Marrow Men

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ian,

Limited atonement is a very important doctrine and I hope I'll never have to go to an Amyraldist church again - however, it's not quite up there with [i:a8255f8c43]sola fide[/i:a8255f8c43] (I'm referring to the Luther remark). I'm sorry if that's heretical. I agree that we should not be telling everyone "Christ is dead for you". I dislike that remark for a couple of reasons at least.
 
Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:a82d882cb5]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely.
[/quote:a82d882cb5]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them.

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?
 
[quote:c865d556e2="joshua"]Lying is lying, no? To say to each man without exception, "Christ died for you." is potentially and actually lying. Maybe my thoughts are too simple. Sorry to distract.[/quote:c865d556e2]

You are right. Let's not say it. I'm happy to report, the Marrow Men agree with you, and say so, explicitly.
 
[quote:fd71d31c87="Ianterrell"]Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.[/quote:fd71d31c87]

Repent and believe. Fair enough. But believe what? Is it not "that Christ Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures?" I don't understand the distinction you are making here.
 
[quote:4f9228a603="turmeric"]Ian,

Limited atonement is a very important doctrine and I hope I'll never have to go to an Amyraldist church again - however, it's not quite up there with [i:4f9228a603]sola fide[/i:4f9228a603] (I'm referring to the Luther remark). I'm sorry if that's heretical. I agree that we should not be telling everyone "Christ is dead for you". I dislike that remark for a couple of reasons at least.[/quote:4f9228a603]

Meg,

Who said Limited Atonement was more important than Sola Fide?
 
[quote:acb82bf5e0="DanielC"][quote:acb82bf5e0="Ianterrell"]Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.[/quote:acb82bf5e0]

Repent and believe. Fair enough. But believe what? Is it not "that Christ Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures?" I don't understand the distinction you are making here.[/quote:acb82bf5e0]

Who is "our" in the passage your quoting. Same question goes for Patrick's response. There aren't any universalistic passages in the bible.
 
[quote:ebd20fd671="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:ebd20fd671]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely.
[/quote:ebd20fd671]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them.

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:ebd20fd671]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).
 
[quote:58f803a085="Learner"]This is from an excellent article called:"Universalism and the Reformed Churches".It's a publication of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia.The denomination bears a likeness to the PRC.The article has some important quotes from Edward Fisher's book.

1)"Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men."

2)Of Christ,"The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind."

3)"Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind,He did for you."

4)"Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him."[/quote:58f803a085]

Great! Finally some primary sources to work with (though taken from a
secondary source - and that's where the confusion lies I think). Let
me interact with it:

1) This quote may or may not have something wrong with it. But how about this one?:"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" Its from Titus 2:11, so of course not. We know that this doesn't
stray from Limited Atonement, though phrases sometimes sound universal. It must be seen in greater context. Here's some greater context for your first Marrow quote, which is taken from the section in the Marrow curiously entitled "Christ's fulfilling the law in the room of the [b:58f803a085]elect[/b:58f803a085]." (speaking of Christ) he put himself in the room and place of the faithful, Isa.liii.6, "And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Then came the law as it is the covenant of works, and said; "I find him a sinner, yea, such an one as [b:58f803a085]hath taken upon him the sins of all men[/b:58f803a085], therefore let him die upon the cross." And Boston's notes on this section: "[b:58f803a085]Our Lord Jesus Christ died not for, nor took upon him the sins of all and every individual man, but he died for, and took upon him the
sins of all the elect...and no other doctrine is here taught by our author touching the extent of the death of Christ[/b:58f803a085]." Must I really keep proving this? It is abundantly clear that they taught limited atonement. How much more explicitly can they say it? Sheesh!

2 and 4) These came from the chapter entitled "the warrant to believe in Christ." The book, BTW, is written in the form of a dialogue between a pastor (Evangelista), an antinomian (Antinomista), a legalist (Nomista), and a young christian (Neophytus):
Neo: But, sir, hath such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?
Evan: I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (And what is this gift and grant? Thomas Boston says "This deed of gift and grant, or authentic gospel offer is expressed in so many words, For God so loved the world (and the Jn 3:16 quote continues - DanielC).") And hence it was, that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, Mark xvi. 15, "Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven:" that is, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept his righteousness, he will have him." (If you want to see Boston's notes explaining this, see a previous post of mine in this thread). All we have here is a command to preach the gospel to all creatures, knowing that only the elect will believe. Many are called few are chosen. Any problems
with that? Once again, I don't like saying that Jesus is dead for you, because He is alive, but from the context and the Boston notes the orthodoxy is clear.

