RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
How would someone who doesn't believe in the free offer of the gospel share the gospel in a witnessing encounter?
How does non-free offer person share the gospel?
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I am assuming, qualifying the call to 'the elect' alone.
Umm...they don't? At least if they're consistent with their theology.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Historically, they offered Christ only to those who first displayed "signs" of election, i.e. prolonged conviction of sin, trying to forsake sin, and pursuing repentance, etc. or what was otherwise called the "sensible sinner".
Don't confuse the free offer with the well meant offer (Murray). That continues, this will get shut down. If the OP is about the well meant offer, read Durham or Dickson's sermons or their contemporaries (see the old threads on their views, sum of saving knowledge, etc.). Meantime, this is closed for moderator review.
[Moderator]
Let's make the assumption that Jacob knew what he was doing when he asked this question: he is interested in the witnessing efforts of those who deny the free offer of the Gospel. That language has a historic meaning derived from usage. We do our own understanding no favors if that language is assumed to include the ideas of Dabney, Murray, et al, about non-executive volitions in God. No doubt Murray believed in the free offer of the Gospel; but someone can reject Murray without therefore rejecting the free offer. Anyone who has spent time researching the issue should be well acquainted with this historical fact.
So unless Jacob clarifies that he meant to ask about the "well-meant" offer, replies about that are off-topic, and will be (have been) deleted.
[/Moderator]
Let's make the assumption that Jacob knew what he was doing when he asked this question: he is interested in the witnessing efforts of those who deny the free offer of the Gospel. That language has a historic meaning derived from usage. We do our own understanding no favors if that language is assumed to include the ideas of Dabney, Murray, et al, about non-executive volitions in God. No doubt Murray believed in the free offer of the Gospel; but someone can reject Murray without therefore rejecting the free offer. Anyone who has spent time researching the issue should be well acquainted with this historical fact.
So unless Jacob clarifies that he meant to ask about the "well-meant" offer, replies about that are off-topic, and will be (have been) deleted.
[/Moderator]
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I guess I was asking what do those who don't believe in the free offer of the gospel--well, how do they present the gospel?
There's a fairly extensive literature from the PRCA on their position. Hopefully our PR brothers will tighten this up if I am off, but in their case I think the objection is to the idea of offer, rather than to the idea of free. Instead, the call of the Gospel is an authoritative summons or command. Hence it can certainly be preached promiscuously. Perhaps a suitable generalization would be that it has more impact on the mode or tone of evangelism, vs. on the actual fact.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
From my experiences with dealing with PRCA people, sometimes they will argue that there is no such thing as the free offer, while other times they will concede that the term offer has a usage with which they agree. In my opinion, they make the same mistake that many of their opponents make in committing a word-concept fallacy by assuming that offer or free offer always and only means the well-meant offer.
From what I can gather from reading early Reformed sources, many divines believed in the WMO, while various other Reformed divines did not believe that the free offer was the same thing as the WMO. I will probably upset partisans on all sides by stating that I believe neither Dort nor Westminster demand that you hold one view or the other.
Those who reject the terminology of an offer entirely will often argue that you just proclaim to sinners the need to repent and believe. I do not believe that such an approach does justice to scripture, which freely offers Christ to sinners without money and without price (though without the notion of an ineffectual desire on the part of God for the salvation of the reprobate).
I hope that I have answered the OP in conformity with Rueben's above directive to stay on-topic.
From what I can gather from reading early Reformed sources, many divines believed in the WMO, while various other Reformed divines did not believe that the free offer was the same thing as the WMO. I will probably upset partisans on all sides by stating that I believe neither Dort nor Westminster demand that you hold one view or the other.
Those who reject the terminology of an offer entirely will often argue that you just proclaim to sinners the need to repent and believe. I do not believe that such an approach does justice to scripture, which freely offers Christ to sinners without money and without price (though without the notion of an ineffectual desire on the part of God for the salvation of the reprobate).
I hope that I have answered the OP in conformity with Rueben's above directive to stay on-topic.
[Moderator]
Yes, Daniel, I believe that's in the spirit of the moderation offered.
[/Moderator]
From Robert W. Oliver's History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771-1892, I learned this:
I don't have the book in my possession to look up additional details, but anyone who does might find some information pertinent to Jacob's inquiry in looking at the activities of the Strict Baptist Missionary Society.
Yes, Daniel, I believe that's in the spirit of the moderation offered.
