Arminians/non cals only respond here

Sorry for the length of this, but it seems that we continue to rehash the same issues in each generation for some reason......the whole treatise from the 1890's can be found here http://www.gospeltruth.net/harris/har_cal_toc.htm

SECTION III

Are the Gospel Invitations Sincere?

I much prefer to assume, and not to discuss this question. The very thought shocks our moral sentiments. If long entertained it not only impairs the authority of the Scriptures, but attacks and gradually undermines the very citadel of personal religion--faith in the essential righteousness of God. But there is no alternative. The issue is forced upon the student of theology by the position of the Calvinists. As it has been shown (see Chapters III. and IV. of Part I) one of the fundamental doctrines of Calvinism is the absolute omnipotence of God. In this respect all consistent Calvinists must follow in the footsteps of their great leader; as a recent writer has expressed it, "As we read the Institutes of Calvin, we see that the corner-stone of the whole structure is his doctrine of the Sovereignty of God." Hence, the logical consistency of their position that if God were so disposed he could save every soul in the world.

All modern Calvinists agree in declaring the universality of the gospel invitations. God can, but does not save all whom He invites. Consequently arises the difficulty concerning which Dr. Chalmers says "there must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere," while Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is determined to see "no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less." "The many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, 'Come,' while he knows that he can not come!" Of those to whom God does not give efficacious grace, Calvin says, "He directs his voice to them, but it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they may be made blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed."

Rev. John Sladen informs his hearers, "All that God designed to save he saves; but he actually saves some only, therefore, he designed to save only some of fallen Adam's children, for, if we consider God as infinite in wisdom, and of almighty power, there can not be a more rational way of arguing than from his acts to his designs.' This is similar to Symimgton's argument, who says in behalf of a limited atonement, "The event is the best interpreter of the divine intention." Dr. Nehemiah Adams says, "Not one more, not one less will be saved than God purposes" "God never designed to save every individual; since, if he had, every individual would and must be saved; for his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleasure."

It is now evident that if Calvinists have correctly interpreted the Scriptures, the universal invitations which constantly meet the eye of sinners, such as, "Ho, every one that thirsteth," "Come unto me all ye that labor;" "The spirit and the bride say, Come; And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst, Come, And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely," do not and can not mean what the plain, ordinary readers in all ages have understood by them.

With Justin Martyr, Ambrose and Chrysostom of the early Church, and with many thousands of modern Christians, I had ignorantly thought that the universal invitations to the gospel feast meant what they said--expressed the real sentiments and sincere desires of God. But such is not the ease--if Calvinism be correct--for while the everlasting Father does invite all through his revealed will, his secret will--his real desire is that only a certain number shall accept his overtures of mercy. Thus speaks Dr. Lyman Atwater, who says, "It results from the universality of God's decrees, as now set forth. that they who accept it, must also accept the distinction between the decretive and the preceptive will of God, i.e.., inasmuch as many things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he foreordains all things, it must be that in these cases he proposes one thing and commands another. This can not be evaded by any who admit the universality of his decrees or purposes." Commenting on Rom. ix. 19, Dr. E. D. Griffin says, "His decretive will in distinction from his preceptive--a distinction which the apostle here brings into view and does not deny, but in the context clearly affirms."

Concerning the secret will of God, Dr. Emmons declares that it "solely respects the taking place of those things which he determined from eternity should take place, without any regard to the nature of them, whether morally good or morally evil. It was his secret will that not only holiness and happiness, but that sin and misery also should take place among his intelligent creatures. It is his secret will that all the elect shall repent and believe, and that all the non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and unbelief: though he loves faith and repentance and hates impenitence and unbelief."

In the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1856 there is a Review of Toplady's Theology by Prof. Geo. N. Boardman, D.D. Wesley's great opponent says, "Although the will of God, considered in itself, is simply one and the same; yet in condescension to the present capacities of men, the Divine Will is very properly distinguished into secret and revealed. Thus it was his revealed will that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go: that Abraham should sacrifice his son; that Peter should not deny Christ; but as was proved by the event, it was his secret will that Pharaoh should not let Israel go; that Abraham should not sacrifice Isaac, and that Peter should deny his Lord." To this Professor Boardman adds, as an explanation, "It must not be inferred from this that God's will is ever contrary to itself. The secret will of God is in reality his will: while that which is revealed has reference to the various circumstances of men. The hidden will is peremptory and absolute.'' Here we have new light. It must be confessed the rays therefrom are cold, freezing cold, but it can not be denied that the truth as it is in Jesus has burst upon and overwhelmed us.

As the sincerity of Almighty Love was eluding us, as it was getting every moment less and less real, I had hoped--doubtless, with the reader, that our unerring interpreters of the Bible would leave untouched, the only remaining comfort of the non-elect, viz.: an eternal antagonism between the two Divine wills. But no; even this small hope vanishes as the truth is forced upon me that the universal invitations of the gospel are no more to be relied upon than are the dreams of a madman; for as these theologians tell us, they are in no sense the real expression of the Divine will. These invitations are made out of gracious condescension to our finite capacities: they convey no truth, they express no reality, for in all cases "the secret will of God, is in reality, his will."

