Free Offer Divided Discussion

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree Jeri.

Sinner or Corrupt or Ungodly empasses both elect and reprobate. Imagine if we try to substitute the word "reprobate" every time we encounter God addressing the wicked. We wouldn't have any way of understanding who is being addressed. Also, we might conclude: "Wait, I'm still a sinner, am I reprobate."

It's not that I doubt that God shows a kind of love toward the reprobate but that love is not to the reprobate separately but to sinners as encompassing all of fallen image bearers among whom are the elect and reprob

 

[Pergamum]

I agree Jeri.

Sinner or Corrupt or Ungodly empasses both elect and reprobate. Imagine if we try to substitute the word "reprobate" every time we encounter God addressing the wicked. We wouldn't have any way of understanding who is being addressed. Also, we might conclude: "Wait, I'm still a sinner, am I reprobate."

It's not that I doubt that God shows a kind of love toward the reprobate but that love is not to the reprobate separately but to sinners as encompassing all of fallen image bearers among whom are the elect and reprob

So if you admit a general love of God towards all mankind, do you also admit that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all sinners? To every person to which the Gospel says COME, do you believe that God is sincere in that invitation? Does God, in any manner, sincerely desire the salvation of all?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why do high Calvinists reject the free offer? What is it about the free offer that high calvinists take issue with? Does this also have to do with limited atonement, and if so, is that an extension of an issue with the ‘WMO’ due to God’s elective decree? It appears they take legitimate issue with the WMO to an extreme that affects the urgency of the mandate related to the free offer.....

"High Calvinists" (whatever that means) don't necessarily take issue with the "free offer". As I tried to explain earlier, the issue has to do with what some insist must be in the "benevelonce of God" toward the reprobate that determines whether or not they believe the offer is genuine. I don't want to have to re-type what I already typed earlier.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So if you admit a general love of God towards all mankind, do you also admit that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all sinners? To every person to which the Gospel says COME, do you believe that God is sincere in that invitation? Does God, in any manner, sincerely desire the salvation of all?

Did you read what I just wrote?

What was confusing about dividing the issue between the love of God for His creatures as revealed vs what it soffered to sinners by the preaching of the Gospel?

The sinner, when He is hearing the offer of the Gospel, should never doubt whether the offer of salvation is for him. The preacher of the Word should never doubt in His mind whether the offer of salvation is for the person or that, as the Gospel is preached, that God sincerely bids them to believe. The "love of creature" is not the operational issue when the Gospel is preached but the love of God for siners by the sacrifice of Christ.

I know it sounds like I'm hedging but I'm trying to get you to stop thinking about God, in Himself, as He sees this or that reprobate in the preaching of the Gospel. That simply can never be the basis for how the preacher acts as a minister of the message of reconciliation. Let the hearer know God desires their repentance as far as the Gospel is concerned. Let your own heart be moved to compassion for all. You simply don't need to know any more than that.

I really see the act of preaching as a "realm" in which Christ is placarded bidding sinners to come and what "value" do you actually think you or I are adding to that divine act? If I really believe that Christ is truly offered to sinners in preaching then what am I doing standing by and saying: "Oh, in case you don't think that's enough, I also care for you." I'm not saying we ought not have compassion and love but it's almost like: compared to what Gos is offering in my preaching, what does my own concern compare to the majestic love now being placarded to sinners?

 

[A.Joseph]

It’s not High Calvinism to reject the well meant offer. High Calvinism rejects the free offer

“But a denial of the free offer does not automatically place one in the hyper-Calvinist camp. We who deny that the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant or free offer, emphatically assert both that the gospel is preached to all who hear and must be preached to all who hear.” http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/pamphlets/item/1597-the-history-of-the-free-offer

 

[A.Joseph]

"High Calvinists" (whatever that means) don't necessarily take issue with the "free offer". As I tried to explain earlier, the issue has to do with what some insist must be in the "benevelonce of God" toward the reprobate that determines whether or not they believe the offer is genuine. I don't want to have to re-type what I already typed earlier.

Sorry, I thought I quoted somebody else who made a distinction that high calvinists do, in fact, reject the free offer.....