[/Moderator]
From Robert W. Oliver's History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771-1892, I learned this:
Some denied that the preaching of the gospel could be considered an offer, or that the unconverted should be instructed to repent and believe. While Spurgeon affirmed both (344), it is intriguing that in his catechism he spoke of Christ “as he is set forth in the gospel” instead of saying “offered” as Keach’s catechism did (190). Gill and John Brine denied that sinners have a responsibility to believe the gospel (6,10,97). At least some among the hyper-calvinistic wing of the Particular Baptists maintained that duty implied ability (105,116). It is ironic that they accepted what seems an Arminian premise, though they took it in the opposite direction. Whereas an Arminian might argue from responsibility to ability, these hyper-calvinists argued from inability to irresponsibility. Hyper-calvinism did not always mean that no evangelistic effort was made (321). In fact, a Strict Baptist Missionary society was formed in 1861 (224). William Button, though he had argued against Andrew Fuller’s view of the gospel offer, still supported the Particular Baptist Missionary Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen (107). They did oppose exhortations and appeals to unbelievers, and the depth of their concern on this point is well illustrated by the criticisms of Spurgeon’s ministry from James Wells (349) and William Styles (350-351).
I don't have the book in my possession to look up additional details, but anyone who does might find some information pertinent to Jacob's inquiry in looking at the activities of the Strict Baptist Missionary Society.
Jacob asked: "How would someone who doesn't believe in the free offer of the gospel share the gospel in a witnessing encounter?"
My answer to this narrowly defined question is as follows:
Those that I have known who have defined the offer as a command but not a well-meant invitation have said to me the following:
(1) that to share the Gospel you would go preach out of sheer duty.
(1b) Several of those have even said that the Gospel is a command and is not an invitation. It is not to be "offered" in the sense that we think of an offer (if I offer you something I want you to take it). Rather, this "offer" is only to be "proclaimed" and is not a sincere invitation.
(1c) one pastor corrected me when I said that God loves the souls of men, and so therefore, we should also love the souls of men. He reminded me that missionary work should not be because of any love of the souls of men, because we cannot be sure that God even loves these souls...but that missionary work is only to be done out of duty to the Great Commission.
This, as you can imagine, would impact how they would talk to unbelievers.
(2) Several pastors have further elaborated that the Word goes forth to the elect in the audience and is only to them and for them.
(3) Several have said that we are not to tell anyone that God loves them in any manner, nor wants them to be saved in any manner. This includes descriptions of God's general love to all creation and his general beneficences and common grace. We are not to appeal to any of that.
One of them even told me that he doesn't let his own children pray "Our Father" because he is not sure whether God is their father or not ("they might be of their father, the devil" he actually said).
Obviously this impacts one's evangelism.
(3b) One man even told me that God gives good gifts to the wicked to increase their guilt ("to fatten them up for the salughter")... and that this increase of guilt was not merely the sad result of their sins but was the design of God to further judge the sinner.
NOTE TO THE MODS: I believe I have answered Jacob's narrowly defined question without broadening the scope of the discussion or introducing new topics.
My answer to this narrowly defined question is as follows:
Those that I have known who have defined the offer as a command but not a well-meant invitation have said to me the following:
(1) that to share the Gospel you would go preach out of sheer duty.
(1b) Several of those have even said that the Gospel is a command and is not an invitation. It is not to be "offered" in the sense that we think of an offer (if I offer you something I want you to take it). Rather, this "offer" is only to be "proclaimed" and is not a sincere invitation.
(1c) one pastor corrected me when I said that God loves the souls of men, and so therefore, we should also love the souls of men. He reminded me that missionary work should not be because of any love of the souls of men, because we cannot be sure that God even loves these souls...but that missionary work is only to be done out of duty to the Great Commission.
This, as you can imagine, would impact how they would talk to unbelievers.
(2) Several pastors have further elaborated that the Word goes forth to the elect in the audience and is only to them and for them.
(3) Several have said that we are not to tell anyone that God loves them in any manner, nor wants them to be saved in any manner. This includes descriptions of God's general love to all creation and his general beneficences and common grace. We are not to appeal to any of that.
One of them even told me that he doesn't let his own children pray "Our Father" because he is not sure whether God is their father or not ("they might be of their father, the devil" he actually said).
Obviously this impacts one's evangelism.
(3b) One man even told me that God gives good gifts to the wicked to increase their guilt ("to fatten them up for the salughter")... and that this increase of guilt was not merely the sad result of their sins but was the design of God to further judge the sinner.
NOTE TO THE MODS: I believe I have answered Jacob's narrowly defined question without broadening the scope of the discussion or introducing new topics.
I think you're right on track, Ruben. One oft-used PRCA summary of the topic is as follows:
From Barry Gritters' Grace Uncommon (https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_55.html)
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I heard a similar thing from a PRCA pastor who referred to Psalm 73:18 to back up his point.
Bill Duncan
Puritan Board Freshman
What were Dabney's ideas?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
As much as I am a proponent of the WMO, I agree that the confessions don't explicitly spell out one side or the other, though Dort comes a little closer in my reading. I'm glad, though, since one of the purposes of a confession is to unite without letting the details put parties on opposite sides. We can agree that the gospel should go out to all without agreeing on all of the particulars.
