WMO = well-meant offer, or woolly-minded offer?

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.

The Well-Meant Offer: Its Logical Consistency

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.

Is that what your read? Did you read rightly?

What did you read?
Did you read INTO the text?

This meme strikes me as an apt illustration of the common phenomenon in christendom: people handling the same raw data, but end up with diametrically opposite conclusions.

The way a man looks at a subject is often, to a great degree, determined by his prejudices.

For example, two devout students of the Bible can study the exact same Bible but they end up with vastly different conclusions.

For whom did Christ die:

- One says Christ Jesus died for ALL men and made salvation possible for all men, and that salvation is offered to all.

- The other says He died only for His people and actually saved them to the uttermost, and this salvation is sovereignly bestowed to each of them.

(Others come up with the brilliant idea of "sufficient for all, efficient for them that believe, one leg in each boat!)

The divinely ordained purpose of the gospel:

- One says the gospel ministry is the means to offer salvation to those without salvation, i.e. still dead in their trespasses and sins.

- The other says the gospel ministry is the means to call those whom God has freely and sovereignly bestowed salvation to believe the truth of their salvation in Jesus Christ.

(Both the arminians and their cousins calvinists believe the former; a few RBs say BOTH, the former as well as the latter.)

Is this a conditional offer or a statement of fact:

- One says "whosoever believes has eternal life" is a conditional offer of eternal life (obviously to those without it, i.e. dead in trespasses and sins) that if they will believe, they shall receive eternal life.

- The other says "whosoever believes has eternal life" is a declarative statement about the believing ones, i.e. they have eternal life, freely bestowed by God when they were dead in trespasses and sins.

(Both the arminians and their cousins calvinists believe the former.)

The just shall live by faith:

- One says this is a statement on how the unjustified (i.e. in his native state of condemnation) is justified by God, he is justified by God by his faith in Jesus Christ. A man's faith is the instrument to get him justified before God.

- The other says this is statement on the conduct of the just, i.e. those who have been freely justified by God, that they shall live by faith, and not by trusting in their works. A man's faith is an evidence of the justified state.

(Both the arminians and their cousins calvinists believe the former.)

Many other examples can be cited but the few examples above is ample to prove the point.  The two are a world apart, as far apart as are "God is no where" and "God is no here."

However, they have one thing in common in SOUND only; both claim to believe in salvation by grace alone, EVEN THOUGH they actually believe quite different gospels.

Conclusion:
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 –

Mighty Apollos was taught by an ordinary couple

A couple taught by the Apostle Paul ministered to Apollos,
and taught him the gospel more perfectly.
And this mighty man was humble to be taught.

A mighty man greatly helped by one ordinary couple and increased in his usefulness.

Acts 18:

24 ¶ And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

 28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Lessons:

1. Even great men like Apollos, are deficient in some doctrine and has a need to learn!

2. Even ordinary folks can teach great men some truth!

3. Humility to learn the truth is blessed with increases in one's usefulness!

Caution:

- don't assume men with DD or Th.D got things all figured out. Not a few are self-conceited. Apollos didn't and wasn't.

- don't be intimidated by their august title and letters after their names. They, if humble like Apollos can learn a few things from commoners like Priscilla and Aquila who were taught by the Apostle Paul. Few have such humility and teachable spirit.

The Lord had abundant mercy to me, granting me much grace to see and admit the many contradictions and fictions in the things I was taught and believed as a reformed baptist for nearly 20 years.

But of God

John 1

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"not of blood"

God produces His own children; He has no grandchildren. A man's bloodline is irrelevant in this matter.

"nor the will of the flesh"

The will of a man in his native state is in enmity against God; he is utterly unable to aid in any way towards his new birth. A man's own will is more than worthless in his new birth; it is in enmity against God.

"nor the will of man"
 the will of man, of any fellow human, is completely ruled out too, even that of the most eloquent preachers, erudite theologians, devoted parents, etc.

The new birth is solely, wholly and completely by the free and sovereign act of God ALONE, yes, alone. Human role is absolutely and thoroughly excluded. This statement of exclusion will infuriate many!

But many, both arminians and their cousins calvinists, insist on the will of man being involved in the regeneration of sinners dead in trespasses and sins, in the form of preachers and their preaching, as being absolutely necessary means in regeneration. Their mantra is, no preaching, no regeneration; preaching and regeneration are two sides of the same coin, along with the fable that regeneration and conversion are two sides of the coin, they are inseparable twins.

Of them, Paul would say,

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1Co 14:38

A revealing exchange with some RBs

An example of a mutated tulip

An interesting exchange with some reputable and renowned RBs.
Names have been altered. Don't worry about the names.
Read what the various RBs do believe.

