tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1328356118125711129..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Well-meant Offer of the Gospel?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67095052902994286812007-08-09T09:43:00.000-07:002007-08-09T09:43:00.000-07:00Thanks Tony,Those verses do clear it up. I can't b...Thanks Tony,<BR/><BR/>Those verses do clear it up. I can't believe I missed the whole tenor of the OT prophets with regards to Israel.<BR/><BR/>Daryl.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1274793784613628512007-08-09T09:30:00.000-07:002007-08-09T09:30:00.000-07:00Hi Daryl,I'm glad you're studying and pondering th...Hi Daryl,<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're studying and pondering these matters, as you strive to refine your views in the process. May God bless your labors.<BR/><BR/>With respect to 2 Cor. 5:20, it is true that Paul is talking to the Corinthian church, but he is talking to them about the content of his gospel of reconciliation. He's rehearsing the gospel content, as it were, which involves God pleading through him for sinners in general to receive the reconcilation available in Christ.<BR/><BR/>You can find the image of God pleading with sinners indiscriminately in Romans 10:21 <BR/><BR/>NKJ Romans 10:21 But to Israel he says: "All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people."<BR/><BR/>The stretched out hands is a pleading and welcoming gesture, as if to say "I do not delight in your perishing. Come to me that you might have life!"<BR/><BR/>This is another strong passage as it relates to all of Israel. God says:<BR/><BR/>NKJ Deuteronomy 5:29 'Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!<BR/><BR/>Those are just two more examples.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps,<BR/>TonyTony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37193908514330936112007-08-09T07:58:00.000-07:002007-08-09T07:58:00.000-07:00Is the plea to be reconciled to God found anywhere...Is the plea to be reconciled to God found anywhere else? I only ask because after rereading 2Cor. 5:20 and the surrounding verses it sounds like Paul is talking the the Corinthian church, not to unbelievers.<BR/><BR/>Just wondering.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40478953739898736802007-08-09T07:24:00.000-07:002007-08-09T07:24:00.000-07:00Phil: "Desire" is an admittedly problematic term w...<B>Phil:</B> "Desire" is an admittedly problematic term when it comes to expressing the mind of God. But let's take it as an anthropopathic expression, the same as we would the idea of the Holy Spirit's being "grieved," and we'll work with it.<BR/><BR/>I'm fine with using the term as an anthropopathic expression. In fact, it is precisely because of this that I personally object to the use of the word 'desire' to speak of God's command that all should repent and turn to Him.<BR/><BR/>'Desire', as a word, carries with it the connotation of a strong want; to wish for something earnestly (from Dictionary.com). As human beings, we do not of course get everything we desire, due to our creaturely limitations, and we may get miserable if we do not get what we desire. For example, if I strongly desire my sick father to be healed, then I would be severly unhappy if the healing did not happen. However, if I am a policeman who strongly commands a murderer not to resist arrest, I cannot say that I would be unhappy that my command was not carried out, but that I would be wrathful if he does so. My bone of contention is that if we use the word 'desire' of God's command of the reprobate to repent, then that would mean that God desires something which he would not bring to pass, and that would make Him eternally unhappy.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, I assume that whatever God desires, He must decree to pass. I would likewise affirm that since God is sovereign, then God would not have any volition or wish for anything to be other than it is. However, I deny that if God is sovereign, then God would not have any preference for anything to be other than it is. Preference involves the hypothetical option of choosing a course of actions among the possibility of possible courses of actions, whereas volition involved the actual choice of a course of action among all other possible courses of actions. Therefore, I affirm that God may have different preferences according to the manifestations of His various attributes but He has only one Will.<BR/><BR/>I do subscribe to the essence of the decretive and preceptive aspects of God's will, but I deny that the correct terminoloy is utilized. Whatever is God's Will is whatever He has chosen to act on (volition), and therefore I deny that the preceptive aspect of God's Will can be in any shape reformed be called 'God's Will'; it is a misnomer. It is God's standard; God's commands, even God's preferences (if you like that term) and I would just leave it as that. I would rather call God's so-called 'desire' for the salvation of the reprobates, if it would be placed under God's 'preceptive will', to be called God's sincere command. It was never a will to being with, since it will never be acted upon by God nor is God pleased to act upon it. Unlike desires, God would not be rendered unhappy in Him not acting on this command He gave to the reprobates.<BR/><BR/>With regards to 1 Thess. 4:3, what this verse is mainly saying is that God's decretive will for us is our sanctification, which will be definitely be accomplished when we reach heaven. The verse then goes on to show a very pertinent example of how sanctification is to be worked out in this life, which is that we abstain from sexual immorality. So, far from this verse talking about God willing something which may not occur, God is willing something which would definitely occur, when we reach heaven of course.