Free Offer
- Thread starter Sam Jer
- Start date
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
Edit - I had not realised that the "free offer" has been distinguished on the Board from the "well-meant offer", so the below information is painting the two with one large brush stroke. As such, it may not provide the precise answer you are looking for.
The idea is that the good news of Jesus Christ is held forth to all/every single person indiscriminately.
i.e. "The Lord Jesus Christ is offered to you by God in the gospel as your Saviour. Receive Him by faith."
The view against is that God's salvation in Jesus Christ is not offered to all indiscriminately, because it's only effectual for the elect.
Proponents against the "well-meant/free offer" today come in various forms, with the more extreme end being more on the end of "hyper-Calvinism". Iain Murray's book "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism" is well known in this regard.
I think the best arguments against the "free offer" come from the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (Hoeksema, Engelsma, et al).
In the words of David Engelsma,
"That which is objectionable in the "free offer of the gospel" or "well-meant offer," is not the teaching that the church must preach to everyone and must call all hearers to faith in Jesus Christ. But the error of the doctrine of the offer, and the reason why a Reformed man must repudiate it, is its teaching that the grace of God in Jesus Christ, grace that is saving in character, is directed to all men in the preaching of the gospel. Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, and expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner." -Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
I think the difference comes down to one's views on the universality of the love of God in the Gospel and the satisfaction of the Lord Jesus in His death on the cross.
On the side of the "free offer", John Murray wrote,
"It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction…. The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus".
Source: www. the-highway.com/arminianism.html from Murray's article "‘The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes’ in The Presbyterian Guardian, 1935-36.
The idea is that the good news of Jesus Christ is held forth to all/every single person indiscriminately.
i.e. "The Lord Jesus Christ is offered to you by God in the gospel as your Saviour. Receive Him by faith."
The view against is that God's salvation in Jesus Christ is not offered to all indiscriminately, because it's only effectual for the elect.
Proponents against the "well-meant/free offer" today come in various forms, with the more extreme end being more on the end of "hyper-Calvinism". Iain Murray's book "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism" is well known in this regard.
I think the best arguments against the "free offer" come from the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (Hoeksema, Engelsma, et al).
In the words of David Engelsma,
"That which is objectionable in the "free offer of the gospel" or "well-meant offer," is not the teaching that the church must preach to everyone and must call all hearers to faith in Jesus Christ. But the error of the doctrine of the offer, and the reason why a Reformed man must repudiate it, is its teaching that the grace of God in Jesus Christ, grace that is saving in character, is directed to all men in the preaching of the gospel. Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, and expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner." -Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
I think the difference comes down to one's views on the universality of the love of God in the Gospel and the satisfaction of the Lord Jesus in His death on the cross.
On the side of the "free offer", John Murray wrote,
"It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction…. The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus".
Source: www. the-highway.com/arminianism.html from Murray's article "‘The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes’ in The Presbyterian Guardian, 1935-36.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
I never understood how. I expect Engelsma definitely has a response that is well-thought out but I cannot imagine what it is.
I agree wholeheartedly with John Murray's quote, and have supported Ray Comfort and Todd Friel's street outreaches before. Offering "to take a parachute from Christ as the plane is going down" is not assuming that they have the ability to take that parachute, so much as it is that - if they do have the ability, then they have been born agiain in the Spirit and now is the time; but if they are still dead in trespasses, a seed is planted that God may/may not use to regenerate the person later . BUT that seed will definitely be used for his glory - either the glory of his merciful grace or the glory of his perfect justice.
Last edited:
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think the problem lies so much in man's ability or inability to receive Christ. The controversy surrounding the well-meant offer is in relation to God's intention in the preaching of the Gospel.
A question to ponder. Did Jesus Christ offer himself to every individual person indiscriminately? He seems to make no offer to those who are self-righteous.
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Luke 5:31-32
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matt. 11:25-28
A question to ponder. Did Jesus Christ offer himself to every individual person indiscriminately? He seems to make no offer to those who are self-righteous.
