 |
| The filial Chinese sincerely offering roast pig to the dead; even so, misguided preachers well-meaningly offer salvation to those dead in trespasses and sins. |
Some exchanges on the well-meant offer of salvation to those dead in trespasses and sins in the gospel proclamation.
Bob
Some allege the free or well-meant offer of the gospel is logically inconsistent. To affirm that God desires the salvation of all men (including the non-elect) but only decrees the salvation of some (the elect) is to posit a real contradiction, they say. I attempt to answer this charge in the post below.
Having framed the question of and summarized the objections to the well-meant offer of the gospel, we're prepared to defend the doctrine. And our first argument pertains to the doctrine's logical consistency. Claiming that God desires the salvation of a…
Stuart
I see the free offer/proclamation of the gospel; I do not see that as the same thing as "the well-meant offer" - which I do not find. I look forward to your next installment.
Rob
Will you address this in your next installment, Dr. G? I think this is a valid comment.
Bob
I think Deuteronomy 5:29, which I reference in the article above, actually affirms that God desires the saving good of those who never experience that good. Of course, there are those who attempt to resist that conclusion by offering other interpretations of the passage. But, as I'll show in a future installment on that text, their alternate readings are exegetically implausible and, I think, untenable.
I'll also look at a number of other passages--OT and NT--that support that notion that God's posture toward all men indiscriminately is salvific.
Bob
Thanks for taking the time to read the articles, Stuart.
Rob
Question: Is desiring something and meaning the offer from that desire the same thing, Dr. Bob?
Bob
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. There are some who believe God really offers the gospel to the non-elect but who deny that God in any sense desires the non-elect to comply with the terms of the gospel since that would conflict with his decree. In my opinion, you can't genuinely offer a gift you're not genuinely willing to give.
Brock
Stuart, one can get a good picture on what so many orthodox reformed theologians meant by today's term "Well Meant Offer" by reading here:
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7230
Calvin and Calvinism » The Well-Meant Offer
CALVINANDCALVINISM.COM
Stuart
Bob I think the difference is that we who make the offer have no knowledge of whom God has chosen. We are unable to judge this; barely able to make a credible determination of another brother's credible confession of belief. So we can freely preach the gospel to all, commanding all to repent and believe, knowing those given ears to hear will also be given the faith to accept His gift.
Rob
Dr. Bob, I agree. And I'm only asking this for my own sake in being able to answer others.
The distinction I think comes between desire that people not perish, and actually offering the non-elect a well-meant offer. I've heard people charge that for God to truly offer salvation through the gospel to people he doesn't ever intend to effectually save, is to question whether said offer is truly "well-meant." On the one level, as you point out, He may desire good things because good things (like people's eternal security) are worthy to be desired, but does that mean that His general desire for goodness logically must manifest itself in an actual offer of salvation that He actually means? Or is this, as they say, simply to leave them doubly without excuse?
Rob
Let me ask it this way:
To me, "well-meant" conveys more than just desire. It conveys intent. It's that "intent," not the desire, that I think is questioned by naysayers.
Bob
Stuart, I'm familiar with the distinction you posit. It's one advocated by John Gill and, more recently, Paul Helm. Helm refers to it as "blind compassion." The concept might be valid if it were the case that God had not disclosed his disposition toward fallen humans (elect and non-elect). But in fact, I contend that God has revealed to us his disposition towards even those who never receive the gospel. That disposition is one of desiring them to comply with the terms of the gospel that they might be saved (see Romans 2:4). This is why Paul viewed his compassion toward the lost not only as an image of God's own compassion but, more importantly, as an instance of God pleading with sinners (whether elect or non-elect) to be reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:20). And it will not do, as I hope to show in future posts, to say God "feigns" such a desire or that he's merely "speaking after the manner of men." Just as the offer is bona fide, so the desire behind the offer is bona fide. If that's where the data of Scripture points us (I believe it is), then to Scripture we must bow.