<BR/><BR/>With regards to your other questions, I would use the same tactic. God did not desire for David to abstain from immorality with Bathsheba, but he has commanded him not to and he thus 'prefers' him not to do so. Ditto for any evangelical leader who has commited fornication too.<BR/><BR/>As for Lk. 7:30, my ESV uses the word 'purpose' instead, not will. So, yes, I can affirm that the Pharisees and the lawyers had rejected God's purposes for them, for purposes clearly refer to God's commands or God's 'preferences', not to God' (decretive) Will.<BR/><BR/>Just fyi, I used an interlinear Bible to check for the words that was translated 'will' according to what you have said (in 1 Thess. 4:3 and Lk. 7:30) and they are clearly distinct Greek words. The word used in 1 Thess. 4:3 is <I>thelema</I> while the word used in Lk. 7:30 is <I>boule</I>. Perhaps someone who is interested may do a case study of how the two words are used in the Scripture when referring to this issue...<BR/><BR/>The reason why I am arguing over what seems by possibly many people to be mere semantics is that the words we use convey concepts which could have logically unacceptable consequents, and thus resulted in erroneous conduct in things liie evangelism. If we say that God somehow desires the salvation of all including the reprobates, knowing how the world defines 'desire', what does that tell the unbeliever, but that God wants him/her saved and would be unhappy if he/she is not saved. What's the difference between saying to an unbeliever 'God desire your salvation' and 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life'? Furthermore, what it is that will stop us from acting this 'truth' out in the same manner as how the world understands the concept of 'desire'? What is to stop us from presenting God as a star-eyed lover proposing to unbelievers His love for them? Yes, such practices ARE distasteful, but why are that wrong if God desires their salvation? Much can be made of the need for holiness etc, but that doesn't answer the root question, does it?Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37029006224560866372007-08-09T07:16:00.000-07:002007-08-09T07:16:00.000-07:00ynotty: "If God desires people to repent of sin, t...<B>ynotty:</B> "If God desires people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance."<BR/><BR/>First of all, when it comes to John Frame, I do not highly regard him when it comes to soteriology, because it is his predecessor Cornelius Van Til who shamelessly oppose Gordon Clark and promote irrationality, his theory of 'analogy' and the unknowability of God; not to mention the fact that the Neo-Legalists Norman Shepherd and co. came out around his time and (at least Norman Shepherd) were protected by Van Till until protection became impossible.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, back to the sentence.I disagree with the statement, first of all because I disagree that God wanting people to repent is a desire; it is a 'preference' or command. Secondly, even if God desires that Man repent does not imply that God desires them saved, although repentance necessarily implies that the person would be saved. As an analogy, it could be the case that if I do an action like eating fattening food (p), then the consequent of becoming fat (q) would follow. Therefore, if p, then q. Let's say that I desire to eat fatty foods (p). However, does that necessarily mean that I like being or I desire to be fat(q)? NO, it doesn't. I may like eating fatty food because they taste nice, not because I desire to be fat. Therefore, just because I desire the antecedent p does not mean that I desire the consequent q, and thus the statement made by John Frame is illogical.<BR/><BR/>Oh, just fyi, I am against the <B>'well meant offer'</B>, NOT the offer of the Gospel.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19238834625394921452007-08-09T06:45:00.000-07:002007-08-09T06:45:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81913441140616665142007-08-09T05:46:00.000-07:002007-08-09T05:46:00.000-07:00Ynottony,I re-read the primer on hyper-calvinism a...Ynottony,<BR/><BR/>I re-read the primer on hyper-calvinism and I think I see what I was confused on and why you suggested that I was a hyper-calvinist.<BR/><BR/>Our differences are not so large I don't think. It seems that I wasn't really understanding you or quite getting a hold of the differences in natural vs moral inability. I think I understand it now and have clipped the quote below to deomonstrate that.<BR/><BR/>"In other words, the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so. This is a crucial point—perhaps the most crucial point of all—because it is the very point that ultimately distinguishes true Calvinism from both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism. Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing.<BR/>But it is neither illogical or unjust. Sin itself is a moral issue, and since sin is the cause of our inability, it is, as Jonathan Edwards said, a moral inability, not a natural one. The defect in man is his own fault, not God's. Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I see now that what you were saying is that the offer is made to us on the basis, really, of how we were created and our inability is the result of Adam's (and our) sin. Hence, the offer is on God's terms, we (in Adam) have mucked ourselves up enough that we can't respond.<BR/>I like how Phil says that our inability is our fault, not Gods (duh), thus making the offer at once genuine and yet unacceptable to the unelect.