relatiosnip of God towards the reprobate?"

I think the issue may seem subtle but one deals with what we can know about the revealed will of God for sinners and that HIs kindness and intention are seen toward sinners in the Gospel.. That's something that we, as creatures, can apprehend. We err when we start trying to draw some sort of line from that to the issue of election or reprobation and then start to speculate on whether God can seriously care about sinners if He knows that some are elect and some are reprobate. We then conclude that we know enough to say that the reason why I should care about sinners is because I have some knowledge of how God feels about the reprobate and I then trace that back to my concern for sinners.

It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.

The hyper-Calvinist errs in thinking that he needs to withold the free offer bcause the "reprobate" might be present. The semi-Pelagian convicnces Himself that unless there is no category of election and reprobate then God can't reveal a free offer to sinners. Both think that we have to know the mind of God for the free offer to be true.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue is what the Scriptures reveal about God's disposition to men as sinners with respect to the Gospel and we always want to change the equation to answer the question: "What is the relatiosnip of God towards the reprobate?"

I think the issue may seem subtle but one deals with what we can know about the revealed will of God for sinners and that HIs kindness and intention are seen toward sinners in the Gospel.. That's something that we, as creatures, can apprehend. We err when we start trying to draw some sort of line from that to the issue of election or reprobation and then start to speculate on whether God can seriously care about sinners if Hew knows that some arelect and some are reprobate. We then conclude that we know enough to say that the reason why I should care about sinners is because I have some knowledge of how God feels about the reprobate and I then trace that back to my concern for sinners.

It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.

The hyper-Calvinist errs in thinking that he needs to withold the free offer bcause the "reprobate" might be present. The semi-Pelagian convicnces Himself that unless God sees all sinners the same (and the way He does) that it's not possible to offer the Gospel freely.

Yes, both the Hyper-Calvinist and the Semi-Pelagian both err.

However, if I read the verse: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?" I have to believe that God, in fact, actually prefers that the wicked turn from His ways and live.

That is what His Revealed Will says, after all. God tells me he has a preference. I believe, therefore, that He has a preference.

I've heard several High Calvinists state that God has no such preference, because He wills some to go to heaven and some to go to hell (and therefore, He must prefer some to NOT turn rather than to turn). He desires and only desires their damnation and has absolute hatred for them. These deny that God may be said to be pleased by anything but that which He has decretively willed. I believe they rationalize the texts to avoid the paradoxical nature of God. God is said to be pleased by some things that He chooses not to ordain to come to pass and the High Calvinist does not like this and wants a way out of this paradox. But my job is not to rationalize texts away, but to only follow the text where it leads.

We cannot know whether God has elected or will reprobate a sinner in His Decretive Will. But His Revealed Will tells us His preference. Therefore, I want to stick to His Revealed Will and tell the sinner that God prefers that He turns and lives.
 
Yes, both the Hyper-Calvinist and the Semi-Pelagian both err.

However, if I read the verse: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?" I have to believe that God, in fact, actually prefers that the wicked turn from His ways and live.

That is what His Revealed Will says, after all. God tells me he has a preference. I believe, therefore, that He has a preference.

I've heard several High Calvinists state that God has no such preference, because He wills some to go to heaven and some to go to hell (and therefore, He must prefer some to NOT turn rather than to turn). He desires and only desires their damnation and has absolute hatred for them. These deny that God may be said to be pleased by anything but that which He has decretively willed. I believe they rationalize the texts to avoid the paradoxical nature of God. God is said to be pleased by some things that He chooses not to ordain to come to pass and the High Calvinist does not like this and wants a way out of this paradox. But my job is not to rationalize texts away, but to only follow the text where it leads.

We cannot know whether God has elected or will reprobate a sinner in His Decretive Will. But His Revealed Will tells us His preference. Therefore, I want to stick to His Revealed Will and tell the sinner that God prefers that He turns and lives.
Keep in mind that some have historically made the objection that God could never "will" evil in His decree that good may come. In other words, He could not both will the Christ should die by the hands of the wicked and will the prohibition of murder.

