Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:

Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).

Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?

Sorry, no time to do so. If you are a prof at a seminary then you should have CTJ or at least are able to get it via inter-library loan.

Thanks, Dan. I'll definitely look it up.

 

[Scott1]

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 9:22-24
This is one of many Scriptures that support the notion that God shows His Glory by both choosing to show unmerited favor to redeem some and choosing to pass by and allow justice for others. Both his mercy and justice, at once, show His uncomprehensible glory.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter III

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

The Westminster Confession clearly articulates this as the doctrine contained in Scripture. It's not the majority view out there, it's not what most people believe, but it is what the Confession teaches.

What's amazing is to look at the Scripture proof texts for these sections of the Confession- they are overwhelming!

I don't understand this to ultimately hinge on "infra" or "supra" but rather on soteriology, and especially one's perspective on the sovereignty of God. I could be wrong on this, but it seems most of the Westminster Divines and Reformed today lean "infra." The Confession was written very carefully and explains God's glory as being both in his choice to redeem and to "pass by." When he did it within His eternal attributes, makes for some interesting temporal theological views, but I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory ultimately hinges on it.

I'm not at all minimizing that input, it's very insightful, it is just that I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory hinges on it.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I don't understand this to ultimately hinge on "infra" or "supra" but rather on soteriology, and especially one's perspective on the sovereignty of God. I could be wrong on this, but it seems most of the Westminster Divines and Reformed today lean "infra." The Confession was written very carefully and explains God's glory as being both in his choice to redeem and to "pass by." When he did it within His eternal attributes, makes for some interesting temporal theological views, but I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory ultimately hinges on it.

I'm not at all minimizing that input, it's very insightful, it is just that I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory hinges on it.

Scott, I wholeheartedly embrace the teaching of the WCF chapter 3 on God's decree. It's also reflected in my own 1689 Baptist Confession. My concern is not whether the Puritans sufficiently articulated the biblical teaching on God's decree. My question, rather, is whether the Westminster divines adequately articulated in their Confession of Faith God's sincere desire that all men embrace the gospel and whether they articulated the church's and the Christian's duty to reach out to the lost with that same Pauline burden for gaining souls concerning which he exhorts the Corinthians believers, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1).

I should make clear again that I'm not implying any defect in the Reformed and Puritan theology. I'm a thorough-going Calvinist. And I believe some of the most zealous and ardent missionaries have been Calvinists. My simple concern, which was mainly directed towards my own 1689 Confession and only secondarily toward the WCF, is whether a paragraph could be inserted that more clearly articulates to other evangelical churches and to the world abroad that as Reformed Christians we affirm the church's and Christian's God-given mandate to disciple the nations via preaching the gospel, baptizing converts, forming churches, and indoctrinating the saints. Such an addition to an already wonderful theological tradition would, in my mind, not detract but only enhance the Reformed faith.

 

[tdowns]

It's time for this

Super Hero Surfer to weigh in with a post of profound theological insight...

I'm having fun and



Thanks

 

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales
The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love.

It seems the concept of how God receives glory was swerved into partly by the above post.

The Confessional idea perhaps that Mr Winzer is reacting to is that God's Glory is self-existing in himself. The idea being that God needs absolutely nothing outside of Himself. God does not "seek" glory from his creation (man) and yet the Confession summarizes Scripture to say that "Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever."

 

[ManleyBeasley]

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 9:22-24
This is one of many Scriptures that support the notion that God shows His Glory by both choosing to show unmerited favor to redeem some and choosing to pass by and allow justice for others. Both his mercy and justice, at once, show His uncomprehensible glory.

.

I completely agree. I made the point that God is glorified by both. What this scripture does is show that 1 glory is contingant on another. His mercy being shown is only possible IF there are sinners who deserve judgment. Again, the point that Edwards makes is that the total sum of the glory is more, not that both individual glories are equally desired by God on an individual basis. Meaning the greatest glory one individual can give God is by enjoying Him for ever, but the greatest glory possible is by some being judged for their sin while others are elected to enjoying him.

Also, he is absolutely glorified by righteous judgment, but when he saves the elect BOTH his righteous judgment and mercy have been glorified in the cross. Its not as though God chooses one over the other. Christ satisfied God's justice and wrath for us.

This is an issue of Supra and Infralapsarianism though only through the logical outworking of the two views. The WCF was written by mostly infralapsarians and I believe it is why they said "The CHIEF end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I believe what the puritans believed also! I am attempting to defend this WCF statement.

 

[MW]

Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men?

Yes; I have written a paper on it, reviewing John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel, wherein it is shown that this view is inconsistent with reformed theology.

 

[MW]

But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.