<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is good for me, I certainly fall under the "newly reformed" category so I'm still sorting all this out.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your time.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82906535650475582112007-08-09T04:56:00.000-07:002007-08-09T04:56:00.000-07:00Ynottony,Perhaps you are mis-reading me (or perhap...Ynottony,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are mis-reading me (or perhaps I don't understand myself- equally possible).<BR/>I am certainly not saying that we don't offer Christ, nor that we don't deliver his command to repent. After all, who knows the elect but God himself?<BR/><BR/>What I am not clear on (and plainly this is where our apparent differences lie), is in the area of ability and responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Dead in sin cannot be an analogy (I don't think) because to say so is to deny that God spoke the truth when he told Adam "In the day that you eat of it, you shall die." Which I take to mean that he wasn't promising that someday later he would die, but on the very day of the fruit-eating he would die. Also, Paul didn't say "It's like you were dead in your trespasses and sins." he said "You WERE dead."<BR/><BR/>Given that we are condemned already by Adam's sin, there is no need to find a direct causal relationship between our own sins and our condemnation. Paul establishes in Romans that we sin because we are condemned, not the other way around.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, technically, I fall under someones description of hyper-calvinism, although I'm not sure how (perhaps I just misunderstand exactly what hyper-calvinism is) Although reading Dan's (was it Dan's or Phil's, I forget) primer on hyper-calvinism I don't recall anything that made me sit up and take notice as relates to me. Perhaps I'm a bad explainer...<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't reject the idea that God works through means and doesn't save people in a vacuum. I don't reject human responsibility one whit. But again, our responsibility to obey does not necessarily imply an ability. (Romans 9 "how can he find fault for who resists his will??)<BR/>I just reject the idea of moral inability set against any other ability. <BR/>Either we are able or we are not, plainly that doesn't avoid our culpability before God, but there it is.<BR/>I never said or hinted at the idea that we command some and offer to others. What I said was that the gospel is first a command (Repent) and within that is the offer that if you do you will be saved. It is God who will make that distinction in peoples hearts, not I. I have always believed and still do, that it is not ours to determine who is elect, nor is it for us to say 'God will do it" and leave it alone (ala Hudson Taylor's "advisors"). <BR/><BR/>Seems to me that Hyper-Calvinism deals with things that affect the practicalities of all this, not the technicalities.<BR/><BR/>Hope that clears the waters a little.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-290360711138060442007-08-08T21:00:00.000-07:002007-08-08T21:00:00.000-07:00Dr. Peter Toon's work on The Emergence of Hyper-Ca...Dr. Peter Toon's work on <I>The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity</I> may be consulted <A HREF="http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/hypercal1.htm" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>. In his <A HREF="http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/hypercal2.htm" REL="nofollow">historical description or definition of hyperism</A>, he says that one aspect is that "Christ may be offered only to the elect." Actually, only some hypers thought that. Others denied that it was an offer at all, since they conceived of the evangelical covenant as utterly unconditional. An "offer" presupposes some sense of conditionality, even if only instrumental conditionality.<BR/><BR/>Iain Murray, in <I>The Forgotten Spurgeon</I>, says that hyperism "asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek a Saviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the Gospel must be addressed."<BR/><BR/>See <I>The Forgotten Spurgeon</I> (Banner of Truth, 1998), p. 47.Tony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89404182148678004842007-08-08T20:28:00.000-07:002007-08-08T20:28:00.000-07:00Daryl said:"As dead men, we do not possess the fac...Daryl said:<BR/><BR/>"As dead men, we do not possess the faculties necessary to comply with any of God's commands/wishes."<BR/><BR/>Ok. The spiritually dead don't possess the faculties necessary to comply. So it follows that the spiritually dead are not in the image of God as it respects their minds and wills. In fact, they don't have wills or minds. Their acts of unbelief must not be mental states and willful rebellion. I guess they are not response-able to obey God's commandments. You deny their responsibility.<BR/><BR/>Again, our being "dead" in trespasses and sins is an analogy. It's a comparison between a bodily state and a spiritual state. A bodily dead person is numb to any tender touch by loved ones. They are unresponsive and cannot perceive physical things anymore. They cannot hear. They cannot taste. Quite frankly, they stink.<BR/><BR/>In a similar way, the unbeliever, apart from efficacious grace, cannot respond to God's touching appeals and goading of the conscience. They cannot obediently hear the word of God. They cannot see the significance of the truth in Christ Jesus. They cannot and will not taste and see that the Lord is good. They are a stench in the Lord's nostrils and altogether repugnant to his Holiness. It does not entail that they lack the faculties with which to respond. To say so amounts to a denial of human responsibility. Responsibility involves being able to respond, hence response-able. The above characteristics of the spiritually dead speaks to MORAL inability.