The resolution to the apparent problem is the same. It's not to be found in treating God as a creature and assuming we have a solution that meets our standards.

I agree that Scripture reveals that God takes no delight in the wicked. The sinner qua sinner needs to hear and understand that. No equivocation. It's inappropriate at that moment for he or the pracher to start thinking about "well, what if I'm reprobate".
 
It is sufficient for us to know men as sinners and not make the unwarranted leap to base our concern for sinners with the idea that how we view sinners is dependent upon some sort of hidden disposition of God toward thre reprobate.

I think Perg has a good point here. A Christian is called a Christian because they imitate Christ. Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Is our disposition toward the lost godly? Yes (Col. 1:28-29). If our desire is good, doesn't it then come from God Himself, the source of good? If we work this righteousness, isn't it because Christ merited it for us through His life? Is He not the image of the invisible God? Don't we love our enemies as those emulating God (Matt. 5)? I would argue that our desire for the salvation of "every man" is only good because it proceeds from God Himself.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that some have historically made the objection that God could never "will" evil in His decree that good may come. In other words, He could not both will the Christ should die by the hands of the wicked and will the prohibition of murder.

The resolution to the apparent problem is the same. It's not to be found in treating God as a creature and assuming we have a solution that meets our standards.

I agree that Scripture reveals that God takes no delight in the wicked. The sinner qua sinner needs to hear and understand that. No equivocation. It's inappropriate at that moment for he or the pracher to start thinking about "well, what if I'm reprobate".
I think I agree with you fully here, perhaps.

Here is a good article by R Scott Clark which says almost the same things as you say: https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...e-atonement-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

"Ironically, the Remonstrants and that small, noisy minority among the Reformed who deny the free or well-meant offer of the gospel ultimately agree. Both reject the distinction between the way God knows theology and the way we do. On this see “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–80. What we do know is that when a person is given new life and true faith, that person is one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died. We know it after the fact (a posteriori)."

And:

"The gospel is to be offered freely, sincerely, to all. It is not ours to guess who is or is not elect. That is not our business. Ours is to offer Christ and free salvation to all in the confidence that God the Spirit sovereignly and mysteriously uses that offer to draw his elect to himself. We call “all men” and “every man” to repent (acknowledge the greatness of one’s sin and misery) and to believe, to trust in Christ and in his finished work. That good news is to be “published” to all nations “without distinction.” The gospel is not merely for some but for all. Christ must be offered freely and sincerely wherever God, “in his good pleasure” sends it."

And his conclusion:

"We need not choose between definite atonement and the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. We rejoice in both."
 
This discussion reminded me of how simply the WLC speaks to at least some of the angles here expressed. WLC # 61-69 speak to some of this.

1 example:

WLC # 68:
Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

:detective:
 
Last edited:
Can a minister say this:

"God loves you and desires that you be saved"?

Theologically, I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement. God gave His Son to the world in love to offer salvation to all (John 3:16-18). However, the passage teaches us the way in which God loves the world, not that He is unfulfilled until the sinner accepts the invitation.

We should avoid language like "God loves you and wants to save you but cannot do so without your permission." If we stick to biblical examples and that which is derived from scripture, we can't go wrong.
 
Can a minister say this:

"God loves you and desires that you be saved"?

Yes. You could. But should you? In most cases, I would answer no.

Yes, God is pleased and prefers that sinners turn to him, that much is in his revealed will. Yes, God has a general beneficent love towards all of His creatures and especially men, whom are made after His image (the 3-fold love of God). God's disposition is that He is pleased to save sinners and desires it.

And Yes, telling God's dispositions and preferences is not the same as speaking of God's Decretive Will towards that person (which we cannot know anyway). For instance, the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that, "this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" and I need not believe that all the Thessalonians continually stayed 100% free from all sexual sin after that point.

But in many cases, NO, you should not tell sinners that God loves them, especially if you lead with that, and especially if they are not willing to repent.

