The Free vs the "Well-Meant" Offer of the Gospel

[Joshua]

The following sermon series is one discussing The Free Offer of the Gospel in distinction from what has been come to be known as The Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel. We confess that:

1. Christ is freely offered in the Gospel and salvation is free to all who would repent, since it has been thereby purchased by Jesus Christ. (WCF VII.III; WLC 32, 67; WSC 31)​

2. God commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17.30)
​

The series will assert the above while rejecting any notion that there is any disparity or contradiction between God's "desire" and His will, discussing anthropopathic and anthropomorphic language, His accommodation and condescension to us, and examining passages which are often misused to assert a "well-meant" offer to even the reprobate. This is not merely a series filled with the technical aspects of examining this doctrines, but also positive explanation and application of the passages considered (Deut. 5, 32; Ps. 81; Is. 48; Ezk. 18, 36; Matt. 5, etc.). For example, the great Gospel-of-Grace oriented theme woven into Ezekiel 18. Even if one listens and remains unconvinced, I hope there will be profit in understanding why there are many who affirm the Free Offer of the Gospel yet reject the notion of a "Well-meant" offer to all men without exception, even those Whom God has been pleased to have "passed by, and fore-ordained . . . to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice," WLC 13.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

Introduction to the Free Offer
God's Decrees, Commands, and Accommodation
God's Impassibility
Categories of Elect, Reprobate, & Professors
The Evil & the Good; the Just & the Unjust
O That There Were Such a Heart in Them
God's Covenantal Dealing
God's Promises Have Not Failed
How Often I Would Have, But Ye Would Not
Sour Grapes and Teeth Set on Edge
Turning the Sour Grapes Proverb Around
The "Righteous" and the Wicked

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Josh, quick question, do you think it is wrong to use the term "desire" in relation to the free offer if you are using that term as an anthropomorphism?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Christ is freely offered in the Gospel and salvation is free to all who would repent,

Even this wonderful statement above requires a little caution. I know that repentance is to be preached along with faith in Christ. I am a man of the Confession, without exception. But we must never preach repentance as a sign of the elect—as something that is in some way separate from Christ. Something that happens FIRST. Even FAITH, if preached as a condition of coming to Christ can, in the wrong hands, be presented as a WORK—something that happens BEFORE we close with Christ.

I like this little story below by Sinclair Ferguson for it expresses what I am trying to say perfectly. God himself loves sinners who will throw themselves at the feet of Christ.

A Tale of Two Brothers
​

In some ways the Marrow Controversy resolved itself into a theological version of the parable of the waiting father and his two sons.

The antinomian prodigal when awakened was tempted to legalism: “I will go and be a slave in my father’s house and thus perhaps gain grace in his eyes.” But he was bathed in his father’s grace and set free to live as an obedient son.

The legalistic older brother never tasted his father’s grace. Because of his legalism he had never been able to enjoy the privileges of the father’s house.

Between them stood the father offering free grace to both, without prior qualifications in either. Had the older brother embraced his father, he would have found grace that would make every duty a delight and dissolve the hardness of his servile heart. Had that been the case, his once antinomian brother would surely have felt free to come out to him as his father had done, and say: “Isn’t the grace we have been shown and given simply amazing? Let us forevermore live in obedience to every wish of our gracious father!” And arm in arm they could have gone in to dance at the party, sons and brothers together, a glorious testimony to the father’s love.

But it was not so.
It is still, alas, not so.
Yet this is still true:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:1–4)

And the invitation still stands:

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food. (Isa. 55:1–2)
​

This full and free offer of Christ, this dissolution of the heart bondage that evidences itself in both legalism and antinomianism, this gracious obedience to God to which our union with Christ gives rise as the Spirit writes the law into our hearts— this is still the marrow of modern divinity. Indeed it is the marrow of the gospel for us all. It is so because the gospel is Christ himself, clothed in its garments.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. (2016-01-31). The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Kindle Locations 3253-3263). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am listening to one of the sermons as we speak. It is interesting to note that Rev. Ruddell concedes that people who hold to a robust Reformed theology disagree with him on the issue.

 

[Toasty]

God commands everyone to repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though God is not making a plan to save everyone, He still commands that. Can that command be called a desire?