<BR/><BR/>Your formula to command all to repent but only offer Christ to sensible sinners (those showing signs of being elect by their genuine conviction and repentance) is classic hyper-Calvinism, Daryl. I know you won't like that because it suggests you are imbalanced, but it is an historically accurate label nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>Check out Robert W. Oliver's <I>History of the English Calvinistic Baptists</I> (Banner of Truth, 2006) for primary source documentation if you want. It's based on his doctoral dissertation and has a Foreward by Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin. Or, for a more expansive work, check out Dr. Curt Daniel's 900+ page doctoral dissertation on <I>Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill</I>. One can also listen to him lecture on the subject <A HREF="http://faithbibleonline.net/MP3s/The%20History%20and%20Theology%20of%20Calvinism/13%20-%20Hyper-Calvinism.m3u" REL="nofollow">HERE</A> (source page is <A HREF="http://faithbibleonline.net/page4.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>). I would strongly encourage others to get these resources as well.Tony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59072975830892218932007-08-08T12:13:00.000-07:002007-08-08T12:13:00.000-07:00"If God desires people to repent of sin, then cert..."If God desires people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2005/07/john-frame-on-will-of-god.html" REL="nofollow">John Frame, <I>The Doctrine of God</I> (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002, see pages 528-538</A>.Tony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53433113333532095922007-08-08T09:53:00.000-07:002007-08-08T09:53:00.000-07:00DDD: "God pleading for them to repent does not in ...<B>DDD:</B> <I>"God pleading for them to repent does not in any way means He desires their salvation."</I><BR/><BR/>That assertion would be incomprehensible on its face to the average person. And when you break down what you are saying, I would suggest that you come very close (if not all the way) to impugning God's sincerity.<BR/><BR/>"Desire" is an admittedly problematic term when it comes to expressing the mind of God. But let's take it as an anthropopathic expression, the same as we would the idea of the Holy Spirit's being "grieved," and we'll work with it.<BR/><BR/>Daniel, the problem you have with this stems from the fact that you seem to assume that whatever God "desires" He must decree; and you likewise seem to think if He is sovereign, He could never have any volition or preference or wish for anything to be other than it is, right?<BR/><BR/>In other words, I think you presume (quite wrongly, in my estimation) that if God <I>in any sense</I> would desire or prefer or want to see the reprobate come to repentance rather than damnation, then His sovereignty is compromised.<BR/><BR/>So then let me ask you a few questions: Is it (to borrow words from 1 Thessalonians 4:3) "the will of God . . . that [we] should abstain from sexual immorality"? Did God (in <I>any</I> sense) desire David in the OT to abstain from adultery with Bathsheba? Or, to bring it down to today, is there any true sense in which it was God's will and preference for [insert name here of any evangelical celebrity who has committed fornication] to remain pure instead?<BR/><BR/>And what is Luke 7:30 talking about when it says "Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves"?<BR/><BR/>You will get yourself into serious trouble if you define God's sovereignty in such a way that you think it's never appropriate to suggest that God has any kind of will or desire or preference whatsoever to see anything happen other than the way He decreed it.<BR/><BR/>I realize thats a difficult concept, but it is precisely why we make a distinction between the decretive and preceptive aspects of the divine will. If you accept that distinction, there's no good reason to balk at speaking of God's desire for the repentance of the reprobate. God Himself speaks in those terms often.<BR/><BR/>Back to your original statement (above): If you had said "God's pleading for them to repent does not mean He has decreed their salvation"; or "God's pleading for them to repent does not mean He desires their salvation above every other good"; or "God's pleading for them to repent does not mean He absolutely and in every conceivable sense desires their salvation"—then I would agree.<BR/><BR/>But when you say, <I>"God pleading for them to repent does not <B>in any way</B> mean He desires their salvation,"</I> you intrude where you do not belong, into the secret counsels of God.<BR/><BR/>If that which He has revealed is for us, and the secret things belong to Him (Deuteronomy 29:29), and He <I><B>says</B></I> He pleads for the repentance of the reprobate, and states emphatically that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked—then it is positively sinful to suggest that He doesn't really mean those things sincerely.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77910113146543192412007-08-08T06:02:00.000-07:002007-08-08T06:02:00.000-07:00Phil:Why must pleading for sinners to repent must ...Phil:<BR/><BR/>Why must pleading for sinners to repent must of necessity presuppose the theory of the 'well-meant offer of the Gospel'? It makes absolutely no sense! I plead for sinners to repent because God does the same, but by God pleading for them to repent does not in any way means He desires their salvation.