Telling all people indiscriminately that God loves them no matter that sinner's willingness to turn may lead them to belittle their sin or believe God's mercy is inexhaustible. But God's patience will run out for many sinners and He will end their lives. Because God does not love all people in the same manner.

Yes, God loves all of his creatures and desires their good. But God also hates the sinner as well.

His general beneficence is there, yes, but his judgment is upon them as well. Therefore, many reformed preachers urge us not to stress the love of God part, but say that it is better to stress the part about the sinner being under the wrath and curse of God. We show the need for Christ and the appropriateness of wrath and only in THAT context do we reveal the love of God in Christ to sinners.

I believe it does the entrenched sinner more good to focus upon their sinfulness. However, if there is a doubting sinner who cannot believe that God would recieve or love them, in that case I believe you can tell that sinner that, yes, God does, indeed, care for you and will take pleasure in your salvation and sincerely desires it.

Some might say I am being contradictory because I believe we MAY say that God desires the salvation of all who hear, but in most cases I then say we SHOULDN'T (at least until the context of sinfulness is laid). Some others might also say I am being contradictory in that I say God both loves and hates the sinner at the same time (having a general beneficence and common love towards all even while putting the sinner under his judicial hatred). But even earthly examples may show us how we may possess both general love and judicial hatred in the same breast at the same time. For instance, (1) a judge may love the criminal and delight in His duty well done, but yet grieve the judgment rendered and hate it for the person who is judged, and (2) a FBI sniper may both delight in a job well done in shooting a villain to free hostages, and yet not delight in the death of the villain.

Some may also fault me for my inability to give a simple answer. But I don't believe a simple answer here can be given. A "sound-bite" that is strongly worded would attract more applause, bit this is an extremely nuanced doctrine.
 
Theologically, I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement. God gave His Son to the world in love to offer salvation to all (John 3:16-18).

We should avoid language like "God loves you and wants to save you but cannot do so without your permission." If we stick to biblical examples and that which is derived from scripture, we can't go wrong.

Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:

John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.

I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".
 
Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:

John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.

I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".

The gospel is suitable to all and is to be proclaimed to all. Not all will hear as you said. However, natural revelation also in some ways calls all to faith and repentance, though it is not revealed to them that there is pardon.
 
Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:

John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.

I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".
I believe John 3:16 is instructive in how we view God's disposition and general beneficence towards all the world. In that passage I really believe it is the world as a whole that is in view. God loves mankind so much He sent His Son.

The baptist Erroll Hulse writes:

"By selective use of Reformed Confessions it is possible to claim to be reformed but at the same time hide the fact that you are a hyper-Calvinist. The hyper-Calvinist denies that God loves all mankind and that the gospel is good news to be declared to all without exception. That is the very essence of hyper-Calvinism. Calvin, the great organiser of the evangelisation of France, writes on John 3:16: 'For although there is nothing in the world deserving God's favour, he nevertheless shows he is favourable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ.'

Rev. H Hoeksema, in a booklet entitled The Gospel, denies that the gospel can be offered since fallen man is unable to repent. Hoeksema says that the promise of the gospel is not given to all but only to the seed of Abraham (that is, to the elect).

It is typical of hyper-Calvinism to rationalise. By rationalising I mean that the hyper takes the doctrine of total depravity and reasons that because man's will is crippled by the fall it is futile to offer the gospel. Moreover it cannot be sincere of God to offer the gospel to all if he does not intend to save all. In other words this rationalisation effectively emasculates the gospel so that it is not good news for the sinner at all.

It is impossible for the hyper to proclaim the love of God for sinners. What he can proclaim is that out there in the world are God's elect and God loves them but he hates the rest! That is hardly good news!

The good news is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life. Rightly did Calvin understand that it is this fallen, perishing world that God loved.

The gospel that came to me as a sinner was the gospel of God's love, that he loved me and found no pleasure that I should perish in hell. The good news was conditional. To be saved I had to repent and believe on Christ. That I had to do my very self. But in the event I could not because of my slavery to sin, yet I knew that to be saved I would have to repent and believe. There was only one thing to do and that was to look to Christ to do for me, and in me, what I could not do myself. When I looked to him in my hopeless state he saved me. Hallelujah! It was the love of God for lost sinners that drew me. It was the love of God that held before me Christ, crucified on the cross for me. The exact order of John chapter three applied: God's love for sinners and God's love expressed in the cross for sinners.

