GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE pt2

[Iconoclast]

in the first thread we were considering a work by Joseph Hussey.
We were asked to examine this.
Is it true?
Is it false?
Is it mostly true, but he has some error?
Is it mostly false, but he has some truth?
https://mountzionpbc.org/Duty Faith/hussey-gods-operation-of-grace-mastere-MZ.pdf.
As the first thread was derailed I will post some bold but controversial thoughts offered by Mr. Hussey

1]The erroneous and unscriptural teaching of a universal atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, inevitably leads to the equally erroneous proclamation of a universal offer of Salvation.

2]The so-called Free-offer system was another by-product of the doctrine of universal atonement.

It was the manner of preaching adapted by those men who not only believed that Christ died to save all men, but also that men by nature, possess a Free-will ability whereby they may “accept or reject” the proposed “offer” of the good news.

3]The burden of Mr. Hussey's arguments is primarily to refute the unscriptural and Christ-dishonouring system of “Free offers” indiscriminately addressed to all alike. It is truly a blasphemous presentation of Christ's “finished” redemption, offered to all who will make it Effectual by their acceptance of the proposed offer!

4]The reader will note that Mr. Hussey's arguments against Free-offers of Grace, are well undergirded with the scriptures of truth, especially those touching depravity of the human will, election, Effectual calling, and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or the new birth.

I like anyone who is willing to stand in the marketplace and make a scriptural stand.
I am hoping that he has a solid foundation.
How he applies it will provide the verdict one way or another.

If he is able to sustain his case then it would be offered as correction to infralapsarian persons.

if he cannot maintain it then he will prove to hinder the actual work of the gospel.

People who struggle with election and predestination will not be able to fully enter in to the discussion as they will be tooo busy struggling with their emotional reactions against truth to begin with

 

[Iconoclast]

He will give His efficacious blood and His Holy Spirit, after another manner, to whom He pleases. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom;

that Effectual Salvation by Christ, conveyed in the good news, must go no otherwise than according to, and shall come in no wise short of the Laws, Counsels, Settlements, and Eternal Decrees of Heaven!

Oh, now, this is Good News for me to wait under such a Gospel as comes accompanied with this powerful rod in Zion, Psal.110:2, till the Spirit of God clears it up to me, as an Effectual gift of the Grace of God upon me. ‘Tis the Gospel of the Kingdom of God,


and, therefore, not one strong lust in my heart shall master it. God's Spirit will be too hard for my unbelief, and for all my other corruptions, while I sit under this Unchangeable Gospel, which men and devils strike at it, and yet God hath said shall stand! This Gospel of the Kingdom of God and Christ satisfies me, whilst another meets with no delight in it. It makes out Salvation to me among ten thousands of men who are left to drown in sensuality, pride, covetousness, malice, and wrath; while the Gospel breaks ground, and maintains the field of battle, with the sword of the Spirit, against every false profession; and neither pulpit nor pew can stand before it!
‘Tis to me! To me a sinner! To me a vile worm! It is a melting thought within me that the Kingdom-Sceptre should be a Marriage-Sceptre unto me, which, in the hand of Christ as a Judge, is an iron sceptre unto others. {“But unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Heb.1:8. “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” Psal.2:9.} The Holy Ghost now accompanies this distinguishing Gospel, because it is Truth. But he never goes along with men's sermonizing, because it's flattery and falsehood;

He speaks of the gospel of the Kingdom, but never the idea of any means or responsibility of Christians to be used in the spread of the truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hence, when the Evangelist gives an account of the preaching of the Gospel, he tells us, that all the cities had the Gospel preached in them. Acts 8:40. Likewise it came to pass, from this Universal Kingship of the Lord Jesus, {“and hath put all things under his feet,” Eph.1:22,} that kings themselves were exhorted to submit to Christ, Psal.2:10-12, as a greater King than themselves, and were foretold they should lay their hands upon their mouths, and not utter a word against it. {“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.” Isa.52:15.} For God will have it so, or he will pull them out of their thrones as he hath not only threatened, but performed, both to Pagan and Papal monarchs. {“I will shake the heavens and the earth; and I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen.” Hag.2:21- 22.} Quite often where the Gospel of the Kingdom has been resisted, Psal.107:40, the LORD then hath destroyed the bloody instruments that did it, whilst he hath been saving his chosen by the Gospel, in giving drink, says he, Isa.43:20, “to my people, my chosen.” And whilst he has taken upon him to “avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him,” Lk.18:7, the Gospel is a Gospel of Free Grace to His elect, and in it is displayed Christ's full prerogative, both as to them and all the world besides. Thus the Lord our Righteousness, Jer.23:6, will carry it on amidst the world, even his Gospel, as the proclamation of a Sovereign and Uncontrollable King, the High Magistrate, Justice and Judge, who will have his own laws stand, and make all other laws stoop and give way to His. We must preach Christ thus; and this indeed is good news to the elect, {hid for some time amongst the rest,} to strengthen their hearts.