<BR/><BR/>ynottony:<BR/><BR/>""It is also sincere or well-meant because of the following reasons:<BR/>1) We possess the faculties necessary to respond<BR/>AND<BR/>2) God truly wants compliance to those things he has commanded, which includes evangelical commands, i.e. believe and repent.""<BR/><BR/>And what bearing does the truth of both these two qualities have on the theory of the well-meant offer? I don't see why it is that God cannot want compliance to commands like repentance which He has commanded without desiring their salvation?<BR/><BR/>There is a <B>BIG</B> difference between God wanting compliance with His commands (including the command to repent) and God wanting all people to be saved (well-meant offer of the Gospel). Very big!<BR/><BR/>If anyone insists on accepting the well-meant offer of the Gospel, then the only consistent way to do so is be a neo-Amyraldian. You decide.<BR/>(http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/Gospel_proclamation.html)<BR/><BR/>Oh, btw, I am using the term 'free offer' or 'well-meant offer' according to John Murray's definition.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31120983294065904312007-08-08T05:48:00.000-07:002007-08-08T05:48:00.000-07:00Ynottony,Upon further reflection it appears to me ...Ynottony,<BR/><BR/>Upon further reflection it appears to me that your 2 points are easily disposed of:<BR/><BR/>1) As dead men, we do not possess the faculties necessary to comply with any of God's commands/wishes. Hence the need for his saving mercy. (See Jer 10:23 as I quoted earlier, Jeremiah flattly denies any ability on our part to direct any of our steps, let alone the steps towards God.)<BR/><BR/>2) The wicked "created for destruction", does God want them to obey? If he did, they would repent, for Paul in his letter to Timothy makes it plain that it is God himself who "grants repentance." Repentance not offered by the sinner, is repentance not permitted by God himself.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15495898465163359272007-08-08T05:38:00.000-07:002007-08-08T05:38:00.000-07:00Did God sincerely desire the salvation of Esau, wh...Did God sincerely desire the salvation of Esau, whom He reprobated in eternity past (Rom 9:11-13), and we are clearly told that he was one whom God hates? The Psalmist tells us clearly that God hates the "workers of iniquity" (Psa 5:5), ie. the reprobate. To paraphrase the point that David (not Ponter) made: How can it be said that God "sincerely desires" the salvation of those from which He purposely (and judiciously) withholds the only means of salvation? How can He desire that which He purposed would never occur? (And the "two wills" of God is not a sufficient answer, IMO).<BR/><BR/>Later in Romans 9 we are told of the vessels of wrath. Did God sincerely desire the salvation of these vessels whom He created for the sole purpose of raising up and displaying his wrath in? Not unless He wills against Himself.<BR/><BR/>There are numerous texts that stand against this being the slam dunk it's presented to be.<BR/><BR/>The reason why I and others would hold to this position is because: 1) we believe the Bible clearly teaches it, 2) one cannot truly understand the undeserving nature of God's grace to sinners without it, and 3) it gives a more biblically balanced view of God and His attributes. These are obviously points of disagreement.<BR/><BR/>While hyper-Calvinists may hold to this, it does not necessarily entail that one is a hyperC because they do. It is not in and of itself an impediment to evangelism for as Spurgeon said, "If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn’t I must preach 'whosoever will' and when 'whosoever' believes I know he is one of the elect." We preach and command all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, knowing that those whom God has set His affections on most certainly will.<BR/><BR/>John Owen: "We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die; God having 'made some for the day of evil' (Prov. 16:4); 'hated them before they were born' (Rom. 9:11, 13); 'before of old ordained them to condemnation' (Jude 4); being 'fitted to destruction' (Rom. 9:22); 'made to be taken and destroyed' (II Pet. 2:12); 'appointed to wrath' (I Thess. 5:9); to 'go to their own place' (Acts 1:25)" (Works, vol. 10, p. 227). "... reprobation ... [is] the issue of hatred, or a purpose of rejection (Rom. 9:11-13)" (Works, vol. 10).<BR/><BR/>A. W. Pink: "‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, ‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’ (Ps. 5:5)! ‘God is angry with the wicked every day.’ ‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God’—not ‘shall abide,’ but even now—‘abideth on him’ (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Can God ‘love’ the one on whom His ‘wrath’ abides? Again; is it not evident that the words ‘The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? ... Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is ‘without variableness or shadow of turning!’" (The Sovereignty of God).D.R. Brookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01370318162129850102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54211325889930249772007-08-08T04:50:00.000-07:002007-08-08T04:50:00.000-07:00Ynottony,I'm sorry but your distinction of abiliti...Ynottony,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but your distinction of abilities sounds like so much double-speak to me. Our lack of moral ability is not just a lack of desire, we are dead (or at least we were...) and so are unable.<BR/>The Bible seems clear to me that we are unable to respond to the gospel just as we are unable to obey the commands.