This is the love of God that we must take to all without exception. The conditions must be set before all sinners that to be saved they must repent and believe. If they discover the enormity of their sinful depravity then let them not despair. Point them to Christ. Do what the Methodist preacher did to the young Spurgeon when he exhorted him personally from the text from Isaiah" 'Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other' (Is 45:22)."
 
Can a minister say this:

"God loves you and desires that you be saved"?
Whenever this topic comes up my theological side says that goes a bit too far, is a misrepresentation of gospel truth and ultimately may not be effective, especially if there is nothing more said/elaborated upon.... however, I also can’t help but think of the Cross & the Switchblade and see no greater message for a place and time such as that....


But ultimately I think it best to present Christ as savior from sin.... me thinks, love and charity is inherently applied to this proper presentation anyway without dropping a personalized/individualistic ‘L’ word. I think the message is a general truth, an offer to all sinners and this message comes with power; however, it is in the response (and it may take many attempts) that we see the personal love of the spirit of God at work in the heart of the believer.

I remember watching something on Billy Graham where Bill Clinton said something very ‘positive’ about him in that he didn’t make him feel guilty or judged.... well, maybe that was part of the problem
 
Last edited:
I think Perg has a good point here. A Christian is called a Christian because they imitate Christ. Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Is our disposition toward the lost godly? Yes (Col. 1:28-29). If our desire is good, doesn't it then come from God Himself, the source of good? If we work this righteousness, isn't it because Christ merited it for us through His life? Is He not the image of the invisible God? Don't we love our enemies as those emulating God (Matt. 5)? I would argue that our desire for the salvation of "every man" is only good because it proceeds from God Himself.
Yes, we have a disposition to the lost as sinners. Am I correct in inferring that you think our disposition toward sinners is somehow based on an issue of whether or not they are reprobate? That seems to be the assumption you keep importing: that the basis for compassion for the lost and sinners is based (somehow) on some answer to how "genuine" that can be if we suspect there might be some reprobate among the lost. The term "lost" or "sinner" is not coextensive with the idea of reprobation and that's what I keep seeing imported here.
 
Please don't interpret this response as snarky, but I am genuinely puzzled because:

John 3:16-18 doesn't really comment on whether salvation is "offered to all". In fact, we know that it is not "offered to all" because millions of people die without ever hearing the gospel. I guess it depends on what you mean by offer.

I believe we can say it is proclaimed to all within earshot of the gospel call. We can proclaim that such and such person is a sinner who is an enemy of God yet God in his great love has made a way of salvation through Christ, and Christ said "he who comes to me I will be no means cast out", and "let him who desires come".

It is better to read John 3:16 in light of what Jesus said immediately before it, comparing himself to the bronze serpent. The bronze serpent was lifted up before all Israel, though the word would certainly need to be spread by messengers to let the huge camp of people know that fact. The same can be said with Jesus being lifted up and given to the world. The offer is made to all. The reason many perish without hearing is that no messengers have made it there yet to announce the good news that is available to them. Yes, we could look back into the decree and reason that God decreed the ignorant not be saved in his providence, but that is not the guide for our conduct. Their lost state should motivate us to go to the nations and spread the word so that some are saved.
 
I think I agree with you fully here, perhaps.

Here is a good article by R Scott Clark which says almost the same things as you say: https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...e-atonement-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

"Ironically, the Remonstrants and that small, noisy minority among the Reformed who deny the free or well-meant offer of the gospel ultimately agree. Both reject the distinction between the way God knows theology and the way we do. On this see “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–80. What we do know is that when a person is given new life and true faith, that person is one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died. We know it after the fact (a posteriori)."

