Does God Really Desire to Save the Reprobate ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
trevorjohnson said:
LUke 13:

34O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Click to expand...

The same story is told in Matt. 23 with more detail and more detail can change the context.

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? Some folks believe Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “...Pharisees sit in Moses sit...”
v. 6 “...chief seats in the synagogues...”
v. 7 “...Rabbi, Rabbi...”
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides...”
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

Another look at both passages Matt. 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus isn’t calling the leaders to gather He is calling the ‘children’ or believers, ‘Jerusalem’ or the leaders and rulers of Jerusalem are not being called to gather at all. The leaders wouldn’t allow the faithful of God to come together, God wasn’t seeking to bring together those who ‘killest the prophets’ but the faithful. The unwillingness comes from not allowing the faithful to come together, not rejecting an offer of salvation.

Those Christ would gather are not represented as being unwilling, but not allowed by the ruling class in Jerusalem to come together.

I hope this was of use...keeping in mind I could be wrong and often am, but Dr. James White in "Potter's Freedom" does a good job with this passage as it's one of the big 3 Arminian passages.

j
 
Dr. James White in "Potter's Freedom" does a good job with this passage
Click to expand...

Apropos of nothing, I wonder what forum he posts at, and under what name?

When I read Trev's post I immediately thought of that same exposition.
 
We know that only the elect will be saved. We also know that man is finite and does not know who is elect and who is not. So is it unbiblical for the preacher to call on all who hear his voice to repent and believe? I think not. The gospel has been entrusted to this generation until such time as the next generation picks up the mantle. We are called to proclaim the message of the gospel to all who will listen, knowing that only the elect will repent and believe.

To answer the OP, I have never viewed God's desire separate from His will of decree. Whatever God desires, God decrees. And whatever He decrees comes to pass (Dan. 4:35). He has made everything for a specific purpose (Prov. 16:4). But He has not made known to man everything that He will accomplish (Rom. 11:34). I take Deut. 29:29 to heart:

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]

Since only God knows who is truly reprobate and who is elect, how should that effect our understanding and responsibility to proclaim the gospel?
 
Last edited:
I think the key to understanding passages like the one from Luke mentioned above is along the lines of what Rev Winzer writes in the article posted above:

He (Murray) endeavoured to clear his position of the slightest hint of contradiction, ensuring his readers that by predicating a desire in God for the salvation of all men he was not referring to the decretive will. “For to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate and also that God wills the damnation of the reprobate and apply the former to the same thing as the latter, namely, the decretive will, would be contradiction.”
Click to expand...

God might have desired that Israel keep the covenant, but that falls short of God decreeing that they keep the covenant. From my limited understanding that is what is so awesome about the NC (Jer 31) is that God has decreed that we shall persevere to the end without apostacy. :banana:
 
Gomarus said:
To the original question: Does God Really Desire to Save the Reprobate?

Dabney seems to say "yes" here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm

Piper, calling on Dabney's George Washington analogy, also says "yes" here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

Matt Winzer, on John Murray's Free Offer, counters here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Murray-Free-Offer-Review.htm
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't have time to read all of the articles, however I will in time, but the question "Does God Really Desire to Save the Reprobate", doesn't make sense to me.

If God decrees or desires to save someone then it would appear that they are not part of the reprobate to begin with. Therefore, his desire to save or not save is fulfilled according to his will. Also, how could God desire something but not achieve or accomplish it? (Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25) For instance if God decrees not save someone, therefore they are part of the reprobate. How can God decree or decide not to save someone, then also desire to save them?

The command to believe the gospel is to be proclaimed to all men, however the ability to believe the gospel is not given to all men. This does not mean that we decide who the people are that have the ability to believe the gospel. We are commanded to share the gospel with all men. If we don't what other means of salvation is there?

I haven't read all of the articles, so this is just a surface answer, but in time I will read them.
 
How can God be sovereign, also in salvation, and at the same time desire the salvation of all, while only saving some?

So it comes to: what do you mean by "desires"?

Is it well pleasing to God that men sin, and perish in their unbelief? Of course not. Does it, however, accomplish his purpose? Yes it does.