 

[JonC]

in the first thread we were considering a work by Joseph Hussey.
We were asked to examine this.
Is it true?
Is it false?
Is it mostly true, but he has some error?
Is it mostly false, but he has some truth?
https://mountzionpbc.org/Duty Faith/hussey-gods-operation-of-grace-mastere-MZ.pdf.

Partially true, partially false, quite a bit based on philosophical biases.

It is true that we need to be careful how we present the gospel.

It is false that the gospel is to be presented within a larger doctrine so as not to offer Christ to those who will not believe.

It is based on the author's philosophical view of election which influenced his methodology (in terms of evangelism).

The author would have done better to have adhered closer to Scripture:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[SavedByGrace]

in the first thread we were considering a work by Joseph Hussey.
We were asked to examine this.
Is it true?
Is it false?
Is it mostly true, but he has some error?
Is it mostly false, but he has some truth?
https://mountzionpbc.org/Duty Faith/hussey-gods-operation-of-grace-mastere-MZ.pdf.
As the first thread was derailed I will post some bold but controversial thoughts offered by Mr. Hussey

1]The erroneous and unscriptural teaching of a universal atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, inevitably leads to the equally erroneous proclamation of a universal offer of Salvation.

2]The so-called Free-offer system was another by-product of the doctrine of universal atonement.

It was the manner of preaching adapted by those men who not only believed that Christ died to save all men, but also that men by nature, possess a Free-will ability whereby they may “accept or reject” the proposed “offer” of the good news.

3]The burden of Mr. Hussey's arguments is primarily to refute the unscriptural and Christ-dishonouring system of “Free offers” indiscriminately addressed to all alike. It is truly a blasphemous presentation of Christ's “finished” redemption, offered to all who will make it Effectual by their acceptance of the proposed offer!

4]The reader will note that Mr. Hussey's arguments against Free-offers of Grace, are well undergirded with the scriptures of truth, especially those touching depravity of the human will, election, Effectual calling, and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or the new birth.

I like anyone who is willing to stand in the marketplace and make a scriptural stand.
I am hoping that he has a solid foundation.
How he applies it will provide the verdict one way or another.

If he is able to sustain his case then it would be offered as correction to infralapsarian persons.

if he cannot maintain it then he will prove to hinder the actual work of the gospel.

People who struggle with election and predestination will not be able to fully enter in to the discussion as they will be tooo busy struggling with their emotional reactions against truth to begin with

Why do you keep on posting this unbiblical nonsense? Another POINTLESS thread

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for continuing this interesting subject, @Iconoclast. I'm finding it very stimulating. As I've read through the posts that you've made, I feel we need to examine a little more what Hussey meant by 'offers of Christ. It is possible to 'offer Christ' in ways are that are, to day the least, unhelpful.

When I was at University many years ago as an unconverted youngster, people from the Christian Union were very diligent to tell me that Christ loved me and wouldn't I love Him back? This might be described as the 'poor Jesus' offer of Christ. Jesus is a little bit needy and a little bit lovelorn. Since He had died for me to show how much He loved me (why would dying show me that? It was never explained), surely I ought to make Him my special Friend? Well, no; I wouldn't. I couldn't see what was in it for me.

Fast-forward 20 years, and at Mrs M's insistence, we sent our two little daughters to an infant Sunday School. Once a month the church had a 'family service' where the children came out and sang a song or two to us, so that got me into church. What I saw there was two or three elderly people who plainly had something that I didn't: a contentment and an assurance that I had not seen before.
After a while, Mrs M and I were invited to a Bible Study. Here, Jesus was offered to us as a sort of life-style accessory. Believing in Jesus would make us happy for ever. Since I had seen the peace and assurance of these older people, we went for that and started attending the church regularly. It was very welcoming, and we felt very comfortable there. After a while, because we hadn't killed anyone or robbed a bank, we were asked if we wanted to be baptized. At the baptism, we were supposed to say a few words about how knowing Jesus had changed our lives.
Two or three days before the baptism, I was thinking about this and I suddenly realised that I hadn't changed a bit! I was utterly convicted of my sinful condition and I'd read enough of the Bible by then to know what I was supposed to do about that. I went down on my knees and repented before God. I believe that I was born anew at that time and when I was baptized a few days later, it was with an assurance of sins forgiven and a desire to live for Him. Neither of those things had I learned from the church.

So there. from my own experience, are two wrong ways to 'offer Christ' to the unconverted: Jesus as frustrated lover, and Jesus as life-style accessory. I have no doubt that there are other equally bad ways to 'offer' Him, but there is also surely a right way.
@Iconoclast; I don't want to disrupt your thread, so if you have more to present from Hussey, I will wait until you've done that before commenting further.