 

[De Jager]

Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.

Did God want Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:17-18)

To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ (John 15:22-25)

 

[Tom Hart]

It's one thing to say that God desires the salvation of those who He secretly decrees are reprobate. It is another thing entirely to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate. This conflates two carefully defined doctrines.

"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."

"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."

Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.

 

[RamistThomist]

"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."

"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."

Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.

Same here. Explain the distinction to a clever unbeliever who genuinely wants to know.

 

[Pergamum]

Did you read what I just wrote?

What was confusing about dividing the issue between the love of God for His creatures as revealed vs what it soffered to sinners by the preaching of the Gospel?

The sinner, when He is hearing the offer of the Gospel, should never doubt whether the offer of salvation is for him. The preacher of the Word should never doubt in His mind whether the offer of salvation is for the person or that, as the Gospel is preached, that God sincerely bids them to believe. The "love of creature" is not the operational issue when the Gospel is preached but the love of God for siners by the sacrifice of Christ.

I know it sounds like I'm hedging but I'm trying to get you to stop thinking about God, in Himself, as He sees this or that reprobate in the preaching of the Gospel. That simply can never be the basis for how the preacher acts as a minister of the message of reconciliation. Let the hearer know God desires their repentance as far as the Gospel is concerned. Let your own heart be moved to compassion for all. You simply don't need to know any more than that.

I really see the act of preaching as a "realm" in which Christ is placarded bidding sinners to come and what "value" do you actually think you or I are adding to that divine act? If I really believe that Christ is truly offered to sinners in preaching then what am I doing standing by and saying: "Oh, in case you don't think that's enough, I also care for you." I'm not saying we ought not have compassion and love but it's almost like: compared to what Gos is offering in my preaching, what does my own concern compare to the majestic love now being placarded to sinners?

Rich,

You wrote, "Let the hearer know God desires their repentance..."

Okay, amen to that. I have read all you have written and appreciate your interaction and we are fairly agreed. Thanks.

 

[Pergamum]

Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.

Did God want Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:17-18)

To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ (John 15:22-25)

Jonathan Edwards in Volume II of his collected works brings up Pharoah and Abraham: “We and they know it was God’s secret will, that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but yet his command was, that he should do it. We know that God willed, that Pharaoh’s heart should be hardened; and yet that the hardness of his heart was sin.”

So did God want Abraham to kill his son, or not to do it? It depends on what we mean by want or will. Since we don't know God's secret decrees we must say that God wants what he tells us to do and doesn't want what he tells us to avoid. Because of this I can tell anyone confronted with the Gospel that God wants their salvation. Because I cannot know God's secret decrees, I must stick to His revealed will.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.

Izaak,

The very fact that the Gospel is being preached to a sinner from someone who is a minister of the Gospel it is actually true that no sinner should have any doubt in his mind: "Does God desire me to repent and receive eternal life."

You're mixing up issues by bringing Roman 9 into this. As far as the proclamation of the Gospel and the visible ministry of the Covenant of grace goes, there is a real offer of salvation for all who believe upon the Gospel.

Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.

Do not be confused by the issue of whether or God has or has not decreed election or reprobation. That's none of your business. It's not the business of the Church to say: "If you are elect then believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you will be saved from your sins."

In fact, think of the implications for yourself if you want to determine if God desires your salvation and you ground that desire in the knowledge that "surely He must because I'm one of the elect!"

Really? What makes you sure of that reality? Was that the way you proceeded to respond to the Gospel?

The Gospel offered Christ on the Cross crucified for sinners.
I am one of the elect.
Therefore I know that I should believe.

No. In fact, our assurance of salvation is tied not to our knowledge of hidden things but to things revealed. It rather proceeds like this:

Christ crucified is offered for the salvation of sinners.
I am a sinner.
I trust in Christ.
I am assured that I have salvation in Christ.

The testimony of the Spirit helps but it is grounded not in God giving us a peek at His decree but a grounding in Revelation that gives us assurance of salvation.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the theology of Particular Baptists and a notion of baptism that is tied to a sort of "assurance of election" and "God doesn't want the reprobate baptized in His Church".