<BR/>Jeremiah says this very thing in 10:23 <BR/><BR/>"I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps."<BR/><BR/>And Jesus, quoting Isaiah, with regards to why he used parables basically says "otherwise they would understand and repent". So clearly the gospel is being withheld from the perishing and they are not SIMPLY failing to respond.<BR/><BR/>Did Paul not say in Galatians (and Romans) that the primary purpose of the law was to demonstrate our inability to keep it? That is, to drive us to Christ out of our need.<BR/><BR/>I don't think we need to synthesize God saying "you must" and God saying "you can't unless I draw you".<BR/><BR/>Just as in Romans 9, where Paul tells us that is "not to him who wills or him who runs but to God who shows mercy", it seems to me that God cannot show mercy (or at least His mercy won't be percieved) unless he first gives a command/call that we cannot accept/obey without his direct intervention. <BR/>Then mercy can be seen to be merciful.<BR/><BR/>For me, the desire to see that the call is sincere, as in truly answerable, lies in my wish that God be fair. However, it is God and his mercy that is on display in the Gospel, not his "fairness".<BR/><BR/>It seems clear to me that the sincere offer is to those who repent, it is not given/offered to the unrepentant. The command (in my mind) precedes the offer.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34840375316188124042007-08-08T03:04:00.000-07:002007-08-08T03:04:00.000-07:00Ynottony,Regardless of whether or not fallen man h...Ynottony,<BR/>Regardless of whether or not fallen man has the “constitutional ability” (I have gotten a handle on what you mean by that) we are in agreement that fallen man lacks the moral ability. Which means fallen man lacks the ability, period. Which means the offer is not sincere in the usual way we use “sincere” offer. Which means, it is a command, not an offer. <BR/><BR/>We all are commanded (and some provided the means) to repent, we are not offerered. We all are are commanded to stop sinning (and some provided with the ability to choose not to sin) we are not offered. Likewise we all are commanded to embrace Christ for eternal life, and some are given the ability.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62339641382893250952007-08-07T22:55:00.000-07:002007-08-07T22:55:00.000-07:00Some are not only questioning if the gospel is an ...Some are not only questioning if the gospel is an offer, but also if it is in fact "well-meant." Why? Because they confuse the senses of "ability." Since man is "unable" to come, they conclude that God cannot be sincerely commanding all of the lost to come to him. After all, command does not imply "ability," does it? Various physical analogies are used to illustrate the point, such as blind men being commanded to describe a painting. The person lacks the eye balls (seeing faculties) to do so.<BR/><BR/>What these people and their analogies fail to distinguish between are senses of "ability." Command does imply ability in one sense, but not in another sense. If God commands us to do something, it is because we have the necessary faculties to do so. God is no Pharoah who commands people to make bricks without supplying straw. We possess minds to grasp his commands, and a will to perform his commands. So, all men have this constitutional ability to obey his commandments, since all men still have the image of God in them. What then is lacking? What is lacking is MORAL ABILITY, and not constitutional ability. The problem is man's WON'T power, and not his will power (lacking the faculty), so to speak. If God commands us to do something, that does presuppose that we have constutional ability, but not necessarily the moral willingness to do so.<BR/><BR/>All men are entirely depraved (all their faculties are tainted with sin), and therefore all men are hostile to the things of God and lack the proper affections to perform his will. Only when the Holy Spirit comes in effectual and renewing grace can we want to believe in the Son unto salvation. Our minds are illuminated and our affections are transformed. When that happens, our wills are now MORALLY FREE to act rightly and therefore we embrace Christ in evangelical obedience.<BR/><BR/>The offer would be insincere or ridiculous if we did not have the necessarily faculties with with to respond. That is not, however, the case. We possess constitutional ability. Election does not create physical barriers to our obedience. Election involves God's purpose to grant the MORAL ability to believe to some (in that sense faith is the gift of God) and to pass over others.<BR/><BR/>Thus, man's inability cannot negate the sincerity of God's gospel offer, since the inability involves man's own moral stubbornness, and not some lack of necessary faculties to respond.<BR/><BR/>The scriptural analogies where lame men are likened to our lost state are meant to illustrate our MORAL inability. They should not be pressed so far as to argue for a CONSTITUTIONAL inability. If we push the analogical language into univocal categories, we will end up arguing for the absurd view that the gospel offer is insincerely given, which is blasphemy.<BR/><BR/>The gospel is an offer, as I argued above. It is also sincere or well-meant because of the following reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) We possess the faculties necessary to respond<BR/><BR/>AND<BR/><BR/>2) God truly wants compliance to those things he has commanded, which includes evangelical commands, i.e. believe and repent.