It is not that we think the Confession is perfect, but it is an ideal formulation of scripture truth, so far as those who adopt the confession are concerned. Of course every merely human confession can be improved, just as every human criticism of human confessions can be improved. The problem is that those who make the criticism are not always as quick to acknowledge their own fallibility as they are to own the fallibility of the confession. The remembrance of and adherence to a faithful tradition of biblical exposition is clearly taught in Hebrews 13:7, 8. One's acceptance of sola scriptura should manifest a desire to maintain ALL that scripture says, including its provisions for the orderly transmission of the truth through the ages.

 

[MW]

Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:

John Calvin:

"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).
​

When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the ministers: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought by his ministers, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."

 

[py3ak]

Here is a link to Mr. Winzer's article about John Murray and the free offer.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.

It is not that we think the Confession is perfect, but it is an ideal formulation of scripture truth, so far as those who adopt the confession are concerned.

Thanks, Matthew. I can agree with the way you're stating it here.

Of course every merely human confession can be improved, just as every human criticism of human confessions can be improved.

Once again, I agree. And I want to assure you that (1) I love the Reformed confessions, and (2) whatever I might see lacking (which is relatively minor), I concede that my criticisms may need improvement.

The problem is that those who make the criticism are not always as quick to acknowledge their own fallibility as they are to own the fallibility of the confession.

I admit my fallibility.

The remembrance of and adherence to a faithful tradition of biblical exposition is clearly taught in Hebrews 13:7, 8. One's acceptance of sola scriptura should manifest a desire to maintain ALL that scripture says, including its provisions for the orderly transmission of the truth through the ages.

I agree.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:

John Calvin:

"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).
​

When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the ministers: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought by his ministers, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."

Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:

John Calvin:

"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).
​

When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the ministers: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought by his ministers, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."

Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.

We may need to check into what context Calvin was using ministers here. It certainly may be true that he meant ordained Pastors/Elders but he may have been calling them ministers in the sense that they were serving God in what they did. From the quote above it doesn't seem so obvious to me that he was speaking of ordained Pastor/Elders. Just a thought.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men?

Yes; I have written a paper on it, reviewing John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel, wherein it is shown that this view is inconsistent with reformed theology.

Matthew, I'm very disappointed to hear this. Of course, I don't agree with every point of exegesis Murray makes in his essay. Nevertheless, I believe the Scriptural data teaches (1) that the gospel should be preached to all men indiscriminately, (2) that all men everyone should be commanded to repent and believe, (3) that God sincerely desires the salvation of all men (just as he sincerely desires that all men desist sinning), (4) that we are to be imitators of God and sincerely desire the salvation of all men, and (5) that a denial of the free and sincere offer of the gospel is a serious aberration of the faith that, in my opinion, calls into question a man's fitness for the office of the pastor-teacher.

My last point is not said out of spite or any personal animosity towards you. I respect you as a man made in the image of God. I also accept that you may be holding your theological positions in a sincere attempt to be true to Scripture. Nevertheless, I believe a denial of the free and sincere offer of the gospel is plainly contrary to the Scripture, misrepresents the character of God, and is a terrible blight on the Reformed faith. I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable.

I can now see why you're in no hurry to see more said at a confessional level regarding evangelism and missions. Your position, tolerated as it appears to be among the PB (I sincerely hope it's not the majority view), suggests to me another area in which the WCF could be improved. Instead of this:

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice (WCF 3.7).
​

I believe the following to be more a more comprehensive and accurate summary of the Scriptural data (a proposed 1988 revision):

God determined, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby he extends or withholds mercy as he pleases, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by the rest of mankind, to leave and harden them in their sin to their just condemnation and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin; nevertheless, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, so that even reprobate men, through his kindness and forbearance, are sincerely called to faith in Christ through the indiscriminate offer of salvation in the gospel. (1988 revision)
​

Thank you for the interaction and deepening of my own conviction that our Reformed churches need to be semper reformanda. My prayer is that Reformed pastors and theologians will be humble enough to recognize that not everything that needs to be said was said in the 17th century and that they will have the courage to call for a confessional-level affirmation of important truths that are either unaddressed or insufficiently addressed in the 17th century creeds.

Respectfully yours,

 

[Scott1]

As a note of encouragement, Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer,

This is thread is very helpful to many of us and will be referred back to because of its high quality.

Your thread has been rated a 5 (of 5)!