The reason is tied to my conviction on the nature of revealed or creaturely knowledge and the fact that the Church's knowledge of God's decree is not the basis for our proclamation or the signifying/sealing of the Sacraments of the Kingdom.

Being a Christian and an elder for as long as I have I have moved from seeing faith as a "Bang, it's there!" to a sort of "flowering, obscuring, tossing to and fro, seeming to get covered up, re-flowering, travail, progrees, etc." Not only may we be totally confident one day that someone we walk beside is "surely with God" only to see the same man totally repudiate the faith but we see our own trust in God wax and wane and wane and wane and then wax. We may go through days, weeks, months, years of seemingly dry ministry or prayer and grow frustrated at people who seem to lose interest in the Kingdom who need regular admonitions to press in.

Thus, the "free offer" is not something we reserve (in our thinking) for those outside the Church but is true for how we view the Ministry of Word and Sacrament for those weary on the way.

Men struggling with p0rnography, conviced they are going to hell and never believed.
Dads and Moms thinking they're failing their kids and yelling at them.
Mothers who are weary and worn down by the ingratitude of their children.
Pastors and elders weaery of ministry and the people who leave unexpectedly.

The Gospel has to come to each of us and remind us that Christ is for sinners. If we thought for a second that the Gospel is for only for "the elect" then we would camp out all day long asking ourselves if we're the elect and, if not, what's the point?

As it is, the Gospel is for sinners and even we weary travelers never need doubt that God desires my salvation and sanctification. Today is a day to hear the foice of God, turn from my sin, and turn to Christ - either for the first time or time and again.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

You wrote, "Let the hearer know God desires their repentance..."

Okay, amen to that. I have read all you have written and appreciate your interaction and we are fairly agreed. Thanks.

Grateful we could agree on this.

 

[timfost]

Rich,

We may disagree on some of the specifics, but overall I agree with what you've been articulating. I'm very thankful for your concern for the lost and how you bring the gospel to sinners.

I only want to clarify a couple things.

1. As far as how the gospel is presented to the lost, what you and I would say is about identical. I don't believe that it is God's disposition that is presented in the gospel. The disposition only gives us an example.

2. I didn't mean to say that anthropomorphisms are not a helpful tool when understanding the God's self revelation. I only want to be careful that we don't effectively infer that these passages teach us nothing positive about God.

Again, I'm thankful for what you wrote and grateful that we are comrades together in the same Christian walk, working toward the same goal.

Blessings,

Tim

 

[timfost]

"God desires the salvation of those who according to his secret decree are reprobate."

"God desires the salvation of the reprobate."

Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I don't see such a great difference between those statements.

My only point is that reprobation properly belongs to the secret decree. Since this conversation concerns what God has revealed, it conflates the revealed and decretive will of God by using terminology specific to both. The product necessarily results in a contradiction and does not fairly represent the careful distinctions we are making.

Hope that helps...

 

[timfost]

I think one problem is that many (all?) of the Scriptures used as proof texts for God desiring the salvation of the reprobate/ wicked are actually God speaking to or about his straying covenant people. Even the one often quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul’s beseeching that they would be reconciled to God, is addressed to church members. I’m not saying non-church members shouldn’t be appealed to to repent and believe, they should. But looking carefully at each text comports with Reuben’s suggestion earlier that these conversations should focus on specific texts.

I see your point. However, our argument proceeds from the doctrine that God desires obedience to that which He commands. Since all are commanded to repent, we believe that God desires the salvation of all insofar as He desires that His law be obeyed.

I understand the common objections to 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9, but I believe these to be true statements of God concerning all men according to His revealed will. (Not trying to open a can of worms with these texts, though...)

I hope this clarifies even if we end up disagreeing.

 

[timfost]

Just because the gospel is preached to someone to come to God does not imply that God wants them to come. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion, in the light of what we see in passages like Romans 9.

Did God want Pharaoh to repent? Could Moses have said to Pharaoh- "Pharoah, God loves you and wants to save you...believe in him! God wants you to repent!" Would that have been a true thing to say?