Gonzila
April 25 at 12:06pm
I like the Calvinist who can affirm limited atonement (in terms of efficacy) and yet declare the following: "Go and tell every man, without exception that here is the good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him; and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him." ~ Edward Fisher
(18 Likes) 

 Sing F Lau
"and if he will take him; and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him..."
=====
So the Calvinist that you like believes that
- a man without the righteousness of Christ is able to take of Christ and accept Christ's righteousness, and when he does that, Christ shall save him.

So, a man whom Christ has not saved is capable of performing those conditions in order to be saved?

So, a man without Christ's righteousness is able to take of Christ and accept Christ's righteousness. But a man without the righteousness of Christ, APPLIED to him freely and sovereignly by God, is a man still under condemnation and death. How could such a man be able to meet such condition to be saved?

Daniel S
What Dr. Gonzila is saying comes from John 6:35, 37, and 44. In 35 Jesus says that whoever comes to him will be saved. In 37 Jesus Says that All that the father gives to him will come and that he will never drive away any that come. And in 44 Jesus says that none can come to him unless the father draws him.

He likes the Calvinist (affirming vs 44) who emphasizes the truth that anyone who comes to Christ will find him to be a perfect savior (vs 35). That doesn't diminish the fact that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father (vs 44) but instead emphasizes that men must come to Christ.

Sing F Lau
John 6:35 "
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
=======
Is Jesus Christ making a declaration of truth, or is he making an offer of salvation to those without salvation?

John 6:37,44:
The drawing by the Father (effectual call of an elect out of his native state of sin and death) is separate and distinct and PRIOR to a man coming to Christ in the gospel call. The effectual call enables a man to come to Christ in the gospel call. An elect is completely passive in the effectual call, but he is summoned to believe the truth of his salvation (ALREADY APPLIED to him freely and sovereign by God) in the gospel call.

There are two distinct comings spoken of.

Take a look here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/2014/03/the-two-comings-to-christ.html

Ray
The Whole Christ by Sinclair Ferguson.
A (the?) most significant book of our lives and times and doctrinal pursuit of tangible religion properly communicated to the masses. It changed the freeness of the gospel offer in my preaching to inmates at the local prison. It emboldens the gospel offer or presentation by a fresh focus of the gospel in Christ alone. Thomas Boston was right to fight.

Tom
Sing F Lau Your rebuttal is - with all respect - so superficial. A Cage Stage Calvinists knows that ability is not the level of responsibility. You said you have read Dabney, but he answers your objections so thoroughly that it is embarrassing to see you still posit them as if this is new and no one has ever seen what you are stating and answered it before. I will post the link again. And though I despair that you will read it, it may assist others here who are reading your objections that the can answer them. http://www.romans45.org/dabney/mercy.htm

[I don't know why he deleted his comment! - may be it is patronising and condescending!]

Sing F Lau
Tom, with the same mutual respect, you are barking up the wrong tree. (I was just asking questions, no rebuttal yet!) The issue is not on ability and responsibility. I was pointing out the absolute necessity of divine activity of salvation preceding, and independent of human activity.

A man's responsibility is determined by the terms of the covenant to which he is a party.

I was asked, and replied thus:
1. Does a man's inability void his lawful duty?
A man's inability to perform certain duty does not void his lawful duty. A man, though dead in trespasses and sins, is not exempted from his lawful duty and obligation toward God his Creator. When God made man, God made him very good... he had the full ability and power of moral choice and free will to fulfill his lawful duty owe to God his Creator - to render obedience to God. A man's inability to discharge his lawful duty towards his Creator is self-inflicted by his free will rebellion against his Creator.

All men being sinners are under obligation to repent towards God His creator. NO single sinner has any right to remain in sin. Every single sinner is under divine obligation to repent and turn from his sin.

A man's LAWFUL duties are defined by the terms of the covenant to which he is a party!

All of God's creatures are bound by the terms of the covenant of creation.

All of God's redeemed are bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption!

Sing F Lau
Here is the answer to a related question:
2. What determines a man's duty to believe in Christ?
A man's duties are defined by terms of the covenant to which he is a party! His duty is not determined by his own inability or ability.

Only those embraced in the covenant of redemption are required by the terms of that covenant to believe Christ as their Redeemer.

All the children of God (elects that have been regenerated) are duty-bound to repent and believe in the gospel of their salvation. They are God's redeemed bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption. God's redeemed are duty-bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption to repent and believe in their Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ... because Christ is their Redeemer... it is their covenant duty to believe the truth of their salvation by Christ.

I do believe all God's children ALONE are under divine obligation to repent and believe in their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He is their Lord and Saviour. Upon the basis of His life and death, they have been justified, regenerated and adopted. They are children first by God's free grace, then they are called to believe the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, Eph 1:13.