Soli Deo Gloria,

remember that.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I realize this thread is addressing the question of whether the Reformed Confessions adequately affirm the church's and Christian's duty of evangelistic and missionary outreach. But since the issue of the free indiscriminate offer of the gospel has been raised and since that question would, I believe, certainly have a bearing on whether the Reformed Confessions of the 17th century say enough about evangelistic and missionary outreach, I thought it might be helpful to offer some gleaned citations from the Reformed tradition related to this subject:

JOHN CALVIN

God commands [the gospel] to be offered indiscriminately to all. (Genesis 1:503)

The gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate: but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been taught of God." (Isaiah 4:146)

God ...shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ ...For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. (John 1:125)

God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (Synoptic Gospels 1:116)

Christ...was offered as our Saviour...Christ brought life because the heavenly Father does not wish the human race that He loves to perish...But we should remember...that the secret love in which our heavenly Father embraced us to Himself is, since it flows from His eternal good pleasure, precedent to all other causes; but the grace which He wants to be testified to us and by which we are stirred to the hope of salvation, begins with the reconciliation provided through Christ...Thus before we can have any feeling of His Fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us...And He has used a general term [whosoever], both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term 'world' which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God's favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life. Moreover, let us remember that although life is promised generally to all who believe in Christ, faith is not common to all. Christ is open to all and displayed to all, but God opens the eyes only of the elect that they may seek Him by faith...And whenever our sins press hard on us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we must hold up this shield, that God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world. (Comment on John 3:16)

GEORGE SWINNOCK

Ponder how universal his offers of grace are. Jesus Christ, with all his merits, are tendered to all. The proposals of divine mercy and love are general and universal.... It is a great encouragement that, in the offers of pardon and life, none are excluded: why then dost thou exclude thyself. 'Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden,' Matthew 11:28. Mark, poor sinner, 'all ye' Art thou not one of that all? Is not thy wickedness thy weight and thy corruption thy burden? Then thou art called particularly as well as generally. Jesus Christ taketh thee aside from the crowd, and whispereth thee in the ear, O poor sinner, that art weary of the work and heavy laden with thy weight of sin, be entreated to come to me; I will give thee rest. Why doth thy heart suggest that that he doth not intend thee in that call? Doth he nor, by that qualification, as good as name thee? Ah, it is an unworthy, a base jealousy, to mistrust a loving Christ without the least cause (Heaven and Hell Epitomised. Works of Swinnock BOT Vol 3 p.352-353)

BENJAMIN KEACH

It shows also that every man and woman, that rejects the offers of grace (though not such that were elected) shall be left without excuse at the day of judgment, they shall all be speechless; and it shall be manifested unto their own consciences, that it was for their own horrid wickedness, and refusing to accept of Christ, that they shall be cast and condemned at that day…But ministers are to do what they can. They are to invite them, press them, intreat and persuade them to come…Another shall say, Lord, I was not elected, as these were, let me be excused. No, this will be no plea or excuse in the great day? Then will they see and know that the cause of their damnation will be just and righteous, it being the only procurement of their own evil doings, and for making light of the gospel and offers of grace." (Comments on Parable of the Great Supper Kregal p.100/102/104)

THOMAS SHEPHERD

Consider he makes love to thee. Not one soul that hears me this day but the Lord Jesus is a suitor unto, that now ye would be espoused to him; "He came unto his own, and they received him not." Whatever the secret purpose of Christ is, I regard not. In this evangelical dispensation of grace, he makes love to all. John 1:12. For if the challenge of love from men be founded on his actual love to some, having died for some, then the offer would be particular. But it is grounded, 1. On his own worth and glory, and hence he challengeth love. 2. On this, for aught I know, he has loved me. So that thou art not so vile but the Lord Jesus' heart is toward thee, and his eye is upon thee for love." (Parable of the Ten Virgins Soli De Gloria Reprint p.44)

JONATHAN EDWARDS

Pardon is as much offered and promised to the greatest sinners as any, if they will come aright to God for mercy. The invitations of the gospel are always in universal terms: as, Ho, every one that thirsteth; Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden; and, Whosoever will, let him come. And the voice of Wisdom is to men in general: Proverbs 8:4. 'Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.' Not to moral men or religious men, but to you O men. So Christ promises, John 6:37 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.' This is the direction of Christ to his apostles, after his resurrection, Mark 16:15. 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.' Which is agreeable to what the apostle saith, that 'the gospel was preached to every creature under Heaven.' Colossians 1:23" (Sermon on Pardon for the Greatest Sinners. BOT Book "Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ" p271-272)