Bob
Rob I don't have any problem with using "intent" or "desire" to signify God's disposition toward sinners indiscriminately (whether elect or not). Of course, I believe God is capable of having more than one intention or desire. But according to Romans 2:4, God designs his common grace with the "intention" of leading those who ultimately reject the gospel to repentance. BTW, even Reformed and Puritan authors were willing to speak of God's general desire for the salvation of fallen humanity in terms of "intent." Sometimes they even used the language of "longing."
Stuart
Bob Thanks for your reply. I look forward to the next article.
Rob
This is excellent, Dr. Bob. Very helpful.
Sing
Dr Bob, thanks for the interesting article.
I hope to review it later. This line caught my attention:
" In my opinion, you can't genuinely offer a gift you're not genuinely willing to give."
===========
On its own, it is a good moral statement. Anything less would be brass faced hypocrisy.
In the context of salvation and the gospel ministry, may I ask:
- To whom is the gift genuinely offered?
- Who do you expect to genuinely accept the offer?
- Them that are perishing or them that are saved? (If there is a third category, let us know.)
I hope these are fair questions.
1Cor 2:8 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
[When the gospel come to them that are saved, it is perceived as a message declaring the power of God in salvation; the same is perceived as foolishness to them that are perishing.]
Does God offer salvation to a man (one obviously without salvation) through the preaching of the gospel, or
Does God freely and sovereign effectually call a man out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation in Jesus Christ, and calls him to believe the truth of that salvation through the gospel ministry?
The issue involved is the purpose of the gospel ministry:
is the means to offer salvation to sinners dead in trespasses and sins, or is it the means to call them that are saved (effectually called by God already) to believe the truth of their salvation by God's free grace?
Thanks.
Brock
// I hope these are fair questions. //
Hi brother Sing; I think there are interesting questions around this topic. But could I add a few to the list?
* where in the Holy Scriptures do those who proclaim the gospel of Christ do so in a manner that partitions or distinguishes among the hearers? The exegetical example of proclaimers sharing the good news with elect and non-elect alike without distinction seems to be overwhelmingly in support of the "well-meant offer".
* what must the reformed believer do in good conscience with the texts that seem to explicitly support the offer? Rather than dismissing them as if the Bible does not indicate a well meant offer, opponents of the WMO need to present exegetical support that would indicate gospel proclaimers always made such a elect/non-elect distinction with their ministries, or scriptural support that indicates that such is the ideal.
It is not a sufficient theology to refute the WMO by looking at the evidence provided by the reformers who support the WMO and contemptuously dismiss it; those against the WMO must provide their own account, their own exegetical support, and build their own case; including a response to the data presented by the pro WMO crowd.
Sing
where in the Holy Scriptures do those who proclaim the gospel of Christ do so in a manner that partitions or distinguishes among the hearers?
========
Thanks for your question.
Your question presupposes the idea that the preacher has ability to know that there are elect in his audience, plus the ability to distinguish them from the non-elect. This is obviously a false presupposition. Probably the reverse argument of the false assumption explains for the well-meant offer: since a preacher cannot distinguish, therefore the salvation must be offered to all indiscriminately!
(It is an error to even believe that salvation is offered!!! Salvation purposed by God and secured by Christ is freely and sovereignly APPLIED to each elect personally when that elect is still dead in trespasses and sins. It is not offered, and needing to be accepted! It is amazing that such fable is even believed by the reformed people!)
The Apostles' commission involves specifically the feeding of Christ's lambs and sheep, John 21. They were specifically told the nature of their calling and ministry - feeding Christ's lambs and sheep.
They were to make disciples. They knew that disciples can only be made out of God's children, the elect whom God has effectually called out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus. They knew that only God's children can be taught and shown the truth of the gospel, the good news of their salvation.
Do the Apostles need to be able to distinguish the elect from the non-elect to know that their work is specifically for the lambs and sheep of Christ?
I said before, but it has been ignored or overlooked. Here is Apostle Paul description of his ministry:
2Tim 2:10 "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
Apostle Paul knew: it was for the elect's sakes. Did he have the ability to distinguish the elect and the non-elect in his audience? Is that even necessary?