Why would anyone imagine that others are under the divine obligation to believe Christ as Saviour when Christ is not even the Saviour of all men? Why are others duty-bound to believe Christ as their Saviour when Christ did not give Himself as the Saviour of all men? That would amount to God put some men under divine obligation to believe a big fat lie!

It is contrary to God's character for God put any man under divine obligation to believe a lie - i.e. to believe that Christ is their Saviour when He had assuredly decreed that Christ is not their Saviour.

from here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/2012/10/damnable-heresy-4-considered_1.html
Damnable Heresy 4: Considered
If you wish to comment, go to this link:
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau?ref=tn_tnmn#!/photo.php?fbid=3713902601625&set=a.1182086067794.2026451.1097484914&type=1

Brock
 // Why would anyone imagine that others are under the divine obligation to believe Christ as Saviour when Christ is not even the Saviour of all men? Why are others duty bound to believe Christ as their Saviour when Christ did not give Himself as the Saviour of all men? That would amount to God put some men under divine obligation to believe a big fat lie! //

Sing, I would offer that the Bible teaches that humankind in general, without distinction into categories of elect or non-elect, has the moral obligation to respond to the gospel call, not only the elect. As the scriptures say "many are called, but few are chosen".

Sing F Lau

"many are called, but few are chosen..."
======
That's taken from a parable of the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 22:14)
That should give you a clue what this is about.
So many of God's children among the Jews were called by the gospel ministry, few are chosen to enjoy its blessings. The rest were blinded. (Remember, those dead in trespasses and sins need no blinding; they are blind enough!

Another instant in Mat 20:16 (another parable of the kingdom of heaven)
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

Here, it is many are called to serve and labour in the Lord's vineyard, few are chosen to be the apostles.

Parables of the kingdom of heaven tell us something about the kingdom of heaven; not how those outside the kingdom get INTO the kingdom.

That parable was told in response to the oblique COMPLAINT of the apostles "... we have forsaken all blah blah blah... what shall we have therefore.

The parable rebukes them, "It is enough that you are the few chosen ones; you are apostles. Isn't that enough?"

I hope this helps.

Gonzila
Sing, with all respect I cannot agree when you write: //Why would anyone imagine that others are under the divine obligation to believe Christ as Saviour when Christ is not even the Saviour of all men?//

In fact, the apostle Paul plainly affirms there's a sense in which Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10, ESV).

Sing F Lau

Thanks, Dr Gonzila.
"... who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”

God purposed eternal redemption for His people.
Christ secured the same eternal redemption for the same people.
The Spirit of God applies that eternal redemption to each elects personally at God's appointed and approved time.

The gospel ministry is ordained to proclaim that good news to them that ARE SAVED.

1Co 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Them that are saved - those to whom God the Spirit has applied that eternal redemption personally - who believe the gospel are saved by the ministry of the gospel.

The salvation by the life and works of Christ and the salvation by the ministry of the word are distinct and different. In the former, His people are entirely passive, saved to the uttermost; in the latter, God their Father summons them to believe the truth of their salvation by God's free and sovereign grace. Believing the truth of their salvation SAVES them from fables, lies, falsehood, grants them assurance, comfort, peace, etc; teaching them to deny ungodliness, etc Titus 2:11-12.

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

Concerning "who is the Saviour of all people," these two passages will give you the Bible's own interpretation:

Rev 5:9 "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

Rev 14:6 "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people."

Brock

// The gospel ministry is ordained to proclaim that good news to them that ARE SAVED. //

I disagree, Sing. The gospel is to be proclaimed without distinction to both the elect and the non-elect. It is a genuine and good offer, even for those who do not receive its benefits.

// Concerning "who is the Saviour of all people," these two passages will give you the Bible's own interpretation: //

Well, he is the Savior of all people in the sense that he is the Savior of every kind of person, without distinction. There is no obstacle to salvation to any people group in the world, in contrast to the understanding of many during NT times who supposed that God only had favour for certain ethnic group(s).

Sing F Lau
It is obvious that we disagree. That's fine.
I read of Christ repeated and emphatic instruction to the recommissioned Apostles, reminding them of their calling.
"FEED my lambs... FEED my sheep... FEED my sheep."
Many think they help to turn goats into sheep, others think they help God produce sheep.

Jesus said "FEED my sheep " The activity of FEEDING has to do with the living, i.e. God's children, the elect that has been regenerated freely and sovereign by God, born of God, those that ARE SAVED; Christ's sheep. I'm no deep theologian, a simple farmer.

There are sincere folks trying to feed the dead with milk and honey. The Chinese offer roast pork and peking duck to the death!
I agree with your take on "all people."

=============

Exchanges found here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1689fellowship/permalink/1182903028503885/