 

[JesusFan]

Partially true, partially false, quite a bit based on philosophical biases.

It is true that we need to be careful how we present the gospel.

It is false that the gospel is to be presented within a larger doctrine so as not to offer Christ to those who will not believe.

It is based on the author's philosophical view of election which influenced his methodology (in terms of evangelism).

The author would have done better to have adhered closer to Scripture:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Spurgeon had it right on this, as he stated that since he did not see God painting on the elect in yellow paint on their backs, he will preach Jesus to all and let God sort it all out!

 

[JonC]

Spurgeon had it right on this, as he stated that since he did not see God painting on the elect in yellow paint on their backs, he will preach Jesus to all and let God sort it all out!

Well, there is man's part and there is God's part. It is always good to stay in our lane.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Spurgeon had it right on this, as he stated that since he did not see God painting on the elect in yellow paint on their backs, he will preach Jesus to all and let God sort it all out!

but that is not what the Bible says!

We preach Jesus Christ to the entire human race, because it is God's desire to see every single one of these repent and trust in Jesus as their personal Saviour. It is "reformed" theology that has tried to tell God that He is wrong, and that their theology, which is not even Biblical, is right, and that God only desires that the elect are saved!

This is an affront to the God of the Bible, and an insult to the Death of Jesus Christ, who even Died for the likes of Judas!

 

[Iconoclast]

but that is not what the Bible says!

We preach Jesus Christ to the entire human race, because it is God's desire to see every single one of these repent and trust in Jesus as their personal Saviour. It is "reformed" theology that has tried to tell God that He is wrong, and that their theology, which is not even Biblical, is right, and that God only desires that the elect are saved!

This is an affront to the God of the Bible, and an insult to the Death of Jesus Christ, who even Died for the likes of Judas!

Your problems with reformed theology is not the subject of this thread.
This thread is about the pdf file.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Martin Marprelate . What you describe in your post above is what I thought Hussey meant by wrong types of offers. But from what I've read of that article Iconoclast put up it seems Hussey goes much farther. He is against any kind of proposition made to people that IF they respond to the gospel they will be saved and IF they don't they will not be saved. The idea being that you are making the salvation of folks depend upon the person and then salvation is not all of God. The "if" is emphasized in the sense that everything now hinges upon what the person does. I came across Owen writing on this and he seemed to explain this by saying basically that as a good Calvinist, you believe that when God's Spirit moves on someone (who is elect by the way), it is an inevitable fact that they will respond and believe the gospel. Their response of faith and repentance are "conditions" in the sense that without them happening they are not saved - but they are not conditions in the sense that everything hinges on the persons decision. According to Owen it is going to happen because of God. I could be wrong on this but I'm trying to sort this all out. I have not read much of this type of writing (Hussey).

I fully agree with you and I'm sure Hussey would agree that the modern tendency to offer God as an improver of your marriage or an assistant in giving you a happier, healthier life is totally wrong. Not to mention the techniques used like telling moving stories or using music to create a mood to get a decision. But from what I've read of the article it seems Hussey goes way further than that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your problems with reformed theology is not the subject of this thread.
This thread is about the pdf file.

My response is to what JesusFan said

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for continuing this interesting subject, @Iconoclast. I'm finding it very stimulating. As I've read through the posts that you've made, I feel we need to examine a little more what Hussey meant by 'offers of Christ. It is possible to 'offer Christ' in ways are that are, to day the least, unhelpful.

When I was at University many years ago as an unconverted youngster, people from the Christian Union were very diligent to tell me that Christ loved me and wouldn't I love Him back? This might be described as the 'poor Jesus' offer of Christ. Jesus is a little bit needy and a little bit lovelorn. Since He had died for me to show how much He loved me (why would dying show me that? It was never explained), surely I ought to make Him my special Friend? Well, no; I wouldn't. I couldn't see what was in it for me.

Fast-forward 20 years, and at Mrs M's insistence, we sent our two little daughters to an infant Sunday School. Once a month the church had a 'family service' where the children came out and sang a song or two to us, so that got me into church. What I saw there was two or three elderly people who plainly had something that I didn't: a contentment and an assurance that I had not seen before.
After a while, Mrs M and I were invited to a Bible Study. Here, Jesus was offered to us as a sort of life-style accessory. Believing in Jesus would make us happy for ever. Since I had seen the peace and assurance of these older people, we went for that and started attending the church regularly. It was very welcoming, and we felt very comfortable there. After a while, because we hadn't killed anyone or robbed a bank, we were asked if we wanted to be baptized. At the baptism, we were supposed to say a few words about how knowing Jesus had changed our lives.
Two or three days before the baptism, I was thinking about this and I suddenly realised that I hadn't changed a bit! I was utterly convicted of my sinful condition and I'd read enough of the Bible by then to know what I was supposed to do about that. I went down on my knees and repented before God. I believe that I was born anew at that time and when I was baptized a few days later, it was with an assurance of sins forgiven and a desire to live for Him. Neither of those things had I learned from the church.

