Why would I be embarrassed? I used quotes cited to refute universal desire to prove they believed common love was the basis of the free offer.
LC Q32 - "Freely Provideth And Offereth To Sinners"
- Thread starter His Glory
- Start date
The embarrassment would be due to someone loudly arguing against something they misunderstand. For example:
That ladies arguments for violence were sharp and erudite. Lol, but seriously, I was simply arguing for the free offer of the gospel as a product of common grace. For some reason, you reject the plain language of Rutherford and others, twisting their quotes to refute common love, in order to guard against the existence of a universal desire. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Again, you don't seem to understand who you are arguing against. I never argued against the free offer of the Gospel, nor did MW. What the thread demonstrated was your failure to distinguish between God's Legislative and Decretive wills. I agree with everything Rutherford wrote.
This is why the video is apropos, as it captures the arc of the conversation where you repeatedly argue that others disagree with Rutherford, only to realize that you didn't understand what the issue of the Free Offer actually entails.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Can you define your terms as far as "elect" and "reprobate"?
The special, saving love of God is distinct from his common love. How you understand the categories of elect and reprobate will shape how you understand his saving love.
WLC Q13
I didn't accuse you of arguing against the free offer. I accused you and MC of rejecting that Rutherford believed in a three-fold love of God which included "general love" as the basis of the genuineness of the Free Offer to all who hear.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Q13: What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?
A: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleases), hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.
So, what would you say is God's purpose, according to WLC 13, in his electing and reprobating acts? Does he have a desire to see his purposes come to fruition?
Feel free to message me
I don't reject anyting Rutherford writes below:
And I'll repeat: I *never* rejected the free offer of the Gospel to all who hear. You repeatedly (and continue) to be confused about what others are communicating to you. You came here for help(?), but you were apparently interested in teaching others about something you were confused about.
It is plain above that Rutherford is consistent with a Reformed belief that God's love of benevolence to His creatures is genuine. The Reformed, however, consistently distinguish between the Second and Third kind of love articulated as well as between God's Decretive and Legislative wills. Those distinctions I agree with and you have repeatedly demonstrated a stubborn refusal to understand them properly.
You might have asked: "What am I missing here?"
Instead, you quote the plain language that contradicts what you are saying it articulates and then wonder why I suggested you are embarrassing yourself.
I appreciate you and MW bearing with me through my ignorance. I was just trying to clarify my misguided accusation, but since I thought the Well Meant Offer was the equivalent of a Free Offer, I was indeed accusing you of rejecting it without even knowing. Therefore your video is spot on, but thankfully, I don’t feel embarrassed because my goal is to learn, and that I did. I couldn’t figure out why MW was viewing Rutherford’s statement that God “desires the being of damned angels” through the lens of reprobation when it illustrated God’s beneficence to the creature. I now realize he was doing so because it demonstrates such love would be self defeating, and according to Rutherford, no love can miscarry.
Question: Is the argument for “desire” according to the WMO limited to the second love, or do they mean it relates to “electing love”? Can one say God desires salvation in the sense that it would be good for the creature? Wouldn’t this conflict with passages like John 12:37-40?
Last edited:
It's complicated. The idea of the "well-meant offer" could simply be a valid species of the free offer of the Gospel. There are various movements (especially in the Dutch tradition) that are a kind of hyper-Calvinist strain that restrict the free offer of the Gospel and confuse God's decretive will in such a way as to make election the basis of preaching. Some have tended to reject the second type of love articulated by Rutherford and others so as to see no love or no "real" offer of the Gospel unless God has decreed to save them.
The "well meant offer", then, sometimes stands in for a correction of errors to the opposite extreme.
That said, however, certain theologians take things further and blur of confuse God's legislative and decretive wills or make God's common grace the basis for his electing grace.
Personally, I think the best guard against theological confusion is to limit ourselves to revealed theology. It is sufficient for men and preachers to proclaim to sinners that God commands men to repent and takes no delight in the death of the wicked. It is not up to us to peer into God's decretive will at this point and doubt whether the Gospel commands a sinner to repent or believe. At the same time, however, we leave it to God as to whom He has decreed to come to everlasting life as he grants what He commands to them. This special kind of love for the elect is not merely a "desire" but gives to sinners all that Christ has procured for them. Likewise, God's "desire" or "will" in this decretive sense is not frustrated when the reprobate perishes in their sins. Although they violate God's legislative will in the free offer of the Gospel, He is yet not frustrated in His essence at their refusal but is glorified in the destruction of the wicked.