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Luke 5:31-32
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matt. 11:25-28
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
But he did offer people to follow him, yes? And are his actions with every person he meets prescriptive or descriptive?
I think you do have a point in how apparent it is that the way the rich young ruler presents himself to Christ is radically different than the Samaritan woman at the well.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Whether or not they are prescriptive or descriptive, it is apparent from His words in Matthew, that gospel-blindness was a judgment of God, which left people in their sin.
We see a similar exchange in Matthew 13:13-17, where Jesus references the prophecy of Isaiah, regarding the deafness and blindness of the people.
The issues represented by the two terms actually need to be distinguished. I think it's good to understand the distinctions fully, but in my opinion, it's a matter for prayer for ministers of the church to work out and come to see eye-to-eye (Isaiah 52:8).
Last edited:
Shadow Forge
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is a great article opposing the well meant offer and a 3 part video series by Prof. Ronald Cammenga
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, ok, but as I understand him, John Murray (nor I) would disagree with a single word of this.
The fact that spiritual deafness and blindness are indeed judgments and God calls some not all is simply a re-statement of the doctrine of limited atonement which no one here denies.
This seems to not be addressing the issue of - per Engelsma - whether a "gospel offer" must include the notion of "salvation being dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner."
That was my question. How does that follow logically?
No sinner dead in trespasses can "accept" the "offer".
That is guaranteed and no one disputes this. 1689 says clearly "by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
Wait, I was almost ready to hit "Post reply" then it dawned on me what may be your driving reason to post.
You may object to the language of "indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace" that Murray uses.
My take on it is:
Only one whose eyes have been opened from a state of spiritual death by the Holy Spirit can understand what it means so that "the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus".
I suspect maybe you protest the adjective "indiscriminate"? But that adjective is man-centered not God-centered. It is not that God takes anyone indiscriminately of their predestination.
It is that the offer does not discriminate on anything within man (skin color, gender, Jew, Gentile, etc). It does not even discriminate on knowledge of the doctrines of grace revealed in the Bible!
I think you misunderstood this to mean that the offer is for anyone - spiritually deaf/blind/dead or not. The gospel has power to effectually save all, but only saves those predestined by God himself. His will is primary over and against any human will, and (to my knowledge) Murray never denied that.
If I am missing anything in my memory of Murray or a detail within this issue, please let me know.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ah, my apologies and thanks for pointing that out.
Having done a bit of searching, I have found this explained somewhat in this thread, post #20 specifically - https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-non-free-offer-person-share-the-gospel.97200/
The related thread is likely also of interest - https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/free-offer-divided-discussion.97222/
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
From that post #20:
"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".
^Now THAT is a detail missing from this issue that my posting has not considered: - whether Dabney's use of "indiscriminate" is the same meaning as Murray's.
Thank you for this.
That the Gospel is freely offered is a confessional matter.
WSC 31:
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.
WLC 32
Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
WCF VII.3
III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
That this free offer requires an inactive preference on God's part to save the reprobate is not a confessional commitment. I like to look at it in reverse. According to the argumentation offered by Dabney, Murray, and some others, could we say that God had a sincere and well-intentioned desire to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24)? I have yet to find someone who will say yes to that, but the structure of the argument is identical.
WSC 31:
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.
WLC 32
Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
WCF VII.3
III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
That this free offer requires an inactive preference on God's part to save the reprobate is not a confessional commitment. I like to look at it in reverse. According to the argumentation offered by Dabney, Murray, and some others, could we say that God had a sincere and well-intentioned desire to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24)? I have yet to find someone who will say yes to that, but the structure of the argument is identical.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Typically the well-meant offer contains an element of God desiring something that He has ordained will not come to pass, namely, the salvation of those not appointed to life.
It adds the desire of God for the salvation of the reprobate to the general call, the general call being where Christ is freely offered to sinners.
Christ can be preached and freely offered to sinners(Isaiah 55:1, for example), without bringing God's intent into the proclamation for each individual who hears.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Brother,
The Free Offer is the doctrine that, in the preaching of the Gospel, God freely and sincerely offers Christ crucified and all his benefits to all men without distinction.
