Can one say there is a legitimate offer by God to all people when He has predestined from all eternity those He has chosen to forgive and those He will not?

A most excellent work on this subject that really nails it down precisely is Christ Freely Offered, by Ken Stebbins, a rebuttal David Englesma of the protestant Reformed Church in his book Hyper-Calvinsm and the Call of the Gospel.
The book may have to be ordered from the seminary in Australia but I hope to obtain permission to post it online someday. I have asked him to do a new edition where he also agrees he would need to soften his criticism of the Marrowmen, that being what Fisher a non-elder, wrote in the allegorical text of The Marrow Of Modern Divinity, having 1 or two possible mis-statements is not what the ministers who utilized this famous work would say themselves, Boston having clearly explained the whole matter masterfully in the Appendix to the book.

God commands you to repent and believe, or Jesus Died for you, or Christ is freely offered to All? What do we say to honor God and truth?

He shows the errors and weaknesses of Stonehouse in His booklet Free Offer, which I have a hard time believing Murray really fully agreed with, and he shows weaknesses in even some of the puritans.

I heartily recommend Stebbins book to all who proclaim the free offer that they may in carefulness not misrepresent the truth of God, honor Him and proclaim the free offer without falling into the subtle error of the Arminians.
Covenanter Press, John Knox Theological College Sydney, Aus where he lectured.

__________________
DonP

Is both an option?

__________________
Aaron Josh Wright
Deerbrook Baptist Church, Humble Tx
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

The problem that I have is what the "Free Offer" has come to mean. I would heartily agree that the Lord God offers salvation to "whosever will." What I disagree with is the idea that He desires to save some contrary to His decree to save some. So Free Offer has become synonymous with "well-meant offer." And that's just a concession I don't believe the Bible makes: a God with His hands eternally tied due to a conflict between His desire and His decree?

The Lord does all according to His own good pleasure.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Great; so how do we work that out in proclaiming the gospel? ie what can we say?

But I doubt some solidly reformed ministers would want to relinquish the term free offer to the Arminains if I understood you.

And I think whosoever will is a bit loose. I would say whosover will believe, not just who soever. It is a specific not a wide open in that verse to me. Those who will believe but not restricted to ethnic Jews, of any nation.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Who's we? I think ministers of the Gospel may echo the Scriptures when they say, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." This doesn't mean they make foolish and unbiblical statements like "Jesus died for everyone of you individually." The Gospel to be preached is the same gospel that Christ and the Apostles preached. Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Repent and Believe.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here.
Umm . . . I don't know what you're arguing with. If any many wills to do anything, then it's because the Lord has regenerated such a man. So the whosever wills are they Whom the Father gave to the Lord Jesus. I think we're on the same page, and I never think it is "a bit loose" to use the Words of Scripture.

You say that Christ died to save sinners, that He is the only means of salvation, that one must repent and believe the Gospel, that one must come to Christ.

One needn't "sweeten the pot" with some rubbish that "God loves you" because we do not know that to be the case. It isn't an incentive anyway, because if a person believes that God loves him, he may very well take that to mean that he can just live his life as he sees fit, and that God ultimately, because He loves him, will save him anyway. There is NO need to go beyond what Scripture says, and what the evangelists in the Scriptures said - to do so is to bear false witness, imo.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

[quote=Joshua;588437]What if we took the words of scripture intended to be heard by a believer with some specific reference and knowledge, and that were addressed to a believer, then spoke those same words to the unregenerate?

Could those words not be mis-contrued by the hearer?

It's hard to separate the offer and the command. For example, in Christ we are offered forgiveness of sins, rest from our burdens, great treasure in heaven and we are commanded to come to Christ for the very same things. I believe that the very same offer and command is given to all people, thus making it a well-meant offer to the reprobate, but only the elect are chosen to be regenerated and be able to accept it. So, even though God has chosen to not save the reprobate, they are offered Christ and commanded to repent--the very same as the believer. That sounds like a well-meant offer to me.

But then again, I think it's all in how we use the terms. I use "well-meant offer" through the lens of presuppositions that others don't hold to and vice versa; there's just no way to escape it

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

I dont' see a problem with an "offer"... but the "offer" must never be spoken as "Christ died for you, will you now accept Him." If one refuses to use such words, he is usually labelled as a hypercalvinist by evangelicals.

Oh, I certainly agree. The offer would be that all who believe will be saved, not that Christ died for all so you must accept His gift for it to be effective. Surely the Lord died for His bride and no other.

God commands all men everywhere to repent.

John 3:16-18, 36

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
disabled - cancer
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

zzzzzz ...

Indeed He does.

Indeed he does. And repentance is a turning FROM and a turning TO - turning FROM sin and turning TO Christ. Both must be present, and this must be presented when discussing repentance (it's easy for someone to want to turn from sin because of its effects, but not quite so easy for that same person to want to turn to Christ given all that entails).

Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

Ministers of the gospel may both present the promises of God’s grace in Christ “freely offered in the gospel” and command all to believe and repent. He may not tell all “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” or that Christ died for their sins. Neither may he assure all those who make a profession of faith and are baptized into the visible church, they are “saved.” Certainly, he may not encourage them to take assurance from some unscriptural practice like walking the aisle at an invitation to come to an “altar” or “down front.”

I have found this message helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The free offer of the gospel

__________________
Glenn Ferrell
Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Boise, Idaho

http://sovereignredeemer.org

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_de...formationidaho


Nec Tamen Consumebatur


The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. - Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

I would like to clarify something.

Those of us (Confessional folks, that is) who deny that God "sincerely desires" something that is in conflict with that which He has decreed are not saying:

-That the Gospel ought not be preached to all people,

-That we ought not urge "all men everywhere to repent."

We would certainly and wholeheartedly affirm such. In fact, I have a profound and deep respect for many men and brethren who hold to the the "well-meant" position (such as John Murray, etc.), but nonetheless think it is biblically inconsistent. What God wants, He does. He's not disjointed, disappointed, inter-conflicted, or bound by a decree that is not also His "sincere desire."

Should the Gospel be preached and pressed to all men without exception? Absolutely.

Does God "sincerely desire" for all men without exception to come to Him for salvation, in direct conflict of His decrees of Divine Election & Reprobation? I don't believe so, nor do I think the Bible teaches it.

So would you comment on how you understand those verses then or do you have a post elsewhere?

For me many of these kinds of verses are easily explained in that the Jews thought it was only for them. They missed Abrahams promise to all nations somehow.

So When it says Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world, or god desires all men... etc. I see these as clearly reminding the Jews, that God is the savior and God for all men of all nations and races. Not each and every individual. Just as All Judea came out to see Jesus but not each and every person. All over from or a lot of them. All seldom means all.

But what about God does not delight in the death of the wicked?

Which verses, Friend?

See Matthew Winzer's review of Murray on the Free Offer attached.

Attached Files

bluebanner9-10&12.pdf (555.4 KB, 48 views)

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Thanks, Chris. I was looking for that to post.

Ezek 33:11
11 Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD,'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'
NKJV

I would suggest reading the aforeposted PDF of Rev. Matthew Winzer's response to the Murray-Stonehouse report on the "Free Offer." It's very good.

Revealed v. Secret Will.

Exhortations and threatenings are not always reflections of absolute reality: God threatened Adam with death; but not absolutely. It was, in fact, never God's intention that Adam would die the first and second deaths as a result of eating the fruit: but such was his revealed threatening

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Maybe God just meant you shall die, the 1st death and never meant the 2nd death.
Like Joshua I have a hard time seeing god conflicted in His will.

Perhaps some anthropomorphism could explain Ez but ...

If "2nd death" were not included in the malediction, "whence cometh it?" Aren't all evils which befall humanity summarily contained within that thread?

Also, indeed, you should have a hard time seeing God conflicted in his will. But the distinction between revealed and secret results in no such conflict.

Hmmm.. so if god had not threatened Adam with both deaths, then He couldn't have brought that on the unregenerate?
They could only have the spiritual death, fall, or physical death, but not eternal death?

Thanks, Ya got me thinking here, hadn't considered this before. I will hear more of this matter.

I like how Sinclair Ferguson explains the Free Offer in this sermon:

SermonAudio.com - The Free Offer of the Gospel

Your thoughts?

__________________
Alex - Orange County, CA - PCA

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
Galatians 2:20

Manton - "The sovereign dominion of God is a great prop to our faith."

I guess this discussion is never going to end on the PB ...

FWIW I find Winzer's article greatly wanting, particularly his exegesis of Ezekiel. Maurice Roberts' sermon on the free offer here I find more convincing, as well as R. Scott Clark's paper, "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., The Pattern of Sound Words: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004). Moreover, look for Donald John MacLean's paper on the free offer in James Durham coming soon in the Puritan Reformed Journal.

In short, I appreciate Joshua's argument that God can't "desire" the salvation of those who aren't ultimately saved, however, I don't think it does justice to all the Biblical data. We have to take all that the Bible says about this topic into account, even verses that appear to contradict others. In analyzing the biblical data the archetypal / ectypal distinction in our knowledge of God (see Clark's essay) must be taken into account.