3) OK I give up! I couldn't find where this quote was. But that's ok, there is a section of quotes quite like it, where in the dialogue the young christian has a weak faith, and is asking his pastor to help strengthen it (such as the dialogue directly above). I think this will suffice to explain quote #4:
Evan: ...wherefore I beseech you make no doubt of it, but "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith," Heb.x.22.
Neo: ...does not Christ himself say, that "many are called, but few are chosen?" Matt xxii.14. And, therefore, it may be, I am one of them that are ordained to condemnation; and therefore, though I be called, I shall never be chosen, and so shall not be saved.
Evan: ...although some men be ordained to condemnation yet ... [the Lord] offers the pardon generally to all ... it should rather move every man to give diligence "to make his calling and election sure..."
Neo: But may such a vile and sinful wretch as I am be persuaded that God commands me to believe, and hath made a promise to me?
Evan: Why do you make a question, where there is none to be made? "Go," says Christ, "and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven," that is, Go tell every man without exception, whatsoever his sins be, whatsoever his rebellions be, go and tell him these glad tidings, that if he will come in, I will accept of him, his sins shall be forgiven him, and he shall be saved...
Neo: But do you say, sir, that if I believe I shall be espoused unto Christ?
Evan: Yea, indeed you shall...
Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him? No. These quotes prove nothing but that the book is Calvinist.

Ok, I believe that is more than sufficient to prove that the Marrow and the Marrow Men believed and taught limited atonement and a general call, and that faith comes to the elect to believe the promises personally. This should be enough to put this entire controversy to rest, seeing as I believe we are once again where we started - left with unsupported accusations, the burden remaining entirely on the ones with no proof. We're talking about the book and the Marrow Controversy, not Hodge, not Ferguson. The only quotes from the book itself we've seen support Calvinism when seen in the correct context rather than one-liners taken from an essay.

So, again, can anyone show me inconsistent Calvinism or hollow theology in the Marrow? I can't find it.

Daniel - I just edited this for bad spelling (worked the graveyard shift last night!)
 
Daniel said:"Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him?No."

What Daniel?!That's not particularism.That's not Calvinism.That's not biblical.Maybe you were a little careless with your choice of words there.I found it strange when you were defending Marrowism from charges that you would say that.
 
[quote:76bc3daaa0="Learner"]Daniel said:"Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him?No."

What Daniel?!That's not particularism.That's not Calvinism.That's not biblical.Maybe you were a little careless with your choice of words there.I found it strange when you were defending Marrowism from charges that you would say that.[/quote:76bc3daaa0]

Paul: "I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20).
Luther, on the same text: "He saw in me nothing but wickedness, going astray, and fleeing from him. Yet this good Lord had mercy on me, and of his mere mercy he loved me, yea, so loved me, that he gave himself for me. Who is this [i:76bc3daaa0]me[/i:76bc3daaa0]? Even I, wretched and damnable sinner, was so dearly beloved of the Son of God that he gave himself for me."
Fisher, on same text: Oh! print this word "me" in your hear, and apply it to your own self, not doubting but that you are one of those to whom this "me" belongs. (speaking to a christian, BTW)
WLC Q. 74: What is Adoption?
A.: Adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of His children, have His name put upon them, the Spirit of His Son vgiven to them, are under His Fatherly care and dispensations, admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heir of all the promises, and fellow heirs with Christ in glory.

Learner, maybe I am wrong here. But it seems to me that when we partake of Christ through faith, we take hold of the One in whom are all the promises, and we become partakers of all the benefits of salvation.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. How is this not biblical? Why can't I say I partake of Christ, in whom are all the promises He secured in our redemption?

:puzzled: Daniel
 
[quote:9f21f472ea="Ianterrell"][quote:9f21f472ea="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:9f21f472ea]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely.
[/quote:9f21f472ea]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them.

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:9f21f472ea]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).[/quote:9f21f472ea]

Well hey! Me too! And it looks to me like so Boston thinks so too! We're a big happy family! :banana:
 
[quote:926e5021f4="Learner"]I was focusing on your line "Redemption of mankind."[/quote:926e5021f4]

Oh that! Whew! I was wondering what was going on there!

I meant "redemption of mankind" in no more general terms than John the Baptist meant "Behold, the Lamb of God! Who takes away the sins of the world!" In other words, I mean only the elect.
 
Daniel,

I really don't have time to defend a misrepresentation of my position. You are glossing over the problem areas of their language while defending the calvinistic doctrines the writers produced elsewhere. That is merely a diversion from my problem with their language which tends towards Arminianism and Amyraldianism which has already been proved from their own words.