<BR/><BR/>Whoever wants to argue against the sincerity of the gospel offer must undermine the above two points. To negate the first truth, "total inability" must be pushed so far that the image of God in man is completely obliterated. To negate the second truth, one must blasphemously argue that God does not want us to comply with his commandments. That is one of the roots of antinomianism.Tony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18427032416184277922007-08-07T22:25:00.000-07:002007-08-07T22:25:00.000-07:00Beware of false dilemmas, such as:1) The gospel is...Beware of false dilemmas, such as:<BR/><BR/>1) The gospel is a command, not an offer.<BR/><BR/>The gospel is BOTH a command AND an offer. No one denies that it is at least the former, but some are confused and deny that it is also the latter. The gospel is not less than an offer, or a proposal. The statement, "if you believe, I will give you eternal life," is a conditional offer, i.e. I will give you this if you do that. So are these:<BR/><BR/>If you come to me, you will have eternal life. If you come to the water of life, you will never thirst. If you come to me as burdened and heavey laden, I will give you rest. If you look upon me as the Israelites were to look upon the lifted up serpent, you will be healed. <BR/><BR/>All of these statements are conditional (involving instrumental conditionality, <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/ynot_tony.geo/Flavel.html" REL="nofollow">which John Flavel effectively addresses</A>) promises, or proposals found in scripture. So, pointing out the truth that the gospel is a command does not negate the truth that it is also an offer.<BR/><BR/>Again, beware of false dilemmas. ALL faulty theology is ultimately grounded in some bogus either/or dilemma. <BR/><BR/>Examples:<BR/><BR/>a) God is one, not three.<BR/>b) Jesus is God, not man.<BR/>c) God is transcendent, not immanent.<BR/>d) God wrote the bible, not man.<BR/>d) We are raised with Christ already, and there is no future resurrection.<BR/>e) God loves the elect, and not the non-elect.<BR/>f) God is gracious to the elect, and not to the non-elect.<BR/>g) God wants the elect to believe and repent, and not the non-elect.<BR/>h) <A HREF="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/03/we-must-follow-men.html" REL="nofollow">We should follow God, not man</A>.<BR/>i) The gospel is a command, not an offer.<BR/><BR/>Orthodox Calvinists have always maintained that the gospel is an offer, even though it involves more than that. Take a look at some confessions here:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/01/various-confessions-and-gospel-offer.html" REL="nofollow">Various Confessions and the Gospel Offer</A>Tony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26029862652484237482007-08-07T18:11:00.000-07:002007-08-07T18:11:00.000-07:00Just thought I'd add my 2-cents here...I'm glad Ca...Just thought I'd add my 2-cents here...<BR/><BR/>I'm glad Campi mentioned that the gospel is a command and not an offer per se. (I've not been able to post today until now and have been waiting anxiously for someone to say that whilst I read). The offer is of course, "Whoever comes to me I will in no wise cast out.", not "Please come to heaven." In that way, it is genuine and sincere.<BR/><BR/>The bigger issue is, of course, the command "Repent and believe." which follows exactly along the lines of the law (which is the category I think "Repent" falls under. <BR/><BR/>Why does God command us to repent? <BR/>Two reasons : <BR/><BR/>A) To show that you can't<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>B)you can't be forgiven if you don't<BR/><BR/>Just as the decalogue was firstly a demonstration of our inability to stop sinning, not a description of how we get to heaven.<BR/><BR/>They run exactly parallel in my opinion. God says "Don't kill" knowing we will unless he prevents us.. Does that make it an insincere command?<BR/><BR/>God says "Repent", knowing we can't unless "who knows but that he may grant repentance". Does that make it an insincere command?<BR/><BR/>I seems to me that to tslk about the insincerety of the offer is to first misunderstand the command. In that way Phil nailed it. Gods loving offer of salvation is only a good starting point if the person understands the command (or their fsilings relative to any of his commands) and in that sense isn't really a start at all.<BR/>The only real start is the law and sometimes we are there to deliver that, sometimes we aren't.<BR/><BR/>We need to remember that just because it's our first time talking to someone, we're not starting anything. "Some plant, some water and some reap the increase" (or something like that.<BR/><BR/>AmI making sense?Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38773777431025146332007-08-07T15:31:00.000-07:002007-08-07T15:31:00.000-07:00Phil, our positions, I think, are closer than thos...Phil, our positions, I think, are closer than those of, say, a hyper-Calvinist and semi-Pelagian. And while I don't think Calvinism, even as eloquently as you present it, can fully extricate itself from the logical and theological problems mentioned, I fully respect your position, which is why I hang out here. Thanks letting me do so.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80741401147206169882007-08-07T15:09:00.000-07:002007-08-07T15:09:00.000-07:00P.S.: I've found a dusty old, 2004-vintage blog po...P.S.: I've found a dusty old, 2004-vintage blog post that more precisely answers your question: <A HREF="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/2004/12/calvinism-and-sincere-offer-of-gospel.html" REL="nofollow">Calvinism and the sincere offer of the Gospel</A>.