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:17-18)

To be clear -when we preach the gospel, we don't do it because we want to harden some sinners - if we wanted to do this then we really don't understand grace at all - but the truth of the matter is that God does not intend the gospel to be effective in everyone - and he has every right to do that, because he is God. I am not saying that this is an easy truth to grasp, but God is God, and I am not, and I must not think that I have the moral high ground - He does. Sometimes, his purpose is to harden someone as shown in this passage:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ (John 15:22-25)

As Rich said, bringing Rom. 9 doesn't really help the discussion at hand. I would also encourage you to look at Rom. 9 in the context of chapters 10-11. Paul makes a continuous argument in these chapters.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I see your point. However, our argument proceeds from the doctrine that God desires obedience to that which He commands. Since all are commanded to repent, we believe that God desires the salvation of all insofar as He desires that His law be obeyed.

I understand the common objections to 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9, but I believe these to be true statements of God concerning all men according to His revealed will. (Not trying to open a can of worms with these texts, though...)

I hope this clarifies even if we end up disagreeing.

Thanks Tim. I will leave the can of worms alone! I do disagree with your take on those texts, and well other things. But not on the fact that the gospel is to be preached and Christ set forth as the savior of sinners to all men.

 

[py3ak]

My only point is that reprobation properly belongs to the secret decree. Since this conversation concerns what God has revealed, it conflates the revealed and decretive will of God by using terminology specific to both. The product necessarily results in a contradiction and does not fairly represent the careful distinctions we are making.

I appreciate the sincere and well-meant intent to be cautious in distinction, but revealed and decretive are not a proper contrast, with terminology specific to each one. Has any part of God's decree been revealed? Certainly: to some extent we know the contents of God's decree up to the present time, in light of what has happened. Every day, in that way, the decree is unfolded more and more. But more significantly, God's promises, such as every knee bowing to Christ or the new heavens and the new earth reveal not primarily what God requires of us, but what God has decreed to do himself. I understand that the confusion can easily arise, because in the nature of the case precepts don't apply until they are revealed, so we never speak of the preceptive will as hidden. But since the decree is partly revealed and partly hidden, we can't put revealed and decretive in opposition.

 

[timfost]

I appreciate the sincere and well-meant intent to be cautious in distinction, but revealed and decretive are not a proper contrast, with terminology specific to each one. Has any part of God's decree been revealed? Certainly: to some extent we know the contents of God's decree up to the present time, in light of what has happened. Every day, in that way, the decree is unfolded more and more. But more significantly, God's promises, such as every knee bowing to Christ or the new heavens and the new earth reveal not primarily what God requires of us, but what God has decreed to do himself. I understand that the confusion can easily arise, because in the nature of the case precepts don't apply until they are revealed, so we never speak of the preceptive will as hidden. But since the decree is partly revealed and partly hidden, we can't put revealed and decretive in opposition.

Ruben,

I don't mean to contrast the revealed and decreed as if they were two separate wills, but rather a singular will of God that appears manifold to weak, finite minds. Surely you believe that scripture speaks about the will of God in different manners.

Now if we assign the revealed will farther than what the law reveals as God's desire as his own righteous reflection, then yes, many other aspects of His decree are revealed. But I cannot look at the Holocaust and explain that God was pleased with this event in the same manner He is pleased with obedience to His law. It is possible that I can I use terminology such as "preceptive" to better distinguish, though with proper distinctions we often use "revealed" to describe His precepts as many theologians do.

In the end, "revealed" and "decreed" are not in opposition in the infinite God, but from the finite perspective we cannot fully understand how God can, in different manners, will and not will the same event.

Since I do not have Archetypal knowledge of God, the language I use will inevitably need to speak about the sum of biblical data concerning His will and distinguish between the various aspects of that singular will. "Reprobation" concerns the decree and though He has revealed that He reprobates some, I cannot say that He is pleased that they reject Him offered in the gospel. I can emphatically say that He is pleased when men obey Him.