Is it well pleasing to a worldly judge to hand out a death sentence to a mass murderer?

Useful here to look at the Canons of Dordt:

Article 15. What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election, is the express testimony of sacred Scripture, that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal election of God; whom God, out of his sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but leaving them in his just judgment to follow their own ways, at last for the declaration of his justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger thereof.
Click to expand...

Article 18. To those who murmur at the free grace of election, and just severity of reprobation, we answer with the apostle: "Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Romans 9:20,and quote the language of our Savior: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?" Matthew 20:15.And therefore with holy adoration of these mysteries, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: "O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counselor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. - Amen."
Click to expand...
 
I would agree with Turretin that God does not desire to save the reprobate. God does however command all men to be perfect in a divided sense (preceptive will) which includes repentence and belief. In other words, Duty faith

VanVos
 
Just thoughts I had reading this:

God desires all men to be saved, but He does not decree that it be so.

God decrees that some be saved.

The Fall thwarted God's desire.

So - what does that say about God?

Is this Euthyphro's dilemma?
 
Last edited:
The question comes down to what is implied in the biblical command to repent (Acts 17). The question is this, is the offer of salvation, from the wrath to come, in the command to repent, sincere? Is there a sincere willingness to save all who are commanded to repent, if they will repent and believe? I think the answer to the question is yes. So, in at least this sense, God "desires" the salvation of the reprobate. But, of course we know that depraved man, when left to the evil desires of his own will, will reject this offer of salvation and God is not obligated to change the heart, but rather grants this effectual grace to the Elect alone.

So, biblically speaking, yes, God desires the salvation of the reprobate, in as much as the offer of salvation is sincere to them, and the satisfaction accomplished in the death of Christ is suitable to them, as fallen sons of Adam.

John Calvin said this in his argument for the human nature of Christ:
Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by
Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all. (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)
Click to expand...

I think the Cannons of Dort are great on this question as well.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine
The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby - Articles of Faith

Article 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Article 5
Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6
And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question is a very difficult one if we understand the distinction in the different sense God desires one thing and desires another.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry

P.S. By the way, I love Dabney on this subject, as well as C. Hodge.
 
I've asked this before, is there any difference between what Calvin, Moise Amyrault, Dabney and what Shedd taught on this subject? What's the difference between Amyraldians view on the atonement and what Calvin taught?


thanks
 
At the risk of oversimplification and with limited insight I would suggest the following:

Amyrault maintained that he was consistent with Calvin's teaching. However the issue of the design and extent of the atonement had not yet become a focus in Calvin's time. So one may find quotations and inferences from Calvin supposedly in support of a dual reference, dual aspect, and/or universal provision in the atonement. This is what Amyraut did as well as others who followed his path.

Based on a rather unique formulation of the covenant of grace -- as including a conditional part between God and all mankind, and an unconditional part between God and the elect -- Amyraut argued for a universal atonement. To him, the provision in the atonemnet was universal, but the application was particular and limited to the elect.

Turretin was a chief opponent who argued against Amyraut and for a strict particularism in the atonement itself.

John Davenant (in England) was not as far offbase as Amyraut, but departed from high Calvinism suggesting that there was a dual reference in the atonement. That is, Christ made satisfaction for all although there was a special intent and reference for the elect. He related this to the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" concept. Davenant maintained that he was still consistent with the Canons of Dort which did not specifically exclude a "dual reference" in the atonement. He also collected quotations from Calvin in support of his view. Just as Turretin wrote against Amyraut in France, John Owen opposed Davenant in England.

Subsequently (as I see it), in order to explain either (1) common grace, (2) the basis for the sincere universal offer, or (3) God's universal love for and desire to save the non-elect, you will find those in Reformed circles associating some sort of dual reference in the atonement (as an atonement) for both the elect and non-elect.

I wait for corrections to my perception if needed.

P.S. There are those who argue just as effectively that a universal or dual reference in the atonement was NOT in Calvin's mind. Cf. Roger Nicole, Jonathan Rainbow, and Paul Helm.
 