The reasoning of this school of Calvinists when explaining the doctrine of a limited atonement, irresistibly leads to a flat denial of the Divine sincerity. To them it may appear reasonable and satisfactory; but to other Calvinists it does not. Thus President R. L. Dabney, while claming "that there is a just distinction between God's decretive and preceptive will," says "but let the question be stated thus: Do all the solemn and tender entreaties of God to sinners express no more, as to the non-elect, than a purpose in God, uncompassionate and merely rectoral, to acquit himself of his legislative function towards them? To speak after the manner of men, have all these apparently touching appeals after all no heart in them? We can not but deem it an unfortunate logic which constrains a man to take this view of them. How much more simple and satisfactory to take them for just what they express? evidences of a true compassion, which yet is restrained, in the case of the unknown class, the non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." The average reader will agree with Dr. Dabney that there must be some heart in the gospel invitations; that the Divine compassion for lost souls which is constantly breaking forth in such expressions as "Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" must be rooted in everlasting sincerity. But let us see if Dr. Dabney has, in any essential degree, a better solution. After declaring that "the plain Christian mind will ever stumble on this fatal question, How can a truthful and consistent God have two opposite wills about the same object?" he adds. "It is far more Scriptural, and, as we trust, has been shown, far more logical to say, that an immutable and sovereign God never had but one will (one purpose, or volition), as to this lost man; as a faithful God would never publish any other volition than the one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent for God to compassionate where he never purposed nor promised to save, because this sincere compassion was restrained within the limits God announced by his own wisdom." Certainly this is a remarkable solution. Dr. Dabney believes in, and contends for, God's real compassion for the non-elect; yet he gravely tells us that this yearning of the Father for the return of his lost children does not lead to salvation because "He never purposed nor promised to save." If this signifies anything, it must mean that the universal invitations of the gospel were never intended by God as promises to the non-elect.

 

Continued.......
True, the same language between man and man would always be understood as a promise; is so understood by every ordinary reader of the Bible throughout Christendom: but nevertheless it is all a mistake. God has never purposed nor promised to save the nonelect; he has simply announced to the world that he really pities, sincerely compassionates them. Beyond all controversy Dr. Dabney and Dr. Toplady are in the same dilemma. They simply differ in the choice of the horn on which they shall be impaled. Dr. Toplady says God's universal invitations are not real, because they are in no essential sense the expression of his will. Dr. Dabney replies, "No, you are mistaken, Dr. Toplady. Your logic is at fault; these invitations of God are sincere; they express his real compassion, you err in supposing them to be promises; that, they are not and were never intended to be.

One moment's serious thought will explode these sophisms. The universal invitations of the gospel are sincere, not only because they express God's real compassion, but because they are his promises to be fulfilled the instant the conditions are truly met. There is not one declaration within the pages of the Bible, offering peace and salvation to the troubled soul that is not a promise to any and every one who reads. As Dr. Chalmers has said: "In no place in the Bible is pardon addressed to any man on the footing that he is one of the elect; but in all places of the Bible pardon is addressed to every man on the footling that he is one of the species. On the former footing, there would be no warrant to any for the faith of the gospel, for no man knows at the commencement of his Christianity that he is one of the elect. On the latter footing, there is a distinct warrant to all, if they so choose, for the faith of the gospels for every man knows that he is one of the human race. It is most assuredly in his latter capacity and not in his former, that the calls and offers and entreaties of the gospel are brought to his door." He who was "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," who was a perfect scourge to all hypocrites, and who declared that every idle word shall be brought to judgment, meant exactly, without any qualifications or evasions whatsoever, what his words seem to mean when he said "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt. xi. 28, 29). Anything short of this is unmitigated hypocrisy.

 

Everything in God's dealing with "us" is a great "hesed". Not sure what I might have said to suggest otherwise.

 

Wow, lots to digest and ponder upon. Thanks for sharing.

 

:thumbsup::love2:

 

For you to tell people that Jesus died for sinners is a half-truth, as it implies Jesus died for ALL sinners. But you do not really believe that, you believe Jesus only died for SOME sinners. If that's what you truly believe, that is what you should tell people.

 

In my experience. If someone does not believe God loved the world that He sent His Son and He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth the way we do.

That if you don't see world and all the way they do you are not mature enough.

You are not going to convince them the way we see scripture who do believe the world and all is just that.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

You don't share meat with the unsaved. Milk is for those who are unable to handle meat, at a time when they should be. Lots of church people know lots of verses and passages, but are still on milk, as they misapply and misunderstand and misinterpret them.

 

Your first sentence said that one doesn't share meat with the unsaved. Then you described the condition of those who are on milk. Please clarify that the people on milk are not the unsaved.