:tomb:
 
[quote:fd31b1de53="Ianterrell"]Daniel,

I really don't have time to defend a misrepresentation of my position. You are glossing over the problem areas of their language while defending the calvinistic doctrines the writers produced elsewhere. That is merely a diversion from my problem with their language which tends towards Arminianism and Amyraldianism which has already been proved from their own words.

:tomb:[/quote:fd31b1de53]

Where do the Marrow Men say that "Christ died for all" like you say? Where? Show us, or withdraw your accusation. I wouldn't agree with it either, but I think your information about the book is flawed. If its not, prove it. Don't bother proving a misrepresentation (however that has been done... I'm not sure). Prove your own position.

The Calvinistic doctrines are from the SAME area as the only "problem areas" anyone has shown me (Learner's four lines that is - no one else has quoted them!) Did you not see each of Learner's quotes INSIDE of the fuller quotes I wrote which contain, in your words "calvinistic doctrines?" Its not elsewhere. Go back and look, and see how you just admited the disputed area to be calvinistic.
 
[quote:25935dca9f]Lee I realized late last night I had been referring to you as Lauren! So Sorry![/quote:25935dca9f]

You're forgiven! (I just find it amusing, if not refreshing -- usually people mess up my last name!)
 
Listen everyone, I can't understand what this is all about. We're debating a line or two in a 370 page book. Its a book about the true gospel as opposed to legalism and antinomianism. That's good. The Marrow Men argued against neonomians, who denied sola fide. That's good.

But what we are debating is a phrase or two that sounds universalistic (neither of the two historical debates) and then AT THE SAME PLACE is explained, explicitly saying they believe limited atonement (which we all believe here!) There are no universalistic passages in the Bible, but there are some that sound like it, and aren't, in reality. Same thing going on here, except for the fact that here everyone is having a cow about it. What is the problem? No one has shown us anything condemning.
 
This is taking up too much of my time. :banghead: I'll check back in a while, and might respond if someone actually presents an argument they can back up. If not, I think the accusations have been refuted.

Though I'm still NOT comfortable saying "Christ is dead for you," even though he only means that there is a crucified savior given for poor sinners to come to in faith and be healed (and yes only elect sinners!)

Hope no one is upset with me - particularly you Ian (not saying that you are). If you are, forgive me. I honestly, don't see an area where we stray in doctrine. God bless you brother.

Ciao ciao,
Daniel :bs2:
 
[quote:e3bddbfe0e="Ianterrell"][quote:e3bddbfe0e="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:e3bddbfe0e]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely.
[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them.

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]

All right Ian. Let's work with this. Everyone else please sit tight for a bit. We all agree the gospel should go out to all without exception. I think we all agree that the benefits of the gospel should be stated. Now let's deal with your third proposition.

"yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE)"

First of all, this third proposition appears to contradict your first. How can the gospel go to all kinds of men without exception, yet not be made available to all without exception? What is the gospel message? What is the nature of preaching this message?

Let's look at this passage Boston quoted from John 3:14-17.
"14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

First let us look at the example Jesus is refering to regarding Moses, from Numbers 21. In short, Israel was bitten by snakes for rebelling against God. But God was merciful and provided a bronze serpent to be lifted up before the people that whoever among them would look at it would be healed. It wasn't enough to know about the serpent, they had to actually look at the serpent, and God promised they would be healed. It was a statement of fact yet appealed to the individual person not just general knowledge. God has said if YOU will look at the serpent, YOU will be healed. And, everyone who looked was in fact healed.

Now, Christ uses that same illustration to explain how someone is saved by believing him. The term "lifted up" that Jesus uses is used as a vague reference to his crucifixion, and how he would be lifted up before all men (John 12:32-34). And how do we lift Christ up? The call of the gospel is not just general information, "Christ died for the elect" or "Christ died for sinners." It's not just "repent and believe." "Believe" what? What are we suppose to believe about Christ? There is something personal that is both offered by God and suppose to recieved by the recipient. When Jesus uses the illustration of the serpent, we now know what he means. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent for any to look upon and be healed, so Christ is lifted up before men, that any who look to him may be healed from their sin, hence "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Now you are the preacher sent to deliver this message. How does it go out? You must apply it to the person. The gospel call is a general invitation in scope. But the invitation when made to the individual (elect or reprobate) is personal. (i.e. Matt. 12:4) You don't have to say "Christ died for you." But you do have to say, "You must believe on Christ and trust that all he has done for sinners, he has done for you." An intectual knowledge about what Christ has done for the elect will not save you. You must believe that Christ has died for you, that Christ is yours. And that is how Christ presents himself. "You must believe on Me or else you will perish. Here I am, lifted up before you. The invitation has been made. You must look to Me to have eternal life. And if you do look to Me you will have eternal life. If you refuse, you will perish." It's an appeal to the individual conscience, and it is a true invitation with reliable promises. We should have no problem as Calvinists saying to someone "If you will believe, then you will be saved." Why? Because it's a simple statement of the facts and it's the promise of God. But the promise and command demands an individual response from whoever hears it.