Sing
* what must the reformed believer do in good conscience with the texts that seem to explicitly support the offer? Rather than dismissing them as if the Bible does not indicate a well-meant offer, opponents of the WMO need to present exegetical support that would indicate gospel proclaimers always made such an elect/non-elect distinction with their ministries or scriptural support that indicates that such is the ideal.
===========
Another good question, but based on a wrong presupposition.
You suppose those texts involve offering salvation to those dead in trespasses and sins.
There are hosts of texts that offers spiritual blessings to God's children who will do the will of God, saving them from all sorts evil consequences in this life.
There is a salvation which Christ has completely and perfectly secured, and then applied by the Spirit to us. There is a salvation that we must work out for ourselves in fear and trembling, in obedience to the Father's will. The offer is made in this context.
That is not the same as offering the salvation (which Christ secured for His people) to those dead in trespasses and sins.
a biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Sing
WMO.... it took me a while to connect that as a well-meant offer. I thought it is a weapon of mass obliteration!
Maybe it represents woolly minded offer. ;-)
I have presented Scriptures to you, plain Scriptures making plain statements.
Brock
Sing F Lau // This redemptive fact explains "all nations... every creature." //
Opponents of the Well Meant Offer consistently fail to provide exegetical support for a partitioned proclamation. They generally seem to argue against WMO in that it doesn't fit the categories of their systematic theology. But conclusions based on ST do not overturn the data provided by exegetical theology. And the exegetical data is a non-distinguished gospel proclamation without any encumbering restrictions.
Sing
Gospel proclamation, in the nature of the case, is non-distinguishing. To say otherwise is to presuppose the fictional ABILITY to distinguish them that are saved and them that are perishing (1Cor 1:18t). That is just a red herring. Just because gospel proclamation is non-distinguishing does not alter the purpose and intent of the gospel proclamation: to declare the good news of what God has done, and calling upon the recipients to believe the truth of their salvation.
That is completely different from the woolly-minded offer of salvation (obviously to those without salvation, i.e. still dead in trespasses and sins.)
There many passages that offer blessings based upon the obedience of God's children to God's will. But this in COMPLETELY different from the WMO's fiction/fable (2Tim 4:4) of salvation to those dead in trespasses and sins.
God sovereignly and freely applies the salvation, that He had purposed and Christ has accomplished, to an elect while he is dead in trespasses and sins; God does not offer salvation. If He does, NONE is capable of accepting the offer in order to be saved.
I was converted an RB while a student at Sydney University, continued in it as a pastor for 20+ years, and the gracious Lord opened my eyes... Amen.
Sing
Let me end with this:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." - Leo Tolstoy –
Bob
Mr Sing F Lau, it's possible I'm not understanding the point of your dichotomies, that is, the "either ... or" options. As I read Scripture, I would answer your questions as "both ... and." That's how I understand the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.
Sing F Lau
Thanks, Dr Bob.
So, you believe that the purpose of the gospel ministry BOTH
- the means to offer salvation to sinners dead in trespasses and sins,
- and also the means to call them that are saved (effectually called by God already) to believe the truth of their salvation by God's free grace.
I always consider that approach as a smart position to take - you got both covered.
Jesus Christ said He came to save HIS people.
Jesus Christ commissioned His Apostles to feed His lambs and sheep. I didn't read Him instructing them to offer spiritual food to the dead so that they may accept the well-meant offer and eat and live. Feeding presupposes dealing with the living, those already effectually called out of their native state of sin and death. (The superstitious Chinese offer roast pig and peking ducks, hot-dogs, etc to their dead.)
Sing F Lau
Dr Bob,
I was just musing a bit. When you expressed this,
" In my opinion, you can't genuinely offer a gift you're not genuinely willing to give," (I think it is an excellent opinion, anything less is just sheer hypocrisy)
- did you have only the living, or BOTH the living AND the dead, in mind?
I hope I understand you rightly that you have only the living in mind.