Gill spells out a position that fits with the OP:
"Nor is the gospel-ministry an offer of Christ, and of his grace and salvation by him, which are not in the power of the ministers of it to give, nor of carnal men to receive; the gospel is not an offer, but a preaching of Christ crucified, a proclamation of the unsearchable riches of his grace, of peace, pardon, righteousness, and life , and salvation by him. Yet there is something in which the ministry of the word, and the call by it, have to do with unregenerate sinners: they may be, and should be called upon, to perform the natural duties of religion; to a natural faith, to give credit to divine revelation, to believe the external report of the gospel, which not to do, is the sin of the deists; to repent of sin committed, which even the light of nature dictates; and God, in his word, commands all men every where to repent: to pray to God for forgiveness, as Simon Magus was directed by the apostle: and to pray to God for daily mercies that are needed, is a natural and moral duty; as well as to give him praise, and return thanks for mercies received, which all men that have breath are under obligation to do. They may, and should be called upon to attend the outward means of grace, and to make use of them; to read the holy scriptures, which have been the means of the conversion of some; to hear the word, and wait on the ministry of it, which may be blessed unto them, for the effectual calling of them. And it is a part of the ministry of the word to lay before men their fallen miserable, lost, and undone estate by nature; to open to them the nature of sin, its pollution and guilt, and the sad consequences of it; to inform them of their incapacity to make atonement for it; and of their impotence and inability to do what is spiritually good; and of the insufficiency of their own righteousness to justify them in the sight of God: and they are to be made acquainted, that salvation is alone by Christ, and not otherways; and the fullness, freeness, and suitableness of this salvation, are to be preached before them; and the whole to be left to the Spirit of God, to make application of it as he shall think fit."
He also distinguished between legal and evangelical repentance. With reference to Acts 3:19 ("repent... and be converted..."), he says:
"Though no other repentance and conversion may be here meant than an external one; and the blotting out of sin, and forgiveness of it, may intend no other than the removing a present calamity, or the averting a threatened judgment, or the deliverance of persons from national ruin. These Jews had crucified the Lord of glory, and for this sin were threatened with miserable destruction; the apostle therefore exhorteth them to repentance for it, and to a conversion to the Messiah, that so when ruin should come upon their nation, they might be delivered from the general calamity; when it would be terrible times to the unbelieving and impenitent Jews..."
Hope this helps...
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Regarding the bolded: correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like Gill is basically saying to non-Christians: "You are not converted but start coming to church, reading the bible, praying, listening to the word etc., and you might become converted if the Holy Spirit feels so inclined". So naturally, if I was such a person (or a person who was truly converted but had low assurance), my natural response would be to consciously "do" as many of these works as possible in order to gain the best chance at being converted.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
That is what it practically amounts too. And it often ends up leading into antinomianism (God will convert me when he wants too so I'll live as I please until then) or to a hyper-spiritualism (I need a mystical experience to prove I am elect).
Dabney affirmed that God had a non-executive volition to save everyone, a sort of wish or impulse which was regulated by God's wisdom or justice so that it never took effect. You can find the details in his essay "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity".
[Moderator]
However, this is not the thread to discuss it, since this is about how those who deny the free offer engage in witnessing and evangelism. The question before us is a question of how people with a certain conviction proceed in a given situation, not our thoughts about that conviction. The replies are beginning to stray from that point, both by conflating the free offer with the well-meant offer and by arguing for one position rather than reporting on a matter of fact.
If anyone is confused as to those boundaries, here is some guidance:
1) The free offer is language drawn from WSC 31 ("freely offered in the Gospel"), which by itself does not affirm that incomplete volition in God, which the language of well-meant offer typically implies.
2) Other people do what they do at least partially in light of their convictions, and they do these things whether you agree with their convictions and whether their practice makes sense to you or not.
Final warning: stay on track, or get deleted.
[/Moderator]
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, that's what I understand him to be saying. I find his "encouragement" to the unconverted passive. In one sense, he calls them to put themselves closer to the proclamation of the gospel, but does not call people to "evangelical repentance" since only God can effectually call.
But without getting on a rabbit trail, I think those like Gill who deny the free offer rather speak about the proclamation of the gospel, wait to see how the sinner responds, then proceed according to their response. If the sinner is "converted," it would be acknowledged that God called them to evangelical repentance and faith, not a person.
Moderating:
As has been recognized, the thread has strayed from the OP, though the discussion on the nature of the free offer is important. The thread is getting ripe for closing down. Please keep narrowly to the OP in this thread and open a new thread if you wish to continue discussing the nature of the free offer.
As has been recognized, the thread has strayed from the OP, though the discussion on the nature of the free offer is important. The thread is getting ripe for closing down. Please keep narrowly to the OP in this thread and open a new thread if you wish to continue discussing the nature of the free offer.
Closing for review.
[Moderator]
Off topic posts moved here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/free-offer-divided-discussion.97222/
I don't believe it should be difficult to distinguish between a matter of what others do, and what you think about it. But if that's difficult, the other thread is the place for your post.
[/Moderator]
Off topic posts moved here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/free-offer-divided-discussion.97222/
I don't believe it should be difficult to distinguish between a matter of what others do, and what you think about it. But if that's difficult, the other thread is the place for your post.
[/Moderator]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