And:

"The gospel is to be offered freely, sincerely, to all. It is not ours to guess who is or is not elect. That is not our business. Ours is to offer Christ and free salvation to all in the confidence that God the Spirit sovereignly and mysteriously uses that offer to draw his elect to himself. We call “all men” and “every man” to repent (acknowledge the greatness of one’s sin and misery) and to believe, to trust in Christ and in his finished work. That good news is to be “published” to all nations “without distinction.” The gospel is not merely for some but for all. Christ must be offered freely and sincerely wherever God, “in his good pleasure” sends it."

And his conclusion:

"We need not choose between definite atonement and the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. We rejoice in both."
I agree with what you quoted but it just depends upon what is meant by "well-meant".

I think that when we restrict our understanding of the Gospel as offered to sinners then we're good. We, as creatures, ought to be confident in the idea that God's revealed will to sinners is that they repent of their sins and receive Christ by faith. We should never fail to proclaim that command.

Taht's a free offer. It is, as God revealed it, true that (as we are offering the Gospel): God takes no delight in the wicked but desires repentance and faith in His Son as He is freely offered in the Gospel.

Where the problem arises is when we start trying to ask the question: "Well, how "sincere" or "well meant" can that free offer be unless I stop and start thinking about the fact: "What if the reprobate are here?"

As Revelation goes, it's a question we're never commanded to ask. In fact, it's against the prohibition to peer into things hidden.

We don't heed this and so we start to speculate that the offer of salvation cannot be truly "well-meant" unless God has some sort of "concern" for people not as they are considered sinnners but as they are considered reprobate and so we try to come up with some sort of solution.

The semi-Pelagian finds evil in God as he looks at it and concludes that God could never be so unjust as to offer salvation to people who, by the Fall, have disposed themselves incapable of responding. They'll go to impious lengths to demonstrate that God's offer is not "free" or "well meant" because some people are spritually dead. So they not only try to get God "off the hook" for this "unrighteous" act (as they see it) but they then conceive of election as us disposing ourselves to eternal life by cooperating with a freely spread grace that is offered to all.

Maybe a person doesn't go that far and wants to conclude that he still believes in election and reprobation but he's still convinced that there's just something "not right" about it being a "real" and "genuine" offer unless God, in His decree, somehow meets some sort of sense that we would find acceptable toward the reprobate. It's sort of like: "I just can't see this to be a free offer unless God has this natural knowledge about the reprobate in the decree. As long as He fulfills that condition of "concern" then I'll feel OK in my mind that this is a real, no-kidding, free offer of salvation. Not the "sort of" free offer because God has to somehow think about this in a certain way.

I'm just trying to teaase this out because I think we ought to just be comfortable with what is revealed about God's disposition to sinners. If you really start speculating about why God decreed this or that you're always going to find some point at which you wonder: "Huh, that just doesn't seem right..." if we're judgin it by man's standards. The kids at the youth group I hosted admitted they found the whole election and reprobation thing to just be unfair. They also wondered: Why does God impute Adam's sin to me?

We kid ourselves that we have answers to those questions. Some decided they just can't stomach what the Scriptures decalre on this subject and make free will into an idol to which even God Himself must bow.

I don't see how any schema that tries to speculate beyond God's free offer to sinners as sinners makes the offer any more free or sincere than what we know from Revelation. We don't need to speculate at all about the "what if they're reprobate, how can that be a 'well-mean' free offer?" I'm satisfied with the fact that God reveals His compassion for sinners and it never occus to me to start looking out at the Church gathered and see any as "potentially reprobate so this may not be a free offer to you..."
 
Some keep conflating the free offer with the well meant offer. The quote below is from Matthew Winzer. I think it answers quite forcefully that the well meant offer is fictitious. Its all good but I bolded certain parts that I think are excellent.


“How does this so-called "well-meant offer" persuade any one that what God desires has any bearing on his own salvation? If God desires the salvation of all, and all are not saved, it is obvious that this "desire" is no warrant for, or object of, saving faith.

The gospel call reveals that God desires the salvation of all who believe. This gives suitable and sufficient warrant to believe, and a sure persuasion that the believer shall be saved.