<BR/><BR/>Also, questions of the sincerity of the gospel offer, etc., always seem to come up on this blog whenever certain commenters appear (who shall remain nameless, but some of them have commented on this very post). I do not speak for any of them, and have not yet been able to fully fathom where they're coming from, so am trying not to get drawn into another, broader discussion here....Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27516487064231969152007-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:002007-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:00David (not Ponter, the other David):Yes, I was rep...David (not Ponter, the other David):<BR/><BR/>Yes, I was replying to you.<BR/><BR/>The offer is sincere. The offer is of salvation and eternal life <B><I>for repentance of sins.</I></B> It is not an unconditional offer: it is conditional on repentance, and in that it is sincere. God's promise is sure—have we any reason to doubt it?<BR/><BR/>In the wrong hands, Romans 10:9 or John 3:16 is unquestionably the stuff of rank easy-believism. But taken together, they and similar passages are sure promises from the Lord that <B><I>whoever confesses and sincerely believes</B></I> that Jesus Christ is Son of God, Lord and Saviour will be saved. (And inherent in that is the doctrine of Jesus' propitiary atonement for the sins of the elect, for his birth, life, death, and resurrection are meaningless without it—so we may add as a corollary condition that of repentance for sins.)<BR/><BR/>Now, if the offer is worded, "Jesus died for YOU," that is problematic. If the offer is "You are a sinner. Jesus died to pay the ransom for the sins of those who believe," how is that not sincere? Should we doubt that God will deliver on his clear promise?Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22680034599538792002007-08-07T14:24:00.000-07:002007-08-07T14:24:00.000-07:00Camp says:Better to begin a gospel presentation wi...Camp says:<BR/><BR/>Better to begin a gospel presentation with the Law of God; the fall of man; total depravity; God's righteous demands that man is incapable of satisfying, etc. rather than love<BR/><BR/>David says: why is that better? Was Jesus' own approach then, less than better? Talking like that is the problem. There are ways and there are ways. Some contexts are better for this approach or that approach. But there is no "better" approach. Thats the confusion I am seeing.<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40996329357928324782007-08-07T14:21:00.000-07:002007-08-07T14:21:00.000-07:00I agree with PJ here. Better to begin a gospel pr...<B>I agree with PJ here.</B> <BR/><BR/>Better to begin a gospel presentation with the Law of God; the fall of man; total depravity; God's righteous demands that man is incapable of satisfying, etc. rather than love.<BR/><BR/><B>True story:</B> as a young high school student, I went with my church youth group to the mall on Saturday to pass out tracts. We used the Four Spiritual Laws tract (I know...). As I went to converse with my first passerby, I read him the first law: <I>"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."</I> He immediately responded by saying, <I>"thank you for reassuring me I'm alright."</I> He started to walk away. Taken back by his response, I followed him and asked him if he would further explain to me his reaction and if I could continue to share with him the rest of the tract? Again his response wasn't in the training class I had just gone through. He said, <I>"Why? Why do I need to hear the rest of your little tract? If God really loves me, it can't get better than that..."</I><BR/><BR/>Lesson learned.<BR/><BR/>That was the first and last time I ever used that little tract.<BR/><BR/>As Phil started his post with <I>"offer might be too mild a word for it."</I> Fully agree. The gospel is not really an offer; it is a command to repent (Luke 24:47); a call to follow Christ (Matt. 16:24-26); and a compelling (pleading) for people to be reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:18-21).<BR/><BR/>Is the love of God part of the gospel? Yes--most definitely. Consider the words of the Apostle John: <I>"In this is love, not that we loved God, but He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."</I> (1 John 4:10). God's love is always the motivating factor behind the once for propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ as our divine substitute.<BR/><BR/>However, in saying that, one interesting side note: the love of God is never mentioned one time in the entire book of Acts. That must seem strange to our postmodern American ears--but its true. When the gospel was exploding under the preaching of the Apostles and regenerating ministry of the Holy Spirit throughout the book of Acts, the primary message was not founded upon love. But the call and content began with <I>"repent and believe."</I> (i.e. see Peter's tremendous sermon in Acts 2:14-41).<BR/><BR/>As Phil has said on this thread: "Balance..." <BR/><BR/>I have always used this brief outline in proclaiming the gospel. I pray it can be an encouragement to others here today and a safeguard in avoiding cheap grace, easy believism, and a man-centered faith.<BR/><BR/><B>Principles of a Gospel Proclamation:</B><BR/>1. The Law<BR/>2. The depravity and sinfulness of man<BR/>3. Eternal judgment and punishment in Hell<BR/>4. Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ Alone<BR/>5. The vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ<BR/>6. Imputation<BR/>7. The Lordship of Christ<BR/>8. His bodily resurrection from the grave<BR/>9. And, the call to repent of sin and what it means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ<BR/><BR/>The cross is a radical thing,<BR/>Steve<BR/>Gal. 2:20-21SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.com