JOHN BROWN OF EDINBURGH

The free unlimited extent of the invitation-" If any man…" The free and unrestricted nature of the invitation, now deserves notice. Not only is the descriptive character of those invited, "those who thirst," common to all human beings, but the invitation is so fashioned, that no human being can find the shadow of a reason for thinking himself excluded. 'If any man thirst - any human being, however mean, guilty, depraved, and wretched, wish to he happy - let him, in the belief of the truth about me, exercise the affections which that truth believed naturally produces, and he shall be happy.' It is not, 'If any man be deeply sensible of his guilt, depravity, and wretchedness, let him come to me and drink.' Such are invited;. but if that were all, as some have taught, thus, however unintentionally, clogging with conditions the unhampered offer of a free salvation, men might think that till they had brought themselves, or were in some way or other brought, into a state. of deep contrition, and earnest seeking after pardon, and holiness, and salvation, it would be presumption in them to come to Christ, or even look towards the Saviour for salvation. But the invitation is, 'Whosoever wishes to be happy, let him come to me, sinful and miserable as he is, and in me he shall find salvation. If thou art not a brute, if thou art not a devil-however like the one in sensuality, or the other in malignity-thou art invited. If thou art on earth, not in bell, thou art invited.' " (Comments on John 7:37 Discourses and sayings of our Lord. BOT Vol 2. p.9-10)

THOMAS CHALMERS

No plan can be more injudicious, than to mix up the doctrine of election with the original overtures of the Gospel. The doctrine of 'goodwill to men' will light up joy in all, for all know they are men; but the doctrine of 'good will to the elect' will light up joy in none, for no man can tell at the outset whether he is elected or not. By implicating, as some theologians unwisely do, the final acceptance with the original offers of the Gospel. Instead of pointing it with a surer aim to any, they may virtually be said to deny it to all. In no part of the Gospel is pardoned offered to man on the ground of his being one of the elect but everywhere on the ground of his being on of the species. In the Gospel the flag of invitation waves in the sight of all. It is not written upon it, 'Whosoever of the elect will, let him come and take of the water of life freely;' it is not said, 'Whosoever of a select and favoured few shall call upon me, shall be saved;' but 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." (Comments on Luke 2:13-14)

HORATIO BONAR

Yet we honestly subscribe the Westminster Confession. We believe in Christ's redemption of His chosen Church; in the efficacy of His blood and the perfection of His righteousness. We believe in human impotence, in the bondage of the human will, in the enmity of the human heart to God. We believe in the sovereignty of Jehovah, and His eternal purpose. We believe in the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's work, alike before and after conversion. At the same time we preach a free and world wide gospel; we proclaim a free and world-wide invitation to sinners; we present to every sinner a gracious welcome to Christ, without any preliminary qualification whatsoever. We bid no man wait till he has ascertained his own election, or can produce evidence of regeneration, or sufficient repentance, or deep conviction. We tell every man, as he is, to go to the Saviour this moment, assured that he will not be cast out or sent away." (The Old Gospel booklet, reproduced in: Evangelism: A Reformed Debate reprinted by the James Begg Society p.56)

WILLIAM PATTON

Remember that Christ's atonement is for sinners. Whatever else may not be for sinners, Christ's death is for none but sinners, and it is offered freely to you as freely as to any other person in the world. No person in the world ever had any better offer of Christ than you have. There is nothing freer to you upon the earth than the death of Christ. It is as free to you as the rain from heaven. You have no right in yourself to Christ's death, but he offers it to you, beseeching you to accept it, and to give Him the credit and pleasure of saving you. If He did not offer it to you, you would have no right to take it; but when He offers it, it is no presumption to take it. Nay, it is the height of presumption not to take it - a great sin, and as a great folly as well." (Pardon and Assurance. Chapter Entitled: Christ's work finished and free to all. p.142)

CHARLES HODGE

According to the Calvinistic scheme the non-elect have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their salvation, that, according to any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately. Calvinism teaches that a plan of salvation adapted to all men and adequate for the salvation of all, is freely offered to the acceptance of all, although in the secret purpose of God He intended that it should have precisely the effect which in experience it is found to have. He deigned in its adoption to save His own people, but consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive them. More than this no anti-Calvinist can demand. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 644)

W.G.T. SHEDD

God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every man's aversion to believe and repent and his resistance of common grace. Election and preterition have no reference to the offer of salvation or common grace. They relate only to special grace and the effectual application of Christ's sacrifice. The universal offer of mercy taught in this section evinces the universality of God's compassion towards sinners. (Calvinism: Pure and Unmixed. BOT p.27)

BISHOP J.C. RYLE

For another thing, the doctrine of Election was never meant to prevent the fullest, freest offer of salvation to every sinner. In preaching and trying to do good we are warranted and commanded to set an open door before every man, woman, and child, and to invite every one to come in. We know not who are God's Elect, and whom He means to call and convert. Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, "God loves you, and Christ has died for you." To everyone we ought to say, "Awake,-repent,--believe,- come to Christ,-be converted,-turn -call upon God,- strive to enter in,---come, for all things are ready." To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God's Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us that on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God's Elect at last? No! indeed. Those who now seem first may prove last, and those who seem last may prove first in the judgment day. We will invite all, in the firm belief that the invitation will do good to some. We will prophesy to the dry bones, if God commands us. We will offer life to all, though many reject the offer. In so doing, we believe that we walk in the steps of our Master and His Apostles. (Old Paths. Election: James Clarke edition p468-469)

