The Free Offer Of The Gospel

[Iconoclast]

On another thread SBG raised questions about what has been historically known as the
Free Offer of the Gospel.
Does it exist?
What is it?
Does Election have anything to do with the free offer?
Is the offer sincere?

 

[Reformed1689]

Need to define terms first.

 

[Iconoclast]

Does Not God Have the Right to Do Whatever He Likes With His Own?


When you ask an Arminian friend if it would just if God left us all in our sin and saved no one, most answer yes, we are sinners and justly deserve God's wrath. But then turn around and ask, if God decided to pardon a number of these ill deserving sinners, but gave over the others to the justice they deserve, these same people suddenly cry out "that makes God unfair". Yet how can the former be okay in their eyes, but not the later? Does not God have the right to do what He wants with His grace? And are not those rebels getting their just deserts? If He were somehow obligated to give it to all, it would no longer be grace now would it?

Remember we indiscriminately cast the seed of the gospel to all people. God is holding no one back from believing. Their rejection of Christ and His gospel is completely willful and voluntary. They will not have Christ rule over them. Yet God still has mercy on many such rebels, giving them eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe.

(1 Cor 1:23-24, 29-31, 2:14, 12:3, 1 Thess 1:4-5, Rom 9:15-16, Eph 2:1, 5, 8-9, John 6:37, 63-65)
from Reformation Theology

 

[Iconoclast]

The Free Offer of the Gospel - The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION
The gospel is freely offered to all people, regardless of whether or not they are elect, able to respond in their sin nature, included in the doctrine of the particular atonement, etc.; the free offer of election to man is not at odds with the sovereign election and omniscience of God.


There are several theological reasons offered for denying the free offer of the gospel. The first stems from the accepted doctrine of total depravity—total inability, to be more specific.
If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty?

Is the sinner under obligation to repent if he, in fact, cannot repent?

Can the sinner be counted responsible to do something he is unable to do?
Stated precisely, does inability entail absence of duty?

Moreover, is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent knowing that he cannot?

 

[Iconoclast]

The Free Offer of the Gospel - The Gospel Coalition

There are several theological reasons offered for denying the free offer of the gospel. The first stems from the accepted doctrine of total depravity—total inability, to be more specific.

If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty?

Is the sinner under obligation to repent if he, in fact, cannot repent?

Can the sinner be counted responsible to do something he is unable to do?

Stated precisely, does inability entail absence of duty?

Moreover, is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent knowing that he cannot?

 

[Iconoclast]

The Free Offer of the Gospel

What then may be said to be the Biblical teaching that the subordinate standards designate as the free offer? Passages setting forth the gracious invitations of the gospel as Isaiah 55:1ff. and Matthew 11:28 at once come to mind. Reflection on these texts gives rise to the questions:
Is it meant that those that thirst, that are weary and heavy laden, represent all sinners, indiscriminately, or are they such as have been brought to some awareness of their need?

The Westminster standards use very general expressions in referring to the gospel offer in an incidental manner. In the covenant of grace God “freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (WCF 7:3). The following words “requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved” are naturally read as in apposition, explaining the nature of the offer. The promise to give the Holy Spirit to the elect is a promise to the Redeemer—not an element of the offer, but what provides the faith required in it. Larger Catechism (L.C.) 32 makes the same points. L.C. 67 speaks of those effectually called as invited and drawn, and concludes with the words “to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed” in the call. L.C. 68 definitely speaks of grace offered to non-elect persons, while in L.C. 67 the invitation seems to be restricted to those who are drawn in God’s accepted time. The offer rejected by some to their final ruin can hardly be said to be made in “God’s accepted time” in the Catechism’s evident sense of the time of love in effectual calling. It may be argued that L.C. 67 is simply not dealing with the non-elect, the case of whom is the subject of L.C. 68. A fair conclusion is that the universality of the invitation may be held consistently with the Larger Catechism but is not required by it or elsewhere in the standards. The very brief expressions in Shorter Catechism 31 and 86 add nothing to the above.

