Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, and expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner."
A question to ponder. Did Jesus Christ offer himself to every individual person indiscriminately? He seems to make no offer to those who are self-righteous.
Whether or not they are prescriptive or descriptive, it is apparent from His words in Matthew, that gospel-blindness was a judgment of God, which left people in their sin.But he did offer people to follow him, yes? And are his actions with every person he meets prescriptive or descriptive?
I think you do have a point in how apparent it is that the way the rich young ruler presents himself to Christ is radically different than the Samaritan woman at the well.
The issues represented by the two terms actually need to be distinguished. I think it's good to understand the distinctions fully, but in my opinion, it's a matter for prayer for ministers of the church to work out and come to see eye-to-eye (Isaiah 52:8).Also termed the "well-meant offer", it is that the good news of Jesus Christ is held forth to all/every single person indiscriminately.
i.e. "The Lord Jesus Christ is offered to you by God in the gospel as your Saviour. Receive Him by faith."
Whether or not they are prescriptive or descriptive, it is apparent from His words in Matthew, that gospel-blindness was a judgment of God, which left people in their sin.
We see a similar exchange in Matthew 13:13-17, where Jesus references the prophecy of Isaiah, regarding the deafness and blindness of the people.
Ah, my apologies and thanks for pointing that out.The issues represented by the two terms actually need to be distinguished. I think it's good to understand the distinctions fully, but in my opinion, it's a matter for prayer for ministers of the church to work out and come to see eye-to-eye (Isaiah 52:8).
Ah, my apologies and thanks for pointing that out.
Having done a bit of searching, I have found this explained somewhat in this thread, post #20 specifically - https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-non-free-offer-person-share-the-gospel.97200/
Typically the well-meant offer contains an element of God desiring something that He has ordained will not come to pass, namely, the salvation of those not appointed to life.Can we maybe define out terms? What in the free offer or well meant offer do you find objectionable? What doctrine you think is missing in the teaching of it's deniers?
Brother,Hello,
I am confused.
1. What is ths free offer
2. Why is it controversial
Whenever I hear someone talk for it it sounds unobjectionable. And when I hear someond talk against it, it sounds like he is simply affirming predestination.
Yes, the Marrow Controversy had to deal with the way Christ was presented to sinners, by ministers of the gospel.Is the Marrow Controversy in part to do with this? I'm starting to officially get into that with the primary text, with Thomas Boston's notes. Hopefully this will be my first coming to terms with a divide within the Reformed tradition, which i sense is organically connected with other issues, and as one progresses in their understanding, it relates to everything else. Will be reading this page while the kindle re-charges tonight, much appreciated to be in the presence of the wise and mature!!
My question is whether the Protestant Covenant Reformed Church would hold to the free offer as per the Westminster standard, because as evidenced by that quote from Engelsma, they appear to make no distinction between a "well-meant" and "free" offer?As our brother pointed out above, the Free Offer is the explicit teaching of the Westminster standards.
I will think about this further, but my initial reaction is that the clear difference between this example with Moses is that God sought to put Moses to death in accordance with divine retribution for legal disobedience, whereas God's compassion towards those who will reject the Gospel and be deemed reprobate is in accordance with His nature because God is love.That this free offer requires an inactive preference on God's part to save the reprobate is not a confessional commitment. I like to look at it in reverse. According to the argumentation offered by Dabney, Murray, and some others, could we say that God had a sincere and well-intentioned desire to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24)? I have yet to find someone who will say yes to that, but the structure of the argument is identical.
My understanding of the free offer is that the gospel is preached to all ppl indiscriminately (general call) but to the elect particularly (effectual call). If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me.Hello,
I am confused.
1. What is ths free offer
2. Why is it controversial
Whenever I hear someone talk for it it sounds unobjectionable. And when I hear someond talk against it, it sounds like he is simply affirming predestination.
I will think about this further, but my initial reaction is that the clear difference between this example with Moses is that God sought to put Moses to death in accordance with divine retribution for legal disobedience, whereas God's compassion towards those who will reject the Gospel and be deemed reprobate is in accordance with His nature because God is love.
Yes, but we do not see the revelation in the Scriptures that "God is justice" in the same manner that God is love. I consider the following verses demonstrating a difference between His retribution in justice and mercy in love -Good. Is justice not in accordance with God's nature?
Yes, but we do not see the revelation in the Scriptures that "God is justice" in the same manner that God is love. I consider the following verses demonstrating a difference between His retribution in justice and mercy in love -
Ezekiel 33:11
Micah 7:18
and Romans 9:22-23
Reminding me also of the words of Thomas Watson on the subject of God's mercy.
These questions are most definitely above my paygrade and are moving further into the philosophical realm (which I am very poorly read in).Yes, that is the premise that often goes unstated. Again, good. With a different prioritization of attributes in God, though, further questions are raised:
1. Does this indicate unrealized potential in God?
2. Does this indicate conflict between different aspects of God's character?
3. What becomes of divine simplicity?
4. If God is more so love than justice, why is justice universal while love is particular?
Is the difference that the desire that Moses die is contingent on Moses' disobedience? The offer is a general delight in men repenting and being saved. God hasn't revealed a general delight in Moses' death, but he does have a sincere and well-intentioned desire that disobedience should be punished.I like to look at it in reverse. According to the argumentation offered by Dabney, Murray, and some others, could we say that God had a sincere and well-intentioned desire to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24)?