Last edited:
On the Amyraldian position, read this:

http://www.prca.org/current/Free Offer/chapter4.htm

As well:

http://www.prca.org/articles/preaching_and_missions.html

Especially this section:

II. The offer historically.
A semi-Arminian trend, hypothetical universalism
The theory of the offer belongs to a certain semi-Arminian trend which has been present in the Reformed and Presbyterian community since the time of the Synod of Dordt. It is an attempt to marry the conditional universalism of Arminanism to the truth of sovereign particular grace of Calvinism. Perhaps the best description of this error is to call it hypothetical universalism.

Hypothetical universalism and election.
This synergism was first taught at the time of the Synod of Dordt by John Cameron in France and England and both then and later by his notable disciples Amyraud in France and Davenant the British delegate to the Synod of Dordt. In its original form it was an attempt to join the Reformed and Arminian doctrines of election by teaching two distinct decrees of election, one an Arminian decree that God decreed to save all and every man in Christ on condition of faith, and the second semi-Calvinistic decree, that God decreed to fulfill the conditions and give faith to only some. Briefly, this is the notion that God wants to save all but wills to save only some. It is a contradictory dualism, a two-track theology. Its universal election is conditional and Arminian, and in the light of the notion of a particular decree to save some, it is also only hypothetical. This view was resisted by the Synod of Dordt which teaches in the Canons, whenever God's intention, design and purpose is mentioned, only an intention and design to save the elect.

As Amyraud and his following continued to teach this notion after the Synod, his views were condemned under the leadership of Francis Turretin by the second Helvetic consensus as Arminian and inconsistent with Dordt. Similarly when the views of Davenant and his followers were promoted in England they were opposed by the Puritan John Owen in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

It is particularly in the area of the doctrine of the covenant both in connection with preaching and baptism that this Amyrauldian heresy continues to raise its head. This usually takes the form of a general conditional promise, the so-called Heynsian view. This view involves more than a general conditional promise, it involves a separation not only between the covenant and election but also in the work of Christ. In Reformed theology all of God's works are rooted in eternity, in His decrees. To teach that God's covenant is established with elect and reprobate, upon conditional promises, as an objective bequest to all who are baptized or brought under the preaching, is first of all to teach something about God's eternal decree of that covenant. All of God's works are eternal, their realization in time is the working out externally (Ad Extra), of that which He has purposed in Himself internally, (Ad Intra). Slogans, such as calling this principle "scholastic, rationalistic etc.," simply evade the issue.

Along with this separation of the covenant and election is to be found a dispensational like corruption of the doctrine of the Mediator. To maintain this separation those who hold it teach that Christ is the "Mediator of the covenant" but the "Head of the elect. " In doing this they do not mean to merely draw a fine distinction between the meaning of two terms Mediator and Head but to separate them This covenant of which Christ is the Mediator according to this view is established by promise, though conditionally, with elect and reprobate, all who are outwardly included in the church. Christ is the Mediator of God's covenant with Esau.

This involves a fundamental corruption of Christ's work as the Mediator. It is exactly as He is the legal representative Head of the elect, the Christ, that He in His mediatorial work establishes and confirms the new covenant in His blood, as the Lord our Righteousness. This is plain from the teaching of the Canons which explicitly joins Christ's mediatorial office and His headship and make it clear that He is the Mediator of the elect alone. Thus we read, "Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation," Canons I, Art. 7 (italics added). That Christ is the "Mediator and Head of the elect," could not be clearer. The same is true when we read,"...it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given Him by the Father;..." (Canons II Art. 8) Again the Canons explicitly join the blood of the covenant and God's purpose in it to the Mediatorial work of Christ and election.

Hypothetical universalism and the atonement
The original form of this error was an assault upon the doctrine of election. It developed into an assault upon the reformed doctrine of the atonement. Under the influence of its promoters in England and Scotland the focus was shifted to the idea that one could preach that Jesus was dead for all but had died for only some. That is, hypothetically, Jesus' death was not simply sufficient, considered, in itself, for all, but designed and intended to be available to all upon condition of faith and repentance. This was an attempt to marry the Reformed and Arminian doctrines of the atonement, to teach a provision for all men in the death of Christ but an efficacy for only some. This trend came together in the Marrow Controversy in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This dualist conception of the atonement was condemned by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as Arminianism.