What does add to the authentic Confessional doctrine is the 1903 addition of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in its Chapter 35, Of the Love of God and Missions: “In the Gospel God declares His love for the world and His desire that all men should be saved…” The purpose of the 1903 additions to the Confession of the P.C.U.S.A., as was the case with the similar Declaratory Act of the Free Church of Scotland in 1892, was to facilitate union with an Arminianising denomination, which had abandoned explicitly in the former instance and implicitly in the latter, the Calvinistic doctrines of the eternal decree and of particular redemption.

 

[SavedByGrace]

1 Corinthians 15

Now I would remind you, brothers,of the Gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

the Gospel, according to Paul here, is "that Christ died for our sins". If the Gospel is offered to the entire human race, then the Death of Jesus Christ, which is part of the Gospel, is also for the entire human race. This means the the Death of Jesus Christ is UNIVERSAL, but this does not equate to "universal salvation", as the sinner first needs to "repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), before they are saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

ibid
That the Lord is not willing that any should perish, if understood of all men can only be taken of the will of command, and teaches nothing as to a desire or wish. The verb often, as the related noun, signifies, however, the determinate counsel of God. The context also, strongly supports a restriction of “any” and “all” to the elect.

The long-suffering of God is to us-ward or to you-ward, i.e., those addressed as beloved in a judgment of charity.

Longsuffering is not only toward the reprobate in Romans 9:22 (cf. 2:4), curiously cited to support a love toward salvation directed to such as have been indicated to have been hated (verse 15). That these verses may not legitimately be cited as providing a parallel to 2 Peter 3:9, is clear from the explicit reference to the elect as objects of the divine longsuffering in Luke 18:7. The broader context of 2 Peter 3 confirms the particularist view of the passage. Why does the second coming of Christ seem to be delayed? Because in the longsuffering of God, the elect—who sometimes long resist the gospel overtures—must all be made willing in the day of God’s power before they stand before the throne on the great day.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3;
It is worthy of note that Matthew 23:37 is commonly misquoted as if it read, “how often would I have gathered you … and ye would not.” The text does not make a contrast between the Lord’s will and the wills of those whom he would gather, but between his compassion for Jerusalem’s children and the opposition of their leaders who have been denounced in the preceding passage. The sympathy of the Saviour is the expression of his humanity which he assumed in order that he might become a High Priest that could be touched with a feeling of our infirmities. To draw inferences as to what his divine nature might be in back of this distinctive feature of his sacred humanity is surely unwarrantable speculation into what has not been revealed.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Free Offer of the Gospel - The Gospel Coalition

There are several theological reasons offered for denying the free offer of the gospel. The first stems from the accepted doctrine of total depravity—total inability, to be more specific.

If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty?

Is the sinner under obligation to repent if he, in fact, cannot repent?

Can the sinner be counted responsible to do something he is unable to do?

Stated precisely, does inability entail absence of duty?

Moreover, is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent knowing that he cannot?

John 3:18 and 36 says, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God...Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him"

Which is clear that FAITH in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. Those who BELIEVE in Jesus Christ will be saved; those who do not believe are already condemed, "because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

Herein is the probelm with Reformed theology. If, as it is said, that saving faith is a gift from God, only to the elect, who then believe and are saved. How can God Justly condemn those who do not believe, as they clearly cannot, as they have not been gifted of this faith that saves them? This theology makes God insincere and unfair.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I will respond more tomorrow...

 

[SavedByGrace]

The text does not make a contrast between the Lord’s will and the wills of those whom he would gather

it most certainly does! as does John 5:39-40

 

[Iconoclast]

http://004db15.netsolhost.com/sermons/archive/TheoCons/0671_1990TC08.mp3

The Free Offer of The Gospel « Sermons « Bible Sermons Online - Bible-Sermons.org.uk

Introduction:
The expressions 'Free Offer' and 'Free Offer of the Gospel' have come to have a reference to at least two things: (1) the work of the Christian minister when he preaches the gospel to sinners; (2) the attitude or state of mind of that minister when he so preaches the gospel. These two factors are closely related.