Put another way, if we look at it like this:
1. Elect persons
a. God's legislative will is that the sinner repents and believes.
b. Gos's decretive will is that He has procured faith in Christ's atonement. He purchases their faith as a condition to interest and they are united to Christ and all His benefits.
2. Reprobate persons.
a. God's legislative will is that the sinner repents and believes.
b. God'sdecretive will is that the reprobate does not heed the command to repent and believe, and they perish in their sins. He is glorified in the manifestation of his justice toward them. He does not "regret" in this decretive sense that they perish, and His "desire" has not been thwarted.
Finally, put simply, God's decretive will is identical to His essence, and there is no "yes" and "no" in God.
Thank you for taking time to respond so thoughtfully. If I understand you correctly, the "Well Meant Offer" can be equivalent to the Free Offer, but only when refuting valid forms Hyper-Calvinism? Now I am confused again because my OP was aimed in this vein. MW started by framing the WMO as a "universal saving desire" that conflicted with God's decree to elect some and not others. He then proceeded to cite many divines refuting the Arminian conception of a "universal saving will" which made me think the WMO was simply the Arminian position, so I denounced it. However, now I seem to have uncovered the real issue at hand. It is about using the word "desire" with respect to the Free Offer to all that hear. Does God "desire" the salvation of everyone who hears. Since the WMO that includes a "saving desire" appears to be rooted in common love, the quotes he was using to refute the Arminian view do not have much force if the "saving desire" is argued from that of "common grace". I will be back on this evening with some questions. If not interested in discussing further, I understand.
No, what I'm saying is that there is a form of the WMO that confuses the second and third kind of love in God. It is a formal error.
There are a lot of people, however, who think that the WMO is the free offer.
Job 23:13, "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."
Ps. 115:3, "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."
Isa. 46:10, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."
There are no unfulfilled desires in God. The most we can say is that God desires the salvation of every one who believes. That is what the revealed will of God teaches. Whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish. As Rutherford said, what God desires is the "conjunction" of the condition and the promise. Yet He does not desire to give everyone what is required in the condition -- the gift of faith. Therefore He does not desire the salvation of all men. As noted, the desire expressed in the gospel is "indefinite," not "universal."
What was God's intention in giving us the gospel? The salvation of the elect. It is rooted in saving love, not common love. Does it come to more than the elect? Yes; in this sense we can speak of something common in it. But we must not lose sight of the intention of God to save the elect through the gospel. The gospel manifests saving love, 1 John 4:9-10.
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Freshman
"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, '“Why have you made me like this?”' Romans 9:20.
Paul's response to those trying to peer in to God's secret will and motivations is sufficient.
Paul's response to those trying to peer in to God's secret will and motivations is sufficient.
It does appear Rutherford's statement teaches God desiring "creature compliance" does not require "salvific desire". I have not read the exegetical arguments for verses like 1 Tim 2:3-4 requiring the application to everyone without exception, which would be the only reason to consider "universal desire" in my opinion. I am comfortable with how I have always interpreted scripture with scripture to mean "types" regarding such passages. I would rather appeal to "mystery" behind the offer remaining genuine without salvific desire than disturb what has been revealed to us in God's Word concerning the decree of reprobation.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
"All without distinction, not without exception."
~ Someone.
~ Someone.
It is important to read 1 Tim. 2:3-4 in the context of vv. 1-6. "All men" includes different kinds of men, including kings and all in authority. This is a typical Augustinian interpretation which has been taken up and used in the Reformed tradition. Also the "will" for all men in v. 4 is co-extensive with the "ransom" for all in v. 6. As pointed out by Joel, it is best to take this as referring to "all without distinction, not without exception." To give some substance to this saying, here is William Cunningham:
"We say that Christ died, and gave His life a ransom for some men only, those whom the Father had given Him; and not for all men, that is, not for all the individuals of the human race, without exception, but that those for whom He died are indeed all men, or mankind in general, without distinction of age or country, character or condition, no class or description of men being excluded, -- a sense in which we can prove that "all men" is often used in Scripture. And this combines in harmony the different statements which Scripture contains upon the subject; whereas the universalists are obliged, in order to harmonize scriptural statements, either to reject altogether the fair and natural meaning of those which represent Him as dying for some only, or else to maintain that He died for some men in one sense, and for all men, without exception, in a different sense; while they cannot produce, either from the particular passages, or from any other declarations of Scripture, evidence of the different senses in which they must understand the declarations, that He died for men, and gave Himself a ransom for them."
Similar threads