It has sometimes been contended that the Synod in Scotland was influenced by liberal or rationalistic Arminian thinking, that it condemned the Marrow theology because of its evangelicalism or out of narrow-mindedness. That there were in this complex controversy elements of this, as well as miscommunication in understanding one another's position is well possible. What concerns us however is the central doctrinal issue, whether one may teach that Christ's atoning death is universal in scope, and in some sense designed and intended for all or so as to be available for all. May we preach as the offer inherently does, that Christ is dead for all, though He died for only some. May we deduce from Christ's sufficiency, a universal scope to the atonement such that it may be offered to all, or presented as intended or available to all.

In connection with this we may look at our own Canons of Dordt. The Canons certainly teach that Christ's death is "...sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world," in view of the fact that the Person of Son of God died in our flesh (Canons II, Art. 3). How could it be any less than this? The point is however that Christ died for certain persons, bought for them saving faith and the blessings of salvation through faith, and they are not all men, nor all who sit under the preaching, nor all the baptized. The Canons, and the Westminster Confession is essentially no different, find in this sufficiency of Christ, only that it leaves men without excuse in their unbelief, as there is nothing lacking in Christ or the gospel why they do not believe (Canons II, Art. 6). As to the intent and design of Christ's death, the Canons draw two conclusions, that it was intended for the elect alone and not universal, (Canons II, Art. 7,8) and that its infinite worth and value is for the benefit of "us," that is, God's elect redeemed believing people. Notice this in the language of the Canons, in explaining the source of this infinite worth and value, its bearing upon Christ's qualifications and its necessity. The Canons say, "which qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin," (Canons II, Art. 4 - italics added). In discussing the blessed fruit of this infinitely valuable sacrifice of Christ the Canons find it of benefit strictly for certain persons, us. In the light of this to preach otherwise, a Christ for all or available for all, is to present not only that which is hypothetical, but hypocritical. The Canons do not find in the sufficiency of Christ a universal offer, but a profound comfort for a believer, whose sins are so great, that only a sacrifice of infinite worth and value is sufficient to take them all away. When the men who promote the offer take up this subject in the Canons, they engage in eisegesis, the reading into the Canons of their own speculative notions.

Hypothetical universalism applied to Soteriology, the offer.
The well-meant offer, or free offer, also the notion of a general conditional promise, is really nothing more than an attempt to introduce this same semi-Arminian synergism and dualism into the whole doctrine of soteriology, the doctrine of the application of salvation, and into the doctrines of the means of grace, preaching and the sacraments. It is again an attempt to marry an Arminian doctrine of salvation and the means of grace, preaching or baptism, to the Reformed view. It involves teaching two kinds of grace, a general, common conditional and resistible grace to all under the preaching or in baptism, and a particular irresistible grace to only some. According to this theory of the offer, God does not simply call and command men to repent and believe under the preaching of the Word, but sincerely desires the salvation of all, well-meaningly offers Christ, His righteousness and eternal life to all, head for head. The preaching becomes a check which man must endorse by his faith, an objective bequest which man may accept or reject. Moreover if you object to this as Arminianism, you are told that since they also teach that God fulfills the conditions by grace in the elect, the charge of being Arminian is false.

While dressed in a new suit of clothes, this error is still the same error which was condemned by the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the past. While the theology it is based on is rarely spelled out it is nothing more than that of Amyrauld. Its doctrine of the atonement is that of the Marrow. In order to make Christ's death and the preaching of it universal or an offer, they must separate from that death its efficacy and all the subjective blessings of salvation. If Christ is offered to all, then faith cannot be a benefit of the cross. You cannot very well offer faith as a blessing while requiring it as a condition. You cannot promise to all what is an entrance requirement to the promise. The offer introduces ambiguity into the doctrine of faith, conversion, repentance. Rather than being a work of grace in man, the wonder work of God in Christ and a gift of grace out of which a man himself actively repents and believes, the preaching of the offer becomes centered on the experiential moment, for faith is man's fulfilling of the condition. And yet, because they would be called Calvinists, they would also be seen as teaching that it is God's gift. The only way you can maintain this kind of dualism is to reduce faith and conversion to an experimental moment, a moment of revelation and response, of giving and yet taking and receiving. Grace becomes like a ball bouncing on a table, in the moment it touches the surface God is giving and man accepting, God is revealing and man responding. This is Barthian mysticism. It is dualism carried to its ultimate synergism.
Click to expand...
 
trevorjohnson said:
LUke 13:

34O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Click to expand...