 

[MW]

There is no problem with using desire anthropopathically for the revealed will of God as our English translations traditionally use it. Some modern English translations go so far as to use "want" which implies "lack," and this goes too far. But "desire" in terms of a thing or object desirable in itself can be used in a neutral sense. The question is whether this desire concerns an event or a thing. Does it refer to futurition (shall be) or obligation (ought to be)? A future event which never takes place leads to unfulfilled desire and internal dissatisfaction, which is contrary to the express teaching of Scripture that what God desires even that He does, and He does whatsoever pleases Him as the ever-blessed One. He fulfils the desire of all living things, which is an office He accomplishes as One who fulfils His own desires. On this basis the predication of unfulfilled desire in God creates an internal contradiction with that which God has decreed "shall" come to pass, which is unbecoming the majesty of God. Hence reformed theologians traditionally limit the desire of God's revealed will to obligation, to the thing itself, and regard futurition and event as pertaining to the decretive will.

 

[Pergamum]

J.I. Packer says it well, “God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved.” (Celebrating the Saving Work of God, p. 151)

With men it is unseemly but possible for the host of a feast to invite and yet not really desire the presence of his guests, yet we should not attribute this weakness to God. In Matthew 22 in that great parable of the wedding feast, the invitations go out most vigorously and there is a desire on the part of the host to have his house full! And in that great parable, even when there is found a guest who did not have the right wedding garment, the Host calls him friend, because He had invited him to the wedding. The ejection of this guest was not due in any part to the guest not being on the invitation list, but due to his lack of proper attire – he was invited and yet was not clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

Are we to suppose that God offers salvation using terms which describe His lovingkindness, yet doesn’t really mean it? God offers Christ in the Gospel; yet doesn’t truly want sinners to take hold upon that which He offers?

When God proclaims, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” are we to doubt that He is sincere in this appeal? Wouldn’t we take it at face-value that God desired such a thing to happen?

If we as ambassadors for Christ plead with sinners, “Be ye reconciled to God?” (2 Corinthians 5:20) and we read that this action is, as it were, God “beseeching” (pleading…begging with) sinners through us, why would we doubt whether God was sincere in his appeals? The plain reading of this text makes clear that God means it.

The Westminster Divine Jeremiah Burroughs, says that when preachers beseech sinners and beg them to be saved, “Nay it is the beseechings and entreatings of God himself…God begs of thee to come in…” (Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Remission, Or a Treatise shewing that True Blessedness Consists in Parton of Sin. London, 1674, 216-217.) Others speak of God kneeling to entreat sinners, and even state that God “goeth a begging” for the souls of poor sinners in the Gospel. And this by men most thoroughly devoted to the doctrine of divine election and most thoroughly opposed to Arminianism.

If Jesus weeps as He approaches Jerusalem (Luke 19) and wishes that they would be gathered unto Him in such a tender fashion as a mother hen gathering her chicks (Matthew 23), are we to suppose these to be crocodile tears which flowed down the cheeks of our Saviour? Was this some sham mourning? Should we dismiss such tears as some weakness in Christ’s human nature or some activity within the human emotions of Christ which are wholly incongruent with His divine nature?

Was it not the whole Person of Christ who wept, that sinless God-Man, in His perfect example to man?

Is it a mere sham perpetrated by God in Psalm 81:13, when He states, “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” Do we empty this of all meaningful content by confining it to the level of mere anthropopathism and deny God’s sincerity in these statements? It is the Holy Spirit, after all, which inspired these specific phrases of mourning and revealed every particular word to man so that man might know God.

No, God reveals to us that He actually desired the obedience of Israel. As Richard Alleine has so passionately put it, “Thy God did not mock thee, when he preached peace to thee; he was willing and wish'd it thine; if thou wouldst, thou mightest have made it thine own; but whilest he would thou wouldest not.” (Richard Alleine, The Godly Man's Portion and Sanctuary Opened, in Two Sermons, published in London during the 1660’s, 166-170).

No! It is not enough merely to speak of God’s “free offer” of salvation – this free offer is also a genuine and honest offer of salvation. God has sincerely entreated to all who hear, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” In Matthew 22 we see God’s great kingdom of heaven compared to a great marriage feast, and runners sent out to carry the invitation to all - an invitation that did not merely bear on its seal, “For the Elect only.” No distinction was made in the offer. All who hear the call are invited by the call. The reason that many will not come to the Supper is not that the King is not gracious, for his arms are held wide open, but because the invited ones were unwilling to come and all offered up stupid excuses to the detriment of their souls.