This is what Boston means. And this is what the Marrow Men were teaching at the time. You will see this in the sermons of the Erskines too (and really in most Puritan preaching before them). They applied the free offer to the individual. Which is really how you evangelize. "Christ has made an atonement for sin. A complete salvation is accomplished. He is lifted up before the world for all to look upon, which includes YOU. If YOU desire to be freed from your sin and have eternal life, this is the only way. YOU must look to Christ. Christ demands a response from YOU now. Believe his promise to save YOU and be saved, or reject it and perish."

It's obvious that only the elect will respond in faith, because for the elect, this word goes out with the accompanying power of the Spirit upon his heart. But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprobate. Christ offers himself to them too. It's a clear statement of fact and promise. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and YOU will be saved."

Christ has been sent to redeem "mankind." And Boston explains this statement too. Christ was sent to save "men" not angels. Christ died for men, not angels. Are you a man? Are you a sinner? Then you need a Savior, and Christ is lifted up before you ready and willing to save you if you will go to Him. There is a complete atonement already for those who will come to Christ. It's again, a plain statement of the facts. That is what they mean when they say "Christ is dead for you" and "The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The feast is ready. There's plenty of room. You have an invitation and you must respond.

Now this is how I understand the Free Offer, and this is how the Marrow Men taught it. Boston's Notes in particular are expressly clear on this, especially when explaining the quesitonable quotes. And this is the way the gospel is preached in most Puritan preaching I've read.

So, Ian, is there anything here that you would disagree with in this formulation? If so please expound so we can see where the real differences are.
 
Sorry guys, we are getting too loud for the Library so I moved this thread to the theological forum. :judge:

[color=green:85cbb4df5d]{edit- Double bump to Doctrines of Grace - a bit better fit
Your friendly neighborhood Admin, fredtgreco}[/color:85cbb4df5d]
 
I've never read about the Marrow controversy before and had only vaguely heard about it. But I find it hard to disagree with Patrick on this issue. Anyone disagree? And, if so, why?
 
Patrick,how are you?You said:"But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprbate.Christ offers himself to them too."
My question is:Does the Lord want the reprobate to be saved?Let me be clear,we are to preach and teach the gospel to all.Yet that proclamation will only harden the hearts of the reprobate.Do you agree?
Of couse we do not not know who the reprobate are.(In case anyone wrongly thinks I believe otherwise).
This word "offer"needs some clarity.I haven't the time to go into it now.Would some of you like to give some meaning to that nebulous term?
 
Tim,

Does not the Lord want the offer to be made to the reprobate in order that they might treasure up wrath, that He might "get honor" over Pharaoh ?
 
Hi Fred,

When the reprobate hear the message of the Lord it will indeed result in them treasuring up wrath against themselves.And that will bring Glory to God's Name.
You said:"Does not the Lord want the OFFER[Learner's highlight] to be made to them...".What does the word offer mean?
 
[quote:8032ed9874="Learner"]Patrick,how are you?You said:"But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprbate.Christ offers himself to them too."
My question is:Does the Lord want the reprobate to be saved?Let me be clear,we are to preach and teach the gospel to all.Yet that proclamation will only harden the hearts of the reprobate.Do you agree?
Of couse we do not not know who the reprobate are.(In case anyone wrongly thinks I believe otherwise).
This word "offer"needs some clarity.I haven't the time to go into it now.Would some of you like to give some meaning to that nebulous term?[/quote:8032ed9874]
No, the Lord does not want to save the reprobate. But that doesn't change his responsibility to obey the call of God, nor does it change the fact that God's promise is true. If he looked to Christ, he would be saved. If he would listen to the truth, that Christ is the only Savior for men, then he would be saved. Of course we know, that he would only respond positively if he were elect, because the gospel goes forth with the saving work of the Spirit.

For the reprobate, the gospel hardens them, for they refuse to obey God or accept the Mediator he has provided. When you refuse God, you harden yourself to your own destruction.

The key is to remember Christ's own illustration of his offer. Moses lifted up the serpent for all to look upon. Whether they believed the testimony of Moses and looked at it, was their responsibility. They could look and be healed and live, or they could refuse and die.