Secondly, Ezek. 18:23, 32 and 33:11 actually says that God doesn't "desire the death of a sinner". To argue that this is about the elect only (which is not a popular exegesis in the reformed tradition), doesn't have justification from the context and ignores the plain meaning of the words IMHO. This "desire" is most likely a desire of a different kind to that of the elect's salvation. But how this is, I do not wish to speculate because Scripture doesn't, and I only have an ectypal knowledge of God--we have to let God be God and recognize that we finite creatures cannot contain God's infinite uncreated knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that there are a variety of views in the Reformed tradition on the free offer, and the confessions allow for this. I highly recommend Richard Muller's recent lectures given at MARS on the decree in 16th and 17th century reformed theology (where among other things he dismantles the usual categories of supra and infra lapsarianism showing they come from the 18th - 19th century and do not reflect 16th and 17th century reformed theology), particularly the third on Christ's satisfaction and the decree. He shows that standard reformed divines (like Bullinger, Musculus, Ursinus, Zanchius, etc. etc.) were very happy with saying that Christ died for "all" (meaning everyone, not just the elect) when it came to an offer of the gospel, even if they say he died for the elect in a different sense.

Blessings.

__________________
Marty
Ordained Presbyter; Currently Lecturer in Theology
Anglican Church of Australia
(Now finally back! in) Perth, Australia.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

I have heard it explained that a father does not delight, enjoy disciplining his child but he does it because it it is he most loving and beneficial thing to do.

Similarly, if not in fact, anthropomorphically, it could be that God does not enjoy punishing the wicked, though it is His will to do so.

It could be expressed this way to show His fatherly nature and our responsibility in our choosing to sin and not obey or live in faith to him, so no one can blame Him.

We also must use care we do not ascribe to God all the passions of men and in the same way.

[quote=PeaceMaker;588442]
I would say to worry about "re wording" The Gospel so that it is not "mis-contrued" is to become "Arminianized".

I agree we should not over run a unregenerate with the law unless that is what that person is holding on to ie some Jews, nor should we hit a unregenerate over the head with Pure Love.

We must preach the Gospel fully and with balance.

Those that God has called and those that know his voice will hear his WORDS. And will come.



Tony

PS my 1st post so be easy on me and I Thank you for starting this Thread.

Just tell people the facts like Peter did in Acts 2. When you get someone that asks "what should I/we do?" , tell them.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

To be accurate, I've never said God can't, rather that He doesn't. I believe that the Lord does all His good pleasure, and that His Word never returns unto Him void, and that it [His Word] always accomplishes His purpose, and that His purpose is borne from His desire.

Hi Marty, it's good to hear from you again.

Very hesitantly, though, isn't the point of the archetypal/ectypal distinction that we do have God's truth? It is formulated so we can understand it, but since it is based on the archetypal theology it is utterly trustworthy.

I don't think anyone would disagree that we have to take all of Scripture into account; but still that shouldn't require us to equivocate, should it?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Anyone who worships God with the thought that by so doing they are fulfilling some need in God ought to read and study Psalm 50 to correct their unworthy view of the Almighty and His service.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Are these lectures available somewhere, or is the content of the lectures available in a different form?

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Where to you get that His purpose is borne from desire?
Something like this?
Isa 46:10
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying,'My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,'
NKJV
So does this then mean God does take pleasure in the death and punishment of the wicked, since He will do it?

Hey Ruben, hope you are well brother!

The archetypal / ectypal distinction reminds us of our finitude because the finite cannot contain the infinite. Our (ectypal) knowledge of God is always a finite replica of God's knowledge of himself. What we understand of God (ectypal knowledge) is thus faithful but not identical; it will be greatly limited. This means there will be apparent anomalies in our knowledge of God because we (i) don't have all the information, indeed can't, and (ii) our knowledge is of a creaturely (not divine) kind.

The Trinity is a case in point. I don't understand how each person can simultaneously subsist in the one divine nature. It seems to be contradictory to me, but in reality it is not. This is because the Bible teaches both ideas (whether I grasp it or not). The 17th century Socinians explained away the Trinity because they saw it as contradictory. They did this by pitting one set of verses against another set of verses.

Yes, of course, hopefully no-one would disagree. However, in practice it's another thing. I've found myself doing it unwittingly many times. This is because it can be all too easy to explain away one set of verses by another set of verses. Hence, IMHO I see Ezek. 18:23, 32, and 33:11 explained away all too easily. We don't do this with the Trinity or the Incarnation. And I don't want to do this when it comes to God's will / desire.

Blessings dear brother.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 01:37:02 EST-----

You can get them from MARS if you phone them up.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 01:39:02 EST-----

Lam. 3:33 "For He [God] does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of man".

Do you know how to use a search feature?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

Seems like this all hangs together

Lam 3:33-37
33 For He does not afflict willingly,
Nor grieve the children of men.
34 To crush under one's feet
All the prisoners of the earth,
35 To turn aside the justice due a man
Before the face of the Most High,
36 Or subvert a man in his cause —
The Lord does not approve.
37 Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass,
When the Lord has not commanded it?
NKJV

No, He does it as punishment for sin. The language is judicial, not personal. Magistrates do not punish willy nilly, but only as there is just cause to do so.

Strictly speaking Ezekiel 18:23,32 & 33:11 all say that God does not take pleasure (delight) in the death of the wicked not that He does not decree (will) it (see Romans 9:17-22).

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)