The Well-Meant Offer is the doctrine that God desires the salvation of all men, and offers Christ on that basis.
The two doctrines are unfortunately conflated by many, but they ought to be distinguished. In my experience, they get conflated by many who either hold or reject both doctrines; however, there are those who hold to the Free Offer and reject the Well-Meant Offer.
As our brother pointed out above, the Free Offer is the explicit teaching of the Westminster standards.
JeffR
Puritan Board Freshman
Is the Marrow Controversy in part to do with this? I'm starting to officially get into that with the primary text, with Thomas Boston's notes. Hopefully this will be my first coming to terms with a divide within the Reformed tradition, which i sense is organically connected with other issues, and as one progresses in their understanding, it relates to everything else. Will be reading this page while the kindle re-charges tonight, much appreciated to be in the presence of the wise and mature!!
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, the Marrow Controversy had to deal with the way Christ was presented to sinners, by ministers of the gospel.
It's a good historical example of what happens when we, as men, try to discern who is fit for believing in Christ unto salvation.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
My question is whether the Protestant Covenant Reformed Church would hold to the free offer as per the Westminster standard, because as evidenced by that quote from Engelsma, they appear to make no distinction between a "well-meant" and "free" offer?
I note their confessional standards do not include the Westminster.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
I will think about this further, but my initial reaction is that the clear difference between this example with Moses is that God sought to put Moses to death in accordance with divine retribution for legal disobedience, whereas God's compassion towards those who will reject the Gospel and be deemed reprobate is in accordance with His nature because God is love.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
What does the Canons of Dort teach on this?
Article 8
As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.
Article 9
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted."
Article 8
As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.
Article 9
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted."
The well-meant offer of the Gospel, according to those who hold to it, is the grace of God to all men in the preaching of the gospel, grace rooted in God’s love for all men. How can we affirm that, without setting aside the Biblical truth of election and reprobation?
When the Gospel is preached we should not set aside the Biblical and Reformed truth of predestination and preach the Gospel as a declaration of God’s universal love to all who hear, or as an “invitation” or an “offer” from a God who cannot accomplish what He desires.
All men, regenerate and unregenerate, have a duty to repent and believe. The preaching of the Gospel calls all men to repent and believe. A denial of the well-meant offer is not a denial that the Gospel should be preached promiscuously.
We are not motivated to preach the Gospel because God wants all men to be saved, or desires as many as possible to be saved. Rather, the biblical teaching of predestination and reprobation is a part of the message of, and is the motivation for Gospel preaching. God is pleased to use the call of the Gospel, to command unbelievers, both elect and reprobate unbelievers, to believe in Jesus Christ. God is pleased to use the preaching of the Gospel to gather His elect, and to leave the rest who hear with no excuse. Through the preaching of the Gospel, God accomplishes His eternal purposes of predestination.
To reduce the preaching of the Gospel to an offer is reductionistic. To reduce preaching to an expression of God’s universal love [which is what the well-meant-offer seems to do], would seem to be a denial of the most basic teaching of the Reformed faith, the sovereignty of God in predestination, and in the salvation of the sinner.
When the Gospel is preached we should not set aside the Biblical and Reformed truth of predestination and preach the Gospel as a declaration of God’s universal love to all who hear, or as an “invitation” or an “offer” from a God who cannot accomplish what He desires.
All men, regenerate and unregenerate, have a duty to repent and believe. The preaching of the Gospel calls all men to repent and believe. A denial of the well-meant offer is not a denial that the Gospel should be preached promiscuously.
We are not motivated to preach the Gospel because God wants all men to be saved, or desires as many as possible to be saved. Rather, the biblical teaching of predestination and reprobation is a part of the message of, and is the motivation for Gospel preaching. God is pleased to use the call of the Gospel, to command unbelievers, both elect and reprobate unbelievers, to believe in Jesus Christ. God is pleased to use the preaching of the Gospel to gather His elect, and to leave the rest who hear with no excuse. Through the preaching of the Gospel, God accomplishes His eternal purposes of predestination.