What is the chaff to the wheat? The gospel was never designed to save a reprobate person because a reprobate person is one who by definition will continue in unbelief. It is foolish to redesign the gospel so as to make it fit the condition of one who will never believe it.

Those who continue in unbelief will suffer the righteous vengeance of God. The gospel reveals this. So-called well-meant offer advocates ignore the plain facts of revelation. If the offer of salvation implies that God desires the salvation of all men, what does the threatening of judgment imply? If they were honest they would have to say that God desires the damnation of all men; and their honesty would demonstrate that their universalist "desire" is not sincere and serious afterall. Their use of the term "well-meant" is meaningless.

The gospel of a non-saving love of God for the reprobate is a fiction of man's own creating. When so-called Calvinists affirm this doctrine they end up with two wills of God, two gospels, two Christs. They know not what they affirm.

A genuinely sincere, serious offer of salvation is maintained when it is proclaimed that God offers salvation to sinners as sinners INDEFINITELY. It is the office of faith to appropriate the promises of the gospel by laying hold of them for oneself; and the promises are only sealed where faith is exercised.”
 
Yes, we have a disposition to the lost as sinners. Am I correct in inferring that you think our disposition toward sinners is somehow based on an issue of whether or not they are reprobate? That seems to be the assumption you keep importing: that the basis for compassion for the lost and sinners is based (somehow) on some answer to how "genuine" that can be if we suspect there might be some reprobate among the lost. The term "lost" or "sinner" is not coextensive with the idea of reprobation and that's what I keep seeing imported here.

No. I am saying that our concern for all of the lost is because God has the same disposition towards all the lost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the hang-up is that you've introduced reprobation into the equation. Is this assessment incorrect?

Thanks for clarifying!
 
If we are to beseech sinners as if God were beseeching them through us and we are called his ambassadors and representatives in this task (2 Cor 5:20), then we rightly mirrior God's own dispositions when we genuinely desire the salvation of all who hear...

...unless we are more sincere than God in our offers of salvation.
 
A person who invites one to attend their feast is assumed to desire the presence of that one at the feast. Sure, it is possible for human hosts to be insincere in their invitations, but we should not assume this of God, who seems to call sinners to come quite ardently. If the invitation of the gospel cannot be called sincere and well-meant, then what can we call it? We then have an insincere call. A charade. And proper messengers of the King, when they go out and preach this invitation can honestly say, "The King desires your presence at the feast."
 
No. I am saying that our concern for all of the lost is because God has the same disposition towards all the lost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the hang-up is that you've introduced reprobation into the equation. Is this assessment incorrect?

Thanks for clarifying!
I inferred that you saw "the wicked" or "the lost" or "sinners" as some need to coinser that class.

You see what I've been trying to note is that God's revealed will, as sinners hear the Gospel, is that He bids sinners to believe. As I look out and see sinners I can honestly and sincerely let them know that the Gospel is offered to them. Believe on Christ.

What you are saying is that God has the same disposition toward all the lost and that is our basis for our concern for the lost.

I believe the idea that God bids sinners to come to Christ and ought not doubt that He can save them can be sustained by revealed theology while the idea that God has the same disposition toward all the lost cannot be demonstrated and can't be the basis for our own concern for the lost.

Romans 8-9 and John 6 make plain that there are those whom He foreknew (loved) and, as sinners ourselves, I hope you actually don't believe that God has the exact same disposition to you as He does to those who are not "in Christ". The Son clearly has a Bride and our very confidence is that God is for us (we who are still corrupt united to His Son).

But that knowledge is not a basis for any creature to consider the lost according to the way God may conceive of them by HIs natural knowledge. As far as we're concerned, they're lsot and God has a real, genuined offer of salvation for all who believe upon His Son. Whether God, in His hidden decree may not grant the condition of faith is of no consequence to us or our motivation. Even if we don't see faith exercised we don't have any warrant but to be patient and long suffering toward all hoping that God may grant them repentance. Our "hope" or "concern" for people isn't that God has some sort of undifferentiated love for all but that He is strong to save and we know that those Whom He calls He justifies and glorifies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top