So there. from my own experience, are two wrong ways to 'offer Christ' to the unconverted: Jesus as frustrated lover, and Jesus as life-style accessory. I have no doubt that there are other equally bad ways to 'offer' Him, but there is also surely a right way.
@Iconoclast; I don't want to disrupt your thread, so if you have more to present from Hussey, I will wait until you've done that before commenting further.

Your comments are always welcome and getting at the OP.
We are trying to give a reasonable presentation of Mr. Hussey's view, before cracking down on it.
On pt1 we suggested that much of the issue will be found between chapters 5-9 where Mr. Hussey anticipated objects to his position and began to offer his bi local defense.

 

[Iconoclast]

My response is to what JesusFan said

Ok...I will crack down on him next.

 

[Iconoclast]

Spurgeon had it right on this, as he stated that since he did not see God painting on the elect in yellow paint on their backs, he will preach Jesus to all and let God sort it all out!

While I enjoy Spurgeon he is not the subject of this thread.
We are looking for interaction directly with the position Mr.Hussey is offering.

 

[JesusFan]

in the first thread we were considering a work by Joseph Hussey.
We were asked to examine this.
Is it true?
Is it false?
Is it mostly true, but he has some error?
Is it mostly false, but he has some truth?
https://mountzionpbc.org/Duty Faith/hussey-gods-operation-of-grace-mastere-MZ.pdf.
As the first thread was derailed I will post some bold but controversial thoughts offered by Mr. Hussey

1]The erroneous and unscriptural teaching of a universal atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, inevitably leads to the equally erroneous proclamation of a universal offer of Salvation.

2]The so-called Free-offer system was another by-product of the doctrine of universal atonement.

It was the manner of preaching adapted by those men who not only believed that Christ died to save all men, but also that men by nature, possess a Free-will ability whereby they may “accept or reject” the proposed “offer” of the good news.

3]The burden of Mr. Hussey's arguments is primarily to refute the unscriptural and Christ-dishonouring system of “Free offers” indiscriminately addressed to all alike. It is truly a blasphemous presentation of Christ's “finished” redemption, offered to all who will make it Effectual by their acceptance of the proposed offer!

4]The reader will note that Mr. Hussey's arguments against Free-offers of Grace, are well undergirded with the scriptures of truth, especially those touching depravity of the human will, election, Effectual calling, and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or the new birth.

I like anyone who is willing to stand in the marketplace and make a scriptural stand.
I am hoping that he has a solid foundation.
How he applies it will provide the verdict one way or another.

If he is able to sustain his case then it would be offered as correction to infralapsarian persons.

if he cannot maintain it then he will prove to hinder the actual work of the gospel.

People who struggle with election and predestination will not be able to fully enter in to the discussion as they will be tooo busy struggling with their emotional reactions against truth to begin with

Jesus stated to us in the great Commission to take his good news to all peoples and nations, not just to give to the "elect"

 

[JonC]

The so-called Free-offer system was another by-product of the doctrine of universal atonement.

This is an incorrect assumption. The "free-offer system" was, and is, held by some Calvinists and many non-Calvinists who reject universal atonement (atonement being defined as the individual atonement realized).

 

[JonC]

Jesus stated to us in the great Commission to take his good news to all peoples and nations, not just to give to the "elect"

Here's an old illustration:

A ailing father has two sons, one good and the other evil.
On his death bed the good son prays that God heal his father.
The evil son prays that his father die so that he may get his inheritance.
The father died.

It was God's will that the father die.

Who did God's will - the evil son who prayed his father would die or the good son who prayed for healing?


The implication of the article is at least the good son was wrong to pray for something other than God's will. Even if the good son prayed "God willing", there is the issue (from the perspective of the article) that the good son desired God's will not be done and his father be healed.

The evil son, however, was (again, in line with the article) desiring God's will in that God had planned the father's death.

We have to stay in our lane.

 

[JesusFan]

This is an incorrect assumption. The "free-offer system" was, and is, held by some Calvinists and many non-Calvinists who reject universal atonement (atonement being defined as the individual atonement realized).

ALL Calvinists save for Hyper ones hold that the offer is made legit to all, but no real Calvinist holds that one can be saved by own free will period!

 

[JonC]

ALL Calvinists save for Hyper ones hold that the offer is made legit to all, but no real Calvinist holds that one can be saved by own free will period!

Some would insist that the elect are the only ones for whom Christ died while others view Christ's death as hypothetically available to all (an empty offer).