God does not desire the salvation of all apart from obedience to His law. If a sinner rejects the free offer and disobeys the command to repent and believe, God is pleased to demonstrate His Justice against them. But that demonstration is not a reward for their obedience, but a consequence of their disobedience which God hates.

God loves Justice, but does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18). This is contrasted to the salvation of Christ's bride, the church, whom He brings to a place of communion, intimacy and glory.

 

[py3ak]

It is possible that I can I use terminology such as "preceptive" to better distinguish, though with proper distinctions we often use "revealed" to describe His precepts as many theologians do.

In the end, "revealed" and "decreed" are not in opposition in the infinite God, but from the finite perspective we cannot fully understand how God can, in different manners, will and not will the same event.

Since I do not have Archetypal knowledge of God, the language I use will inevitably need to speak about the sum of biblical data concerning His will and distinguish between the various aspects of that singular will.

Tim, I am not sure I understand everything that you say in your post, and I think the part quoted is at the core of it.

In the first sentence, are you saying anything more than that God's precepts are revealed? Certainly that's true, but I don't know if it exhausts your meaning.

In the second sentence, I would understand if you said " 'preceptive' and 'decretive' are not in opposition in the infinite God" etc. That's certainly true, and Abraham's responsibility to sacrifice Isaac would be a case in point. However, I lose the train of thought when the contrast is revealed and decretive. Preceptive and decretive distinguish what obligation God has determined to impose and what events God has determined to effect. There is a distinction based on the object God is willing. Revealed and secret relate to our knowledge. We may know what is revealed; we are not intended to know, and I suspect will rarely guess correctly, at what is not revealed.

I agree with your third sentence, and that it is part of ectypal theology that it is necessary to distinguish various aspects of a will we ultimately know to be one. I am not objecting to the need for distinguishing in any way. God knows what he has and will revealed, as well as what will never be revealed.

 

[Joshua]

It is not a difficult distinction -in my estimation- between what men ought to do (i.e. are commanded, those things revealed, Deut. 29.29b), and that decree which God has most wisely ordered in His secret providence (i.e. the secret things, Deut. 29.29.a) to His glory.

If the Lord has not revealed to us that He desires the salvation of John Doe, we are not free to tell John Doe that God desires your salvation. What we may say is that God has called all men everywhere to repent, and that it is every man's duty to turn in repentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. We may say that God desires, and will so cause, the salvation of the wicked man who turns from his ways, unto Jesus Christ. We may say, unequivocally, that God will in no wise cast out anyone -including John Doe- who comes to Him by faith, and that a broken and a contrite spirit God will never despise.

There is no need to proclaim that which is only the purview of God. There is every need, freely, promiscuously, indiscriminately, sincerely, earnestly, and affectionately to proclaim to the whole of God's creatures that what He has promised, He will most certainly do. And He has promised to save any and all who come to Him by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What the Lord "desires," the Lord has so decreed, and has so providentially ordered, and will so surely accomplish, having no "desire" of His unmet, frustrated, or hindered one fraction of scintilla of a wit of a bit.

 

[Herald]

If the Lord has not revealed to us that He desires the salvation of John Doe, we are not free to tell John Doe that God desires your salvation.

I understand and agree with this. The reality is that this view is exactly what those in broad evangelicalism rail against when they think of Calvinists. This was one of the last things I had to give up when I left Synergism. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" How can any Christian argue against that? Well, a Christian can if they understand scripture. Practically speaking, we seldom have the occasion to speak to this issue outside the confines of those with whom we are like-minded. But just because it doesn't make for everyday conversation, it doesn't mean it's relegated to forums like this. The knowledge that the Gospel call is effectual only to the elect has radically changed how I share Christ with people. When I was a Baptist fundamentalist I felt like I had to push for a decision. That's the way I was taught. As I began to understand the effectual call, I realized that is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring a sinner to repentance and faith. I am nothing more than a vessel of clay that has been given an opportunity to share the Gospel message. Instead of pushing for a decision, I can remain focused on the Gospel. Over the years the Lord has been gracious in granting me divine appointments to share the Gospel. While I have shared the Gospel in those situations with a sense of urgency, I have abandoned the tactic of pushing for a decision.