The way in which a preacher understands the theology which undergirds his work will have an effect on the way in which he carries it out. To be more specific, the preacher's attitude to God, to the character and purposes of God, to the plight of the sinner and his eventual destiny all have a profound bearing on the manner in which he will present the message of the gospel to his audience. This is one reason why the New Testament lays strong emphasis on the need for preachers who are admitted to the work to be well-instructed in the faith. A man's theology governs his preaching in every way, both in its content and its manner of presentation.

Definition: The 'Free Offer' may be defined like this:

The invitation given by a Christian preacher to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do believe they will receive at once forgiveness of all sins and eternal life.

Implied in the concept of this 'Free Offer' are these ideas:

The 'Offer' made is for all who hear it, whether they be elect or not;

• The 'Offer' is not to be restricted or modified by the preacher in his presentation;
• The 'Offer' is an expression of love and grace on God's part towards sinful, unbelieving men;
• The 'Offer' is sincere on God's part and it is genuinely and well meant;
• The 'Offer' is addressed to sinners as they are and requires of them repentance and faith;
• Negatively, the 'Offer' does not come to those only who are awakened or convicted sinners, but to sinners as such, without further qualification;This 'Offer' is given and authorised by God, and it is conveyed by the preacher as his ambassador to all who hear it.

1. OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE 'FREE OFFER'
These are chiefly of two kinds:

• From those who claim that faith is not a duty of the sinner;
• From those who claim that God in the gospel does not give a sincere offer to any but to the elect.

We look at these in turn now.

(a) First objection: 'Faith is not the sinner's duty.'
This view has been advanced by those who argue that the sinner cannot be required to believe because he suffers from the bondage of his will. Ability, it is argued, limits obligation. The sinner cannot come to Christ and therefore faith is not a duty. If a sinner cannot believe, how can the preacher require him to believe? This is the argument. It is based on man's inability.

It is common for those who deny the 'Free Offer' for this reason to affirm that in scripture there is no such thing required of sinners as 'duty-faith'. Sinners are 'dead in trespasses and sins' and so they have no ability to believe. If they have no ability to believe then they may not be exhorted by the preacher to believe.



I shall look in a moment at this viewpoint and offer reasons why I regard it as wrong. But at this point allow me to say that these views have always had a restraining or cramping effect on preachers. The tendency of this view of the gospel is to make the preacher cautious and hesitant for fear of presenting the gospel more freely than is proper.

(b) Second Objection: 'God gives no "well-meant" offer to any but to the elect.'
This view is associated with the Dutch American theologian of the twentieth century, Herman Hoeksema, the founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, of which the year of origin is 1924. The argument is this: God has elected some sinners to eternal life and reprobated others; therefore God makes no promise or offer in the gospel to any except the elect. Implied in this view are the following points:

• God in no sense loves the non-elect.
• There is no grace of any kind, either Saving Grace or Common Grace, given or offered to any except elect persons.
• It would be insincere of God to offer grace to those whom he has eternally reprobated - and this is a thing impossible.
• God cannot be said to desire or wish anything which he has not decreed to happen since this would be tantamount to frustrating God's will.
• It is an inconsistency of an Arminianising kind for a preacher to 'offer' Christ promiscuously to a mixed audience of Christians and non-Christians.
• We may not teach that it is possible for God to will according to his precept what he does not will in his eternal decree.

The following statements are taken verbatim from the "Brief Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America". They affirm that they repudiate as errors these points:

"That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men."

"That the preaching of the gospel is a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel."

2. REVIEW OF THESE TWBJECTIONS:
(a) Gospel Standard Objection
Objection: There is no duty-faith.

Explanation: By this is not meant that the sinner has no warrant to believe that 'Christ died for him' but no warrant to believe till he is awakened.

