Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
Also, for everyone who says "no" to the general offer, would you say its ok to say "God demands that everyone believe on his Son!"
I hope that makes sense...
I hope that makes sense...
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.
The youtube video made the comment:
"The gospel is neither well meant, nor is it an offer. The gospel is not well meant or sincere, because salvation cannot be sincerely offered to people where no provision has ever been made for their sins, nor ever will be. Likewise the gospel is not an offer because the atonement has already accomplished the work of putting away the sins of particular people. To say that it is well meant or an offer.... is an denial of salvation by sovereign grace taught in the scriptures.
It also is not a command."
What are you guys think about what he said? it is only a 5 min video, i encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
Matt,
If it is of help, the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel interpretation of Eze. 18 was the virtually universal position of the puritans. One example amongst many is Thomas Manton's two sermons on it found here:
Thomas Manton on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online
Also, here is David Dickson (Scottish puritan pastor and professor, and co-author of the Sum of Saving Knowledge) on God sincerely desiring, by His revealed will, the salvation of the reprobate. From his Commentary on the Epistles:
“And with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved.”
2 Thess. 2:10
"'Because' – Article 7: Touching the subjects of Antichrist, and their perdition, and the causes thereof: The retinue of Antichrist, properly called his household, and familiars, are described to be such as with obstinate minds stubbornly cleave unto him, even to the end, and in whom the Devil is very effectual.
(1) From the property of Reprobates, They perish, they are of the number of those that perish.
(2) From the meritorious cause of their perdition, because they receive not the Truth offered in the Word of God with love, that they might be saved."
David Dickson on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel | Reformed Books Online
However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
However, there is yet another relation of God's will, and it concerns Himself. This would be called God's will of disposition. This relation of God's will is found in places like Ezekiel 18:32 where it says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," or Lamentations 3:33 where it says, "For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." This means God does not delight in death or affliction or His punishment itself, but rather the justice of it. In other words, God loves justice, He loves who He is, but He is not a tyrant that takes pleasure in suffering itself.
I have never heard this before. Can you really separate that? delighting in justice but not the punishment? isnt the punishment the justice? I am reading this thread because I really have no stance so far, so anyone who wants to try to answer this, please do! I have been wrestling with this for months!
And Ez 18 has been the most difficult passage for me.
Matt,
When the Bible says in Isaiah 53:10 that "it pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]," do you honestly think that the Father delighted in the unspeakable sufferings of the Son just because He delights in suffering itself? Of course, you don't. God loves justice, but He is not malicious. The only reason why any suffering in the universe delights God is because it glorifies His righteousness. As Lamentations 3:33 says, "He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men." He does not inflict suffering for its own sake.
You are absolutely right that Dickson argued against a conditional redemption and any conditional decree in God, all of which I affirm as well.
No idea, im just a spectator trying to figure this out myself. I havent decided what side of the fence im on.What do you believe a well-meant offer is to look like, and what would a not-well-meant offer look like?
I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.So if no one shows up at my house, is my offer not well-meant? It still certainly is, because I will do what I promised I would do. What if everyone shows up at my house? The same thing applies, and I will do what I promised I would do.
I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.So if no one shows up at my house, is my offer not well-meant? It still certainly is, because I will do what I promised I would do. What if everyone shows up at my house? The same thing applies, and I will do what I promised I would do.
I might be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the debate is not if he is truthful in his offer but if he desires for all men to come. Not that whether or not take care of all who come but rather or not he truly wants all to come.
You affirm a conditional decree in God even if you deny the expression. As Francis Turretin stated, "For since no act of proper and intrinsic will in God concerning the event of anything can be granted (which does not imply a decree), whoever recognizes a conditional will in God must necessarily admit a conditional decree in him." Institutes, 1:397. You claim God has desires for events which are conditional on the will of man. That is a conditional decree, whether you like to admit it or not.
I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts regarding what you think constitutes a well-meant offer.
I agree with Turretin and you that a conditional will in God would infer a conditional decree in God. However, the revealed will of the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel is not conditional upon anything
Matt and Travis,
What do you believe a well-meant offer is to look like, and what would a not-well-meant offer look like? It seems that we need to work out some of our definitions and concepts of what constitutes a 'well-meant offer'.
Can you explain how what you are saying is different than those two?You apparently are trying to lump together the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel with Amyraldianism or Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism. But it is the same reformed theologians that were arguing against Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism that were preaching and defending that it is God's revealed will that all gospel-hearers, including the reprobate,
The only absolute will of God is the decretive will. The revealed will is always set forth in conditional terms.
The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel means that God, in some way, shape or form, by His revealed will (not his decrees), wills that the gospel-hearer (including the reprobate) should come to Christ and be saved. The very offer itself is an expression of benevolent love (though not complacent love) and mercy to the gospel hearer, including the reprobate, and expresses God's desire that they should receive what He offers to them.
First, universal desire makes the offer insincere because it extends the terms beyond what has actually been accomplished. Christ did not obtain salvation for all men yet God is presented as if He desired the salvation of all men. The "desire" is not supported by any saving action on God's part, which introduces duplicity and simulation into His dealings.
Secondly, insincerity is generally defined as promising one thing and intending another. The doctrine of universal desire severs the preceptive will from the decretive will and creates two contrary wills in God -- one which says God desires the salvation of every man and another which effectively excludes some men from salvation. This can be understood as nothing other than double-dealing. Universal desire thus destroys the sincerity of the gospel offer.