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON

A yet further charge against us is, that we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate, that, in fact, our theology is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners. Gentlemen, if you dare to say this, I would take you to any library in the world where the old Puritan fathers are stored up, and I would let you take down any one volume and tell me if you ever rend more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in any of your own books. Did not Bunyan plead with sinners, and whoever classed him with any but the Calvinists? Did not Charnock, Goodwin, and how we agonise for souls, and what were they but Calvinists? Did not Jonathan Edwards preach to sinners, and who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters. The works of our innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted. Oh, sirs, if I should begin the list, time should fail me. It is an indisputable fact that we have laboured more than they all for the winning of souls. Was George Whitfield any the less seraphic? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with the less compassion because he believed in God’s electing love and preached the sovereignty of the Most High? It is an unfounded calumny. Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men; we can hold all our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. Again, I must say, I am not defending certain brethren who have exaggerated Calvinism. I speak of Calvinism proper, not that which has run to seed, and outgrown its beauty and verdure. I speak of it as I find it in Calvin’s Institutes, and especially in his Expositions. I have read them carefully. I take not my views of Calvinism from common repute but from his books. Nor do I, in thus speaking, even vindicate Calvinism as if I cared for the name, but I mean that glorious system which teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last. And again, then, I say it is an utterly unfounded charge that we dare not preach to sinners. (Opening of the Metropolitan Tabernacle - a series of sermons on the doctrines of grace)

ABRAHAM KUIPER

The Reformed theology insists that God Himself, who has determined from eternity who are to be saved and who are not, and therefore, distinguishes infallibly between the elect whom he designed to save by the death of Christ and the reprobate whom he did not design to save, makes on the ground of the universally suitable and sufficient atonement a most sincere, bona fide, offer of eternal life, not only to the elect but to all men, urgently invites them to life everlasting, and expresses the ardent desire that every person to whom this offer and this invitation come and accept and comply with the invitation. (Quoted by David Pointer "In defence of Common Grace")

LOUIS BERKHOF

We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance…The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation of all those who accept Christ by faith. This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion.... It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonise the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately (Systematic Theology BOT p.397-398)

DAVID GAY

It is my contention that often we are not preaching the gospel to sinners properly. I fear that we are failing in this great matter with disastrous consequences.... I see a practical, or incipient, hyper-Calvinism and a paralysis creeping upon us. ... Inevitably, this must tend to reduce conversions. ... I contend that often we are failing to preach the gospel in a soul-saving way. ... And our failure lies both in the content of our sermons and in their style and delivery. ... It is clear that God delights in the salvation of sinners. It is proper to say that God takes pleasure in their salvation. But to say that does not go far enough; it falls short of the scriptural teaching on the free offer. The point is: Does God actually desire the salvation of sinners? Does he want sinners to be saved? And further, Does God desire the salvation even of those who are reprobate? ... I assert that this is the heart of the matter. Does God desire the salvation of all men? The answer is, yes! Therefore we must, in our preaching, declare indiscriminately to all our hearers that God desires to see them saved. Further, we are preaching the gospel to sinners properly, only when we are convinced of the truth of such a desire in God and say so very clearly. We can only persuade sinners to be reconciled to God when we are persuaded that God not only delights in their salvation, but he actually desires it. ("Preaching the Gospel To Sinners" (1 & 2), The Banner of Truth, Jul. & Aug-Sept. 1994 (emphasis in original).)

These are just a sampling of quotes one can glean from Reformed and Calvinistic authors who affirm the free indiscriminate offer of the gospel. One might also consult Robert Lewis Dabney's, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity" and, of course, John Murray's The Free Offer of the Gospel.

In my mind, these authors represent Reformed theology at its best. I am still not convinced that their sentiments find sufficient emphasis in the 17th century Puritans confessions.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Great set of quotes. I appreciate them!

 

[py3ak]

But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.

Dr. Gonzalez, do you really want it to be easy to persuade men that the confession they have adopted is incorrect? That wouldn't speak very well of those easily-persuadable men. It could mean that they are immature and carried about by every wind of doctrine. Or it could mean that they hadn't done their due diligence in studying out Scripture truth before subscribing to a Confession. But when you have engaged in (hopefully) extensive study, and you see a summary statement that appears to be faithful to Scripture in its scope and in its details, and you sign it with sincerity, I should think it ought to be a work of superlative difficulty to persuade people that it is incorrect.