Listen to The Sum of Saving Knowledge, often published alongside editions of the Westminster Confession of Faith, proving its high estimation in the eyes of many of the Reformed, describing this Gospel offer:

“He that, upon the loving request of God and Christ, made to him by the mouth of ministers, (having commission to that effect,) has embraced the offer of perpetual reconciliation through Christ, and does purpose, by God’s grace, as a reconciled person, to strive against sin, and to serve God to his power constantly, may be as sure to have righteousness and eternal life given to him, for the obedience of Christ imputed to him, as it is sure that Christ was condemned and put to death for the sins of the redeemed imputed to him.”

The Sum of Saving Knowledge continues, “…if any man shall not accept the sweet invitation of God, or the humble and loving request of God, made to him to be reconciled, he shall find he has to deal with the sovereign authority of the highest Majesty…”

This most sound and respected document, therefore, refers to the Gospel offer as “the loving request of God,” “the sweet invitation of God,” as well as the “humble and loving request.” This is no language of mere cold command, but speaks of God’s sincere desire to bless.

 

[MW]

Verse 14, "For many are called, but few are chosen." It is poor exegesis that leaves the second half of our Lord's summation of His own parable without any place of significance whilst the part referring to the invitation is made the totality of the parable. Any expression of "desire" must be seen as co-extensive with the terms which are established for the fulfilment of the invitation, especially in light of the redemptive-historical target of the parable -- unbelieving Jews, whom God intended to expel from a festivity which they assumed they would enjoy.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dickson-and-Durham-oppose-the-teaching-that-God-desires-the-salvation-of-all-men

 

[MW]

Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

 

[Pergamum]

“When Jesus taught His followers to love their enemies, the clear premise of His precept was the fact that God loves His enemies (Matt. 5:43-45 and Luke 6:35). Already in Proverbs came the lofty injunction: "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink" (Prov. 25:21). Is then the servant greater than his Lord? Is the creature nobler than the Creator? God loves His enemies; God loves all men.

The universal love of God is also revealed in His invitation of the gospel, sincerely extended to all without reservation or limitation. Scripture gives numerous examples of God's universal and well-meant offer of the gospel (e.g., Isa. 45:22 and Matt. 11:28).”

God So Loved—ALL Men!

Harold Dekker Associate Professor of Missions, Calvin Theological Seminary

"It is a bona fide [good-faith] calling. The external calling is a calling in good faith, a calling that is seriously meant. It is not an invitation coupled with the hope that it will not be accepted. When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word. The bona fide character of the external call is proved by the following passages of Scripture: Num. 23:19; Ps. 81:13-16; Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18-20; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 21:37; 2 Tim. 2:13. The Canons of Dort also assert it explicitly in [sections] 3 and 4.8."

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1950, VI. The Purpose and Extent of the Atonement, p.397-398, Banner of Truth edition.



Many of the Reformers and Puritans spoke of a “Three-Fold Love of God” to his creatures (the love of benevolence, the love of beneficence, and the love of complacency) and affirmed God’s love to all creatures in at least one of these 3 ways.

Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica echoes this conviction. After first asserting God’s general love for every created thing, Aquinas quotes Augustine regarding the different kinds of God’s love, “God loves all things that He has made, and amongst them rational creatures more, and of these especially those who are members of His only-begotten Son Himself." (Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 20, Article 1).

 

[timfost]

Thanks, Perg. After condemning the bona fide offer for most of my life, I know embrace it, being convicted that I'm called to believe God on His terms, and not conform Him to my logic. (I'm speaking from personal conviction of my scriptural reading.) The obstacles needed to logically reconcile the truths revealed about God's desires are far too great for the finite mind. It's not the most comfortable position in a debate, but has humility, reverence and awe for its answer.

 

[MW]

Hugh Binning, Works, p. 135:

that every man is bound to persuade himself at the first, that God hath loved him, and Christ redeemed him, is the hope of the hypocrite, – like a spider’s web, which, when leaned to, shall not stand. That man’s expectation shall perish; he hath kindled sparks of his own, a wild fire, and walketh not in the true light of the word, and so must lie down in sorrow. Many of you deceive yourselves, and none can persuade you that ye do deceive yourselves, such is the strength of that delusion and dream. It is the great part of the heart’s deceitfulness, to flatter itself in its own eyes; to make a man conceive well of himself and his heart. I beseech you, do not venture your soul’s salvation on such groundless opinions; never to question the matter, is to leave it always uncertain.