My comments (and some of Calvin's) on Matthew 23:37

Does this verse show that God desires to save all those who hear the preaching of the gospel? In this verse Jesus Christ is rebuking a stubborn and rebellious nation and I agree with Calvin that it “is expressive of indignation rather than compassion.” Just look at the context of the verse! Earlier in the chapter we read of Christ denouncement: “woe unto you”, “fools and blind”, “blind guides”, “Ye serpents, generation of vipers”, and then immediately after verse 37 we read the declaration of judgment upon Jerusalem “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Chapter 24 is the Olivet discourse which foretells of the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem. As is plain, the context of the verse is such that I say it must be a rebuke, a summary of the charge against Jerusalem. Calvin correctly points out how “we must…observe the vehemence of the discourse.” God sent prophet after prophet to the nation of Israel and what did they do? They killed them, they stoned them to death. This obstinacy was the result of the natural man to the word of God. Yes God is willing to save all who repent yet the intent of this phrase here serves to highlight the stubbornness, their haughty distain, their inexcusable ingratitude towards God’s constant and interrupted advances to them through the prophets. So the verse ends “ye would not”, it was not that God did not make it known what they must do but rather their damnation lied at their own door. So I say that this verse shows not that God desires the salvation of all who hear the gospel but rather it teaches the justness of God in punishing unbelief and the context teaches that this verse is an indignant rebuke of a rebellious stiff-necked people.
 
Mayflower said:
So what do you think?
Click to expand...

God in no way desires the salvation of the reprobate.

As Calvin taught:

"The expression of our Savior, "Many are called, but few are chosen," (Mt. 22:14), is also very improperly interpreted (see Book 3, chap. 2, sec. 11, 12). There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear--viz. that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation, (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 24, Part 8)

"As the Lord by the efficacy of his calling accomplishes towards his elect the salvation to which he had by his eternal counsel destined them, so he has judgments against the reprobate, by which he executes his counsel concerning them. Those, therefore, whom he has created for dishonor during life and destruction at death, that they may be vessels of wrath and examples of severity, in bringing to their doom, he at one time deprives of the means of hearing his word, at another by the preaching of it blinds and stupefies them the more." (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 24, Part 12)

"Nor can it be questioned, that God sends his word to many whose blindness he is pleased to aggravate. For why does he order so many messages to be taken to Pharaoh? Was it because he hoped that he might be softened by the repetition? Nay, before he began he both knew and had foretold the result: "The Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he will not let the people go," (Exod. 4:21). So when he raises up Ezekiel, he forewarns him, "I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me." "Be not afraid of their words." "Thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not," (Ezek. 2:3, 6; 12:2). Thus he foretells to Jeremiah that the effect of his doctrine would be, "to root out, and pull down, and to destroy," (Jer. 1:10). But the prophecy of Isaiah presses still more closely; for he is thus commissioned by the Lord, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed," (Isa. 6:9, 10). Here he directs his voice to them, but it is that they may turn a deafer ear; he kindles a light, but it is that they may become more blind; he produces a doctrine, but it is that they may be more stupid; he employs a remedy, but it is that they may not be cured. And John, referring to this prophecy, declares that the Jews could not believe the doctrine of Christ, because this curse from God lay upon them. It is also incontrovertible, that to those whom God is not pleased to illumine, he delivers his doctrine wrapt up in enigmas, so that they may not profit by it, but be given over to greater blindness. Hence our Savior declares that the parables in which he had spoken to the multitude he expounded to the Apostles only, "because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given," (Mt. 13:11). What, you will ask, does our Lord mean, by teaching those by whom he is careful not to be understood? Consider where the fault lies, and then cease to ask. How obscure soever the word may be, there is always sufficient light in it to convince the consciences of the ungodly." (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 24, Part 12)
 
If God doesn't provide salvation for the reprobate in the atonement, how can God desire the salvation of the reprobate?