Response: A sinner's inability does not limit his obligation to believe. The sinner's true position before God is that he cannot believe but he must. ("The gospel vice").

Since the gospel comes to the sinner as both invitation and command, it is the sinner's duty to believe. Repentance and faith are both the duty of all who hear the gospel. This form of Hyper-Calvinism is a type of new legalism, by which men and women are led to think that they must not believe in Christ till they feel conviction. But the effect of this is to focus the sinner's mind on the measure and degree of his own conviction, rather than on God's free offer of Christ to all who want him.

4. HOW ARE WE TO EXPLAIN HOW SOME HAVE COME TO DENY THE 'FREE OFFER' AND TO TEACH THAT IT IS UNSCRIPTURAL, OR ELSE ARMINIAN?
Those who deny the 'Free Offer' come to their view by drawing wrong inferences from the teaching of scripture. In general this takes one of two forms. For convenience, they may be called: (a) the English Gospel Standard Strict Baptist view; and (b) the Dutch view, especially as this relates to the teaching of Herman Hoeksema.

(a) The English form argues like this:

1. Sinful man cannot believe in Christ because he suffers from the bondage of the will;
2. But if man has no ability to believe, it cannot be his duty to believe.
3. Therefore faith is not a duty of any sinner.

The way this is expressed by those who hold this view is this: they say that they do not believe in 'duty-faith'. The practical effect on the preacher is that he teaches his hearers, not to come to Christ at once as a duty, but to search themselves to see if they have a due sense of their need of Christ. So, typically, the sinner is made, not to look out of himself to Christ who is freely offered to him by God, but to look inwards to see if he himself is duly awakened, or has sufficiently repented yet.

How are we to assess this type of teaching? It goes wrong by drawing a false deduction from an acknowledged truth of scripture. It is true that man cannot believe. But it is unscriptural to affirm that man is not obliged to believe. Ability does not limit our obligation. God requires every sinner to do what Adam was able to do before he sinned. Faith is man's duty. The fact that a sinner cannot believe is an aggravation of his guilt, just as it is an aggravation of every drunkard's guilt that he cannot give up his habit of addiction.

This type of bad reasoning on the part of English Hyper-Calvinists fails to see that there is a great difference between physical inability and moral inability. A cripple is not under obligation to walk; but an unbeliever is under obligation to believe in Christ, who is freely available to him as a Saviour.

Physical inability and moral inability are of a very different kind. A crippled man is not guilty for his infirmity as a wilful unbeliever is. The sinner's inability to believe arises from his perverseness. He cannot believe because he does not wish to believe in Christ. The sinner's inability is the bondage of his will.

So the true position we are to hold to is this: The sinner who hears the gospel cannot believe but he must. We refer to this as the 'gospel vice'. The preacher is to hold the sinner in the grip of this vice till the sinner cries to God in self-despair. It is at this point that God bestows saving grace. God is always ready to hear the sinner when his cry is, "Lord, save me or I perish." So the preacher must not offer Christ with any kind of reservation because he rightly understands that sinners have no ability to come to Christ.

 

[SavedByGrace]

http://004db15.netsolhost.com/sermons/archive/TheoCons/0671_1990TC08.mp3

The Free Offer of The Gospel « Sermons « Bible Sermons Online - Bible-Sermons.org.uk

Introduction:
The expressions 'Free Offer' and 'Free Offer of the Gospel' have come to have a reference to at least two things: (1) the work of the Christian minister when he preaches the gospel to sinners; (2) the attitude or state of mind of that minister when he so preaches the gospel. These two factors are closely related.

The way in which a preacher understands the theology which undergirds his work will have an effect on the way in which he carries it out. To be more specific, the preacher's attitude to God, to the character and purposes of God, to the plight of the sinner and his eventual destiny all have a profound bearing on the manner in which he will present the message of the gospel to his audience. This is one reason why the New Testament lays strong emphasis on the need for preachers who are admitted to the work to be well-instructed in the faith. A man's theology governs his preaching in every way, both in its content and its manner of presentation.