Of course, I recognize that you speak here of imperfection, or of being susceptible to supplementation, and not so much of error. But one can recognize that the Confession doesn't teach everything, without therefore thinking that every true doctrine ought to have confessional status.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Of course, I recognize that you speak here of imperfection, or of being susceptible to supplementation, and not so much of error. But one can recognize that the Confession doesn't teach everything, without therefore thinking that every true doctrine ought to have confessional status.

Ruben, I'm grateful that you recognize I am not asking men to scrap their confessions. I've simply asked the men who adhere to the Reformed/Puritan creeds whether they believe their symbols have adequately articulated their commitment to the church's and the Christian's responsibility to carry out the Great Commission. So far, I've learned that the Canons of Dort make a general reference to the church's role. I've also learned that the Westminster Directory and Catechism encourage prayer for the spread of the gospel. I haven't been persuaded, though, that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 make an adequately clear and sufficiently full statement on the matter. That's my opinion, of course, and I'm not the magisterium demanding that all on this board agree. I only ask that men honestly engage me in brotherly discussion, which many have and I'm very grateful. I've also tried to provide some exegesis and arguments with the hope that some would address those specific passages and arguments. Some have. For the most part, however, I confess that the general impression I have from at least a number of responses is that the Reformed community remains content with the status quo.

 

[MW]

Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.

John Calvin: "that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith." He did not attribute a direct agency to the preaching of believers.

J. A. Alexander: "it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained." He ascribes the direct agency to all who were scattered, but limits the activity to a simple "diffusion of the truth," which falls under the category of gospel conversation I mentioned earlier.

Dennis Johnson's statements, in comparison, fail to differentiate things that differ and can therefore only create confusion.

R. B. Kuiper: "Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism."

I do not agree with the modern distinction between organism and organisation. If it is restrained to the inward and outward working of the church then it is sound. But the external form of every organism is by definition its organisation; so to speak of the organism's acency is to predicate something of its external organisation, and to contrast this with the agency of the organisation is to create two organisations.

 

[MW]

I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable.

I pass by the comment about Job's friends as it lacks any cogency. To say that I reject anthropopathic language is to misread what I have written. The language means something in human terms, and is therefore significant so far as the way God relates to man covenantally. But one has no warrant to draw something about God in se from the fact that He speaks after the manner of men. Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

J. A. Alexander: "it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained." He ascribes the direct agency to all who were scattered, but limits the activity to a simple "diffusion of the truth," which falls under the category of gospel conversation I mentioned earlier.

Sorry, Matthew, but I don't follow your logic. You claim that Alexander is limiting the activity of the "all believers" here to "a simple 'diffusion of the truth,'" which you assign the "the category of gospel conversion." Your earlier reference asserts,

God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls "gospel-conversation." Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism." Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."
​

So you distinguish "gospel conversation," which you elsewhere reference as a godly lifestyle giving Phil. 1:27 as your text, and you distinguish it from "evangelism." However, the text Alexander is commenting on describes the activity of the "all believers" as euangelizomenoi ton logon, i.e., proclaiming the good news. So apparently, neither Alexander nor Luke are so careful so as to limit the term "evangelism" to the ordained preacher.

R. B. Kuiper: "Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism." I do not agree with the modern distinction between organism and organisation. If it is restrained to the inward and outward working of the church then it is sound. But the external form of every organism is by definition its organisation; so to speak of the organism's acency is to predicate something of its external organisation, and to contrast this with the agency of the organisation is to create two organisations.

I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable.

I pass by the comment about Job's friends as it lacks any cogency.

Job's friends had a wooden view of God's retribution that left no room for mystery. I believe your argument against the free and sincere offer of the gospel is tainted by the same tendencies. However, it's unfair of me to make a judgment about the position you're espousing without citing examples. So I apologize. If time permits, I may write a critique of your views and forward it to you.

To say that I reject anthropopathic language is to misread what I have written. The language means something in human terms, and is therefore significant so far as the way God relates to man covenantally. But one has no warrant to draw something about God in se from the fact that He speaks after the manner of men. Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.

I've read plenty of writers on anthropomorphic language, both Reformed and non-Reformed. I disagree with a number of their conclusions particularly when it comes to anthropopathisms. Since man was created to be the visible replica of his Maker, human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are theopathic analogues of divine emotivity. Human anger is analogous to divine anger. Human love, compassion, and pity are analogous to divine love, compassion, and pity. So when the Scriptures predicate divine love, compassion, and pity towards sinners indiscriminately, they mean what they say--God's feelings of love, compassion, and pity correspond to our own. Otherwise we are not images of God, and "God-talk" becomes gibberish. Donald Carson offers a fitting rebuttal to this interpretive approach:

It is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life and that insists that all of the biblical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than anthropopathism. The price is too heavy. You may then rest in God’s sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in his love. You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression that is an accommodation of some reality of which we cannot conceive, couched in the anthropopathism of love. Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21).” The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 58-59
​

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.