So it is with Christ. God has presented him to the world as the only way to be saved. It is the responibility of the individual to respond and look to Christ. Whether the individual will actually respond, is the secret work of the Spirit, but that doesn't change his responsibility nor does it change the promise that God has made, that those who will look will be saved.
 
I do not know where the responsibility factor came into play here, I wasn't addressing that.Of course everyone is accountable.
My concern was defining the word "offer"as it is used with regard to evangelism.So Patrick,does it mean present or presentation?
 
[quote:4c835a2e99="Learner"]I do not know where the responsibility factor came into play here, I wasn't addressing that.Of course everyone is accountable.
My concern was defining the word "offer"as it is used with regard to evangelism.So Patrick,does it mean present or presentation?[/quote:4c835a2e99]

It's both. The offer is a presentation of who Christ is and what he has done, but also an invitation to believe for whomever hears it. God is telling that person how he may be saved. Whether he will heed or not is a secret work of the Spirit. Again, consider the illustration Jesus uses with Moses lifting up the serpent. God gave them that means of healing to save them from the judgment they deserved, but he also made it a means which required faith. But he gave that healing means to the whole people. Yet only those who recieved Moses word as true and obeyed were healed.

It is the same with Christ presenting himself to the world. God has given to the world a Savior, in the sense that He is the only one who can save them, and in the sense that God has made him known to all through the preaching of the gospel. This is a gift is it not? God didn't have to tell the world about Christ. He could have just informed the elect secretly and left the reprobate in the dark. But he instead uses a general invitation (Matt 12:4) to draw out His elect from the world (and further harden the reprobate). This is what gives sinners the "warrant" to believe on Christ. It's not enough to know that Christ died for a certain group of men. If that is all you tell people then there is no way for them to know if they are part of that group. They have no warrant to believe that they are part of that group unless they look somehow to themselves to determine if they are elect before they will believe (i.e. Hyper-Calvinistic mysticism or Arminianism). They must have some assurance that they will be welcomed by God first, because there is no way to know you are elect unless you first believe. And that is where the offer as a "present" fits in. You must believe the testimony that Christ has made to you.

Note John 3 "33He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

And also 1 John 5 "9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Again, John is explaining the general call and it's imperitive on the individual. How can a reprobate make God a liar if in fact Christ is not offered to him at all? He makes God a liar because he has rejected God's testimony that Christ is the only Savior of men, the only way of salvation made available (or offered) to him. That is the manner in which God has given Christ by way of "grant" or "gift."

And so the warrant to come to Christ is found in the nature of His presenting himself to the world as the only Savior for men. When we evangelize it should go something like this (paraphrasing obviously), "He died to save mankind (i.e. men, not angels). He died to save sinners. You are a sinful man, therefore only Christ can save you. Christ has told YOU that if you believe on him you will be saved. If YOU will go to him he will in no wise cast you out. He is willing to make you clean. You can believe God's word and go to Christ and be saved. To YOU, this word of salvation has been given now. But if you refuse then you will remain under his wrath and curse and recieve your just punishment, both for your sins and for refusing to accept the only Savior God has given for men."
 
I agreed with parts of your post Patrick.But there were other segments in which I take issue or have questions about.
You said "The offer as a present fits in."Did you mean to say that offer is a presentation,proclamation or declaration?
I'm wondering about your statement:'How can a reprobate make God a liar if in fact Christ is not offered to him at all?"I am confused by that.Most reprobates have never heard the Gospel--never heard of Christ.
It is understood that you believe that it is God's good pleasure,not to save,but to harden the reprobates by the preaching of the gospel.You do believe that,right?
So,God seeks His own glory and justification in preparing the reprobate for their just damnation even through the preaching of His Word.The preacher, or any Christian, must not say that God sincerely seeks the salvation of the reprobate.God cannot seek the salvation of those He has foreordained not to save from eternity past.
In other words He doesn't want that sinner to live whom He does not choose to quicken.He does not want that one whom He does not give faith to accept the Gospel.God does not will that sinner to come to Christ which He has not drawn.Are you in agreement?
God is sovereign in His dispositions.We need not be cold about it.We should have a real burden for the lost.If we do not care for eternal souls,we have cause to doubt our own salvation.There is a balance here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Von
  • Locked
Maurice Roberts and the Marrow Controversy
Replies
29
Views
6K
Five Solas
F
NaphtaliPress
  • Locked
Lachman's The Marrow Controversy back in print
Replies
4
Views
592
jwright82
jwright82
clawrence9008
  • Locked
Augustine on the meaning of "all men"
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheInquirer
TheInquirer
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
William Beveridge: Bad men cannot do good works
Replies
0
Views
715
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
M
  • Locked
H. Hanko: Love all men versus love evil
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mayflower
M
Back
Top