Definition: The 'Free Offer' may be defined like this:

The invitation given by a Christian preacher to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do believe they will receive at once forgiveness of all sins and eternal life.

Implied in the concept of this 'Free Offer' are these ideas:

The 'Offer' made is for all who hear it, whether they be elect or not;

• The 'Offer' is not to be restricted or modified by the preacher in his presentation;
• The 'Offer' is an expression of love and grace on God's part towards sinful, unbelieving men;
• The 'Offer' is sincere on God's part and it is genuinely and well meant;
• The 'Offer' is addressed to sinners as they are and requires of them repentance and faith;
• Negatively, the 'Offer' does not come to those only who are awakened or convicted sinners, but to sinners as such, without further qualification;This 'Offer' is given and authorised by God, and it is conveyed by the preacher as his ambassador to all who hear it.

1. OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE 'FREE OFFER'
These are chiefly of two kinds:

• From those who claim that faith is not a duty of the sinner;
• From those who claim that God in the gospel does not give a sincere offer to any but to the elect.

We look at these in turn now.

(a) First objection: 'Faith is not the sinner's duty.'
This view has been advanced by those who argue that the sinner cannot be required to believe because he suffers from the bondage of his will. Ability, it is argued, limits obligation. The sinner cannot come to Christ and therefore faith is not a duty. If a sinner cannot believe, how can the preacher require him to believe? This is the argument. It is based on man's inability.

It is common for those who deny the 'Free Offer' for this reason to affirm that in scripture there is no such thing required of sinners as 'duty-faith'. Sinners are 'dead in trespasses and sins' and so they have no ability to believe. If they have no ability to believe then they may not be exhorted by the preacher to believe.



I shall look in a moment at this viewpoint and offer reasons why I regard it as wrong. But at this point allow me to say that these views have always had a restraining or cramping effect on preachers. The tendency of this view of the gospel is to make the preacher cautious and hesitant for fear of presenting the gospel more freely than is proper.

(b) Second Objection: 'God gives no "well-meant" offer to any but to the elect.'
This view is associated with the Dutch American theologian of the twentieth century, Herman Hoeksema, the founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, of which the year of origin is 1924. The argument is this: God has elected some sinners to eternal life and reprobated others; therefore God makes no promise or offer in the gospel to any except the elect. Implied in this view are the following points:

• God in no sense loves the non-elect.
• There is no grace of any kind, either Saving Grace or Common Grace, given or offered to any except elect persons.
• It would be insincere of God to offer grace to those whom he has eternally reprobated - and this is a thing impossible.
• God cannot be said to desire or wish anything which he has not decreed to happen since this would be tantamount to frustrating God's will.
• It is an inconsistency of an Arminianising kind for a preacher to 'offer' Christ promiscuously to a mixed audience of Christians and non-Christians.
• We may not teach that it is possible for God to will according to his precept what he does not will in his eternal decree.

The following statements are taken verbatim from the "Brief Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America". They affirm that they repudiate as errors these points:

"That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men."

"That the preaching of the gospel is a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel."

2. REVIEW OF THESE TWBJECTIONS:
(a) Gospel Standard Objection
Objection: There is no duty-faith.

Explanation: By this is not meant that the sinner has no warrant to believe that 'Christ died for him' but no warrant to believe till he is awakened.

Response: A sinner's inability does not limit his obligation to believe. The sinner's true position before God is that he cannot believe but he must. ("The gospel vice").

Since the gospel comes to the sinner as both invitation and command, it is the sinner's duty to believe. Repentance and faith are both the duty of all who hear the gospel. This form of Hyper-Calvinism is a type of new legalism, by which men and women are led to think that they must not believe in Christ till they feel conviction. But the effect of this is to focus the sinner's mind on the measure and degree of his own conviction, rather than on God's free offer of Christ to all who want him.