 

[A.Joseph]

I understand and agree with this. The reality is that this view is exactly what those in broad evangelicalism rail against when they think of Calvinists. This was one of the last things I had to give up when I left Synergism. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" How can any Christian argue against that? Well, a Christian can if they understand scripture. Practically speaking, we seldom have the occasion to speak to this issue outside the confines of those with whom we are like-minded. But just because it doesn't make for everyday conversation, it doesn't mean it's relegated to forums like this. The knowledge that the Gospel call is effectual only to the elect has radically changed how I share Christ with people. When I was a Baptist fundamentalist I felt like I had to push for a decision. That's the way I was taught. As I began to understand the effectual call, I realized that is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring a sinner to repentance and faith. I am nothing more than a vessel of clay that has been given an opportunity to share the Gospel message. Instead of pushing for a decision, I can remain focused on the Gospel. Over the years the Lord has been gracious in granting me divine appointments to share the Gospel. While I have shared the Gospel in those situations with a sense of urgency, I have abandoned the tactic of pushing for a decision.

Amen! And doesn’t your faith and deliverance mean so much more to you that God’s full counsel has been revealed....

‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life’ sounds so hollow... I’m sure it does even to the outside world, especially those who are struggling and hurting and desperately need to stake their lives on the miracle of Christ and His regenerative Word and power

 

[Pergamum]

Even the most ardent opponent of the phrase, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan or your life" may say, instead, these phrases:

"There is always comfort available to you from God."
"If you go to Him, then He will receive you."
"Whatever cares you have, you may cast them upon God."
"Heaven would rejoice over your repentance."
"If you knock, it will be opened unto you."
"Jesus Christ receives sinners..."
"God will not reject you if you desire Him."
"Jesus Christ invites you by His Word to believe."

I believe that we can say a lot more than these phrases, but I don't believe there is any reason for any of you on the spectrum of High Calvinism to reject the above phrases.

I have seen a few High Calvinists be needlessly harsh in evangelism as if God desires to damn those who hear the Word, and several have blatantly said that their job that day might be to "go harden up sinner's hearts" - but that is no way to think of evangelism. If the Word is an invitation then we should be inviting with it.

 

[Joshua]

I would be interested in seeing examples of folks here on the PB rejecting phrases that reflect God's promises to any sinner that comes to Him. Surely they misspoke or mistyped. Those are unequivocal promises pulled directly from the Scriptures, and what comforting promises they are to a sinner undone.

 

[Pergamum]

I would be interested in seeing examples of folks here on the PB rejecting phrases that reflect God's promises to any sinner that comes to Him. Surely they misspoke or mistyped. Those are unequivocal promises pulled directly from the Scriptures, and what comforting promises they are to a sinner undone.

Yes, I hope not. But I have personally met a few. These were baptists who had tired of Arminian churches and perhaps had over-reacted in the other direction. Ironically, 1 or 2 of these claimed to have been saved at "evangelical revivals" and one man claimed to have been saved at a Bill Graham rally and yet counted Graham as a heretic who would go to hell.

 

[Tom Hart]

@Pergamum, what is "High Calvinism"?

 

[Joshua]

Yes, I hope not. But I have personally met a few. These were baptists who had tired of Arminian churches and perhaps had over-reacted in the other direction. Ironically, 1 or 2 of these claimed to have been saved at "evangelical revivals" and one man claimed to have been saved at a Bill Graham rally and yet counted Graham as a heretic who would go to hell.

But you said "any of you," which I took to mean the audience of the PB, which by deduction, would make me think you've seen instances of folks here rejecting the phrases. Did you mean any anywhere, or did you have PB instances in mind. I'd like to review them.

 

[Tom Hart]

"There is always comfort available to you from God."
"If you go to Him, then He will receive you."
"Whatever cares you have, you may cast them upon God."
"Heaven would rejoice over your repentance."
"If you knock, it will be opened unto you."
"Jesus Christ receives sinners..."
"God will not reject you if you desire Him."
"Jesus Christ invites you by His Word to believe."

I don't think you'll find many here who disagree with these statements.