To reduce the preaching of the Gospel to an offer is reductionistic. To reduce preaching to an expression of God’s universal love [which is what the well-meant-offer seems to do], would seem to be a denial of the most basic teaching of the Reformed faith, the sovereignty of God in predestination, and in the salvation of the sinner.
Last edited:
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
My understanding of the free offer is that the gospel is preached to all ppl indiscriminately (general call) but to the elect particularly (effectual call). If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me.
I understand the "well-meant offer" of the Gospel, as distinct from the "free offer" of the Gospel, to teach that God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect, and that He has no pleasure in any one’s rejecting this offer but, contrariwise, would have all who hear accept it and be saved.
Those who teach the well-meant offer have not adequately explained how their teaching is compatible with what the Canons of Dort teach.
Those who teach the well-meant offer have not adequately explained how their teaching is compatible with what the Canons of Dort teach.
Last edited:
Good. Is justice not in accordance with God's nature?
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, but we do not see the revelation in the Scriptures that "God is justice" in the same manner that God is love. I consider the following verses demonstrating a difference between His retribution in justice and mercy in love -
Ezekiel 33:11
Micah 7:18
and Romans 9:22-23
Reminding me also of the words of Thomas Watson on the subject of God's mercy.
Yes, that is the premise that often goes unstated. Again, good. With a different prioritization of attributes in God, though, further questions are raised:
1. Does this indicate unrealized potential in God?
2. Does this indicate conflict between different aspects of God's character?
3. What becomes of divine simplicity?
4. If God is more so love than justice, why is justice universal while love is particular?
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
These questions are most definitely above my paygrade and are moving further into the philosophical realm (which I am very poorly read in).
I understand that God reveals Himself to us in the Scriptures often in anthropomorphic/anthropopathic terms in gracious condescension to us. This surely goes a long way in helping answer such questions.
Scholastic theology teaches us that God is pure act, and we know for example that there is harmony in all God's attributes and surely this is necessitated by divine simplicity. And we know that God's justice is not in conflict with His love, but these are demonstrated most powerfully in perfect harmony in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet from human perspective and as revealed to us in the Scriptures, we see in a sense the choice of God to do as He pleases. This helps to understand God's sovereign choice in electing love but there remains still a deep mystery for us in understanding.
My question for those who deny God's universal love to those predestined to reprobation is why do you suppose that God's particular love for His elect eliminates a universal love for every individual who was made in His image and likeness?
EmilyF
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't know if I am being too ignorant of the nuances, but my Church always has what we call the "free offer", because all who come truly are brought by God. It is never promised that God loves everyone or that Christ died to save everyone, nor is it offered with the underlying notion that anyone can just come (of himself). The gospel is offered to all hearers in the building, that if they come to Christ and rely on him to take their burden of sin away, he will abundantly pardon that sin. Sometimes sermons will explain election or limited atonement if relevant, but even if not, we take the free offer to mean that if someone comes, he has been regenerated by the Holy Ghost. If he doesn't (ever), it is because he is not elect. The offer is free because you are to come as you are (of course, you must repent of your sins in the process) and because Christ commands all to come. It is everyone's duty, but not everyone can because of his sin. So, I think the minister believes he is simply offering the message as Christ did, being His faithful minister. Since we don't entirely know who is elect, the message stands true. He never claims Jesus died for all, nor that all have been atoned for, but to come. For how else will they come but hear what the gospel is and have their hearts graced with that change?
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
For further reference into the distinctions between the two terms, here is yet another PB thread regarding the discussion.
www.puritanboard.com
Free Offer Divided Discussion
[Moderator Note] Jacob started a thread asking a question about a matter of fact. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-non-free-offer-person-share-the-gospel.97200/ Despite efforts to the contrary, it kept straying from the subject matter. So this thread is made up of the off-topic...
Is the difference that the desire that Moses die is contingent on Moses' disobedience? The offer is a general delight in men repenting and being saved. God hasn't revealed a general delight in Moses' death, but he does have a sincere and well-intentioned desire that disobedience should be punished.
Similar threads