To expand further on my previous post and make more specific reference to your final comment. I agree with Jonathan Edwards that there is a vital connection between the will and the affections. In other words, "will" is not merely an "indifferent and unfeeling choice" but includes the dispositions of "like" and "dislike," "pleasure" and "displeasure," "attraction" and "aversion." With respect to the divine affections, there is indeed movement, change, and transition. When a sinner transitions from a "child of wrath" to a "child of God," there is a corresponding movement in the divine affection.

 

[MW]

So you distinguish "gospel conversation," which you elsewhere reference as a godly lifestyle giving Phil. 1:27 as your text, and you distinguish it from "evangelism." However, the text Alexander is commenting on describes the activity of the "all believers" as euangelizomenoi ton logon, i.e., proclaiming the good news. So apparently, neither Alexander nor Luke are so careful so as to limit the term "evangelism" to the ordained preacher.

Alexander specifically says, "not to preaching in the technical or formal sense." Your authority does not say what you want him to.

I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).

Matt. 28 was spoken to apostles. Acts 8:4 is the text under discussion. 1 Cor. 9, the apostle specifically speaks of a "dispensation," and so distinguishes his "unwilling" service from ordinary service. 1 Thess 1:8 is as indeterminative as Acts 8:4. 1 Pet. 2:9, our esteemed brother Bill Brown has already shown the indicative force of this text, and that it is a matter of fact that the "holy nation" shows forth the praises of God by its bare existence as a special people. 1 Pet. 3:15 is the only text to your purpose, but it says nothing about evangelism, but is concerned with Christians being upright people so that the "answers" they give for the hope that they have might not be questioned on moral grounds.

In contrast to this specious evidence, we have the explicit testimony of Rom. 10, that one cannot preach except they be "sent." As we read in Ps. 62:

God hath it spoken once to me,
yea this I heard again,
that power to Almighty God
alone doth appertain.

To this might be added numerous other Scriptures as supporting testimony, which all draw attention to the fact that preachers of the gospel are a distinct company within the church, who are to be supported by the prayers and financial assistance of the body of the church.

 

[MW]

Job's friends had a wooden view of God's retribution that left no room for mystery. I believe your argument against the free and sincere offer of the gospel is tainted by the same tendencies. However, it's unfair of me to make a judgment about the position you're espousing without citing examples. So I apologize. If time permits, I may write a critique of your views and forward it to you.

As said, your statement lacks cogency. If, as you believe, this is a matter of mystery, there is no place for making express assertions concerning the essential nature of God. You have no explicit scriptual testimony for the opinion you advance, you claim it is a matter of mystery, and yet you make inferences from scriptural statements which were not intended to address this issue. Mystery demands silence, not presumptive assertions.

human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are theopathic analogues of divine emotivity.

Your error lies in not accounting for the analogical relationship between Creator and creature, notwithstanding the fact that you use the term. If one accurately considers what an analogue is, it will be seen that there is no basis for making an univocal deduction concerning God on the basis of human emotivity. There is an ontological disconnect between Creator and creature, so that one can appeal to being men of like passions with his fellows as a reason why he should not be worshipped as God, Acts 14:15.

I pass by Don Carson's statement because he fails to account for this love passing knowledge, and therefore ignores the important reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Alexander specifically says, "not to preaching in the technical or formal sense." Your authority does not say what you want him to.

Very well. Then according to Alexander and Luke the Greek term "to evangelize" may have a non-technical sense and be predicated of the verbal communication of laypeople, which is the point I've been belaboring.

I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).

Matt. 28 was spoken to apostles.

I disagree. Jesus promised his special presence for this task "until the end of the age." No living apostles today. Ergo: commission not limited to apostles, given to entire church.

Acts 8:4 is the text under discussion.

True. See my comments above.

1 Cor. 9, the apostle specifically speaks of a "dispensation," and so distinguishes his "unwilling" service from ordinary service.

The argument of 1 Corinthians 9, which speaks of Paul's self-denying burden to "gain souls" by any lawful means is continued through the end of chapter 10 up to 11:1: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." Like Paul, the Corinthian believers were to have a self-denying burden for lost souls. Add to that the weight of the 6th commandment, and it would be sin for a Christian to knowingly watch souls plunge into eternal hell-fire because some theologian or preacher has told him he has no right to open his mouth and share the gospel.

1 Thess 1:8 is as undeterminative as Acts 8:4.

That's a convenient way of dismissing the issue without addressing the exegesis I provided above.