:candle:
 
To the original post, my :2cents:

God offered the kingdom to Adam, and later to Christ because Adam declined.
He is not offering you and me heaven as though He is making individual covenants.

The 'invitation' is really an Arminian device to dull the point that Christ commands repentance to all who are in rebellion to His authority.

His calling is therefore limited when He says, "I did not come to call the righteous."
 
non dignus said:
To the original post, my :2cents:

God offered the kingdom to Adam, and later to Christ because Adam declined.
He is not offering you and me heaven as though He is making individual covenants.

The 'invitation' is really an Arminian device to dull the point that Christ commands repentance to all who are in rebellion to His authority.

His calling is therefore limited when He says, "I did not come to call the righteous."
Click to expand...

:amen:
 
The Myth of Common Grace

The Myth of Common Grace by Garrett P. Johnson

In 1948 Westminster Seminary professors John Murray and Ned Stonehouse wrote a doctrinal study for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church entitled The Free Offer of the Gospel. The study was published by that church and remains its major teaching on God’s grace in the Gospel. The writing of the study was fueled by a major doctrinal conflict in the OPC between Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the faculty of Westminster Seminary concerning Clark’s fitness for ordination. Cornelius Van Til led the seminary faculty in a Complaint against Clark’s understanding of the Confession of Faith. One of their chief objections concerned Clark’s view of the so-called “sincere offer” of salvation to all men, including the reprobate.

The Myth of Common Grace by Garrett P. Johnson
Click to expand...
 
I posted these in another thread:

1. If God loves all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the love of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

2. If God wills for all men to be saved, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the will of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

3. If Christ shed His precious blood for all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the work of Christ on the cross have to do with anyone’s salvation?
...
Click to expand...
 
Wanted to add this question asked on another forum:

"Does God set the choice between life and death before every man without exception?"

:2cents:
 
BertMulder said:
On the Amyraldian position, read this:

http://www.prca.org/current/Free Offer/chapter4.htm

As well:

http://www.prca.org/articles/preaching_and_missions.html

Especially this section:
Click to expand...

Great piece. For those who have been following the FV controversy and the attack on the doctrine of justification it's hard to miss this heresy's intimate connection with the so-called "well-meant offer":


The well-meant offer, or free offer, also the notion of a general conditional promise, is really nothing more than an attempt to introduce this same semi-Arminian synergism and dualism into the whole doctrine of soteriology, the doctrine of the application of salvation, and into the doctrines of the means of grace, preaching and the sacraments. It is again an attempt to marry an Arminian doctrine of salvation and the means of grace, preaching or baptism, to the Reformed view. It involves teaching two kinds of grace, a general, common conditional and resistible grace to all under the preaching or in baptism, and a particular irresistible grace to only some.
Click to expand...

For those who buy into the one contradictory notion, accepting another (particularly one with the same conditional view of the covenant) becomes all the more easy. Of course WMO defenders will not call their doctrine a "real" contradiction only an "apparent" one as they bow their heads and repeat the word "mystery" in mantra like fashion. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

earl40
  • Locked
Question on the desire of God for the reprobate.
Replies
6
Views
2K
InSlaveryToChrist
InSlaveryToChrist
InChains620
  • Locked
Yet another question...Does God love the reprobate?
2
Replies
46
Views
17K
CubsIn07
CubsIn07
Dr. Bob Gonzales
  • Locked
Does God Really Want All Sinners to be Saved? R. C. Sproul's Answer to that Question
Replies
0
Views
2K
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Dr. Bob Gonzales
P
  • Locked
Jesus saves? Or does the Spirit save?
Replies
5
Views
2K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Romans922
  • Locked
Phrasiology: Does Faith Save/Justify You?
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Der Pilger
D
Back
Top