1 Pet. 2:9, our esteemed brother Bill Brown has already shown the indicative force of this text, and that it is a matter of fact that the "holy nation" shows forth the praises of God by its bare existence as a special people.

I agreed with Bill that the first part of the verse has indicative force: "you are ...." The second half, however, begins with a purpose marker (hopos) followed by the subjunctive verb, yielding the sense, "in order that you might proclaim the excellencies of God's redemptive grace." So God has redeemed these "living stones" for a purpose. That purpose is their God-assigned function or duty.

1 Pet. 3:15 is the only text to your purpose, but it says nothing about evangelism, but is concerned with Christians being upright people so that the "answers" they give for the hope that they have might not be questioned on moral grounds.

The passage does enjoin Christians to be "upright people," aka, "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." But it says more. The are also commanded to be "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." So Christians are enjoined to "speak," not just "live out" the faith. Moreover, what kind of answer are they to provide the questioning unbeliever? As I've noted earlier, Peter's not enjoining them to provide a general apologetic for some kind of theistic worldview. The "hope that is in you" is a reference to their gospel hope. Therefore, Christian laypeople should be equipped by pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) to do the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12), which includes testifying of their gospel hope to unbelievers.

In contrast to this specious evidence, we have the explicit testimony of Rom. 10, that one cannot preach except they be "sent." As we read in Ps. 62.... To this might be added numerous other Scriptures as supporting testimony, which all draw attention to the fact that preachers of the gospel are a distinct company within the church, who are to be supported by the prayers and financial assistance of the body of the church.

Brother, as I've tried to reiterate more than once, I'm not a leveller, and I do recognize the distinction between an officer of the church assigned with the special task to labor in the word and doctrine and the laity who are not assigned that special task. What I've demonstrated is that the Scriptures do not limit the term kerusso or euangelizomai to that special office. These expressions may be used in a non-technical or non-official sense. That does not mean, however, that they are deprived of their basic meaning of verbal communication.

Perhaps I'm just misreading you. Perhaps you really do believe that the saints are free and even to some degree obliged according to their level of maturity and knowledge to share with perishing souls the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you affirm this? Or do you rather argue that the common believer has neither right nor obligation to tell the good news when providence grants opportunity?

Matthew, I don't want to engage in a needless war over words. I am concerned, however, with what I perceive to be a kind of overemphasis on the distinction between the clergy and laity as well as a hyper-Calvinism. Calvinist are often accused of lacking compassion for the lost and evangelistic fervor. Reformed congregations have sometimes been depicted with such epithets as "the frozen chosen." I don't believe the God I serve has a frozen heart toward the lost. I don't want to have one either, nor do I desire to inculcate an ungodly apathy in my people. I hope that you, as an ordained minister of the gospel are doing "the work of an evangelist." And I hope you, like Paul, encourage your people to imitate you--at least in ways that are suited to their respective gifts and callings as laypeople.

Sincerely yours,

 

[MW]

I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.

I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

As said, your statement lacks cogency. If, as you believe, this is a matter of mystery, there is no place for making express assertions concerning the essential nature of God. You have no explicit scriptual testimony for the opinion you advance, you claim it is a matter of mystery, and yet you make inferences from scriptural statements which were not intended to address this issue. Mystery demands silence, not presumptive assertions.

Actually, I've been quite vocal about both God's sovereign decree and his sincere indiscriminate invitation to sinners. What I'm willing to be silent about is attempting to offer a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how these two biblical truths cohere. I affirm that they cohere in God's supralogical mind. But my finite logic cannot put its arms around the entirety of God's ways.

human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are theopathic analogues of divine emotivity.

Your error lies in not accounting for the analogical relationship between Creator and creature, notwithstanding the fact that you use the term. If one accurately considers what an analogue is, it will be seen that there is no basis for making an univocal deduction concerning God on the basis of human emotivity. There is an ontological disconnect between Creator and creature, so that one can appeal to being men of like passions with his fellows as a reason why he should not be worshipped as God, Acts 14:15.

Yes, my use of analogical was purposeful. I deny a univocal identification of divine and human emotivity. But analogical does entail intelligible correspondence. We can know what God is like and what he feels by observing human actions and emotivity:

Can a woman forget her nursing child, And not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, Yet I will not forget you. (Isaiah 49:15)
​

In case you're tempted to say that God is actually contrasting himself with human mothers, let me point out that the contrast assumes a point of continuity--mothers normally have compassion on their children. God's compassion is analogous in kind but exceeds in its unchanging commitment.

I pass by Don Carson's statement because he fails to account for this love passing knowledge, and therefore ignores the important reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.

The "passing knowledge" does not mean we can't no anything about it. Otherwise, Paul would be saying, "The ----- of God passes knowledge." We can understand something about God's love by looking at human love. But we can't fully sound its depths.