4. HOW ARE WE TO EXPLAIN HOW SOME HAVE COME TO DENY THE 'FREE OFFER' AND TO TEACH THAT IT IS UNSCRIPTURAL, OR ELSE ARMINIAN?
Those who deny the 'Free Offer' come to their view by drawing wrong inferences from the teaching of scripture. In general this takes one of two forms. For convenience, they may be called: (a) the English Gospel Standard Strict Baptist view; and (b) the Dutch view, especially as this relates to the teaching of Herman Hoeksema.

(a) The English form argues like this:

1. Sinful man cannot believe in Christ because he suffers from the bondage of the will;
2. But if man has no ability to believe, it cannot be his duty to believe.
3. Therefore faith is not a duty of any sinner.

The way this is expressed by those who hold this view is this: they say that they do not believe in 'duty-faith'. The practical effect on the preacher is that he teaches his hearers, not to come to Christ at once as a duty, but to search themselves to see if they have a due sense of their need of Christ. So, typically, the sinner is made, not to look out of himself to Christ who is freely offered to him by God, but to look inwards to see if he himself is duly awakened, or has sufficiently repented yet.

How are we to assess this type of teaching? It goes wrong by drawing a false deduction from an acknowledged truth of scripture. It is true that man cannot believe. But it is unscriptural to affirm that man is not obliged to believe. Ability does not limit our obligation. God requires every sinner to do what Adam was able to do before he sinned. Faith is man's duty. The fact that a sinner cannot believe is an aggravation of his guilt, just as it is an aggravation of every drunkard's guilt that he cannot give up his habit of addiction.

This type of bad reasoning on the part of English Hyper-Calvinists fails to see that there is a great difference between physical inability and moral inability. A cripple is not under obligation to walk; but an unbeliever is under obligation to believe in Christ, who is freely available to him as a Saviour.

Physical inability and moral inability are of a very different kind. A crippled man is not guilty for his infirmity as a wilful unbeliever is. The sinner's inability to believe arises from his perverseness. He cannot believe because he does not wish to believe in Christ. The sinner's inability is the bondage of his will.

So the true position we are to hold to is this: The sinner who hears the gospel cannot believe but he must. We refer to this as the 'gospel vice'. The preacher is to hold the sinner in the grip of this vice till the sinner cries to God in self-despair. It is at this point that God bestows saving grace. God is always ready to hear the sinner when his cry is, "Lord, save me or I perish." So the preacher must not offer Christ with any kind of reservation because he rightly understands that sinners have no ability to come to Christ.

either you type super fast, or good at copy/paste!

 

[SavedByGrace]

@Iconoclast you are jamming to much stuff here to read carefully and respond to.

 

[Iconoclast]

John 3:18 and 36 says, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God...Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him"

Which is clear that FAITH in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. Those who BELIEVE in Jesus Christ will be saved; those who do not believe are already condemed, "because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

Herein is the probelm with Reformed theology. If, as it is said, that saving faith is a gift from God, only to the elect, who then believe and are saved. How can God Justly condemn those who do not believe, as they clearly cannot, as they have not been gifted of this faith that saves them? This theology makes God insincere and unfair.

They are responsible to repent and believe the gospel;
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


What God does or does not do, does not change mans responsibility.

 

[Iconoclast]

either you type super fast, or good at copy/paste!

copy and paste, I do not know how to type
trying to lay out the issues, before the others come to oppose.

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast you are jamming to much stuff here to read carefully and respond to.

Take your time, feel free to isolate portions that you want to examine in more detail. You have a 7 hour time difference, right?...if you need to sleep, get back to it later on, I understand.

 

[Silverhair]

Does Not God Have the Right to Do Whatever He Likes With His Own?


When you ask an Arminian friend if it would just if God left us all in our sin and saved no one, most answer yes, we are sinners and justly deserve God's wrath. But then turn around and ask, if God decided to pardon a number of these ill deserving sinners, but gave over the others to the justice they deserve, these same people suddenly cry out "that makes God unfair". Yet how can the former be okay in their eyes, but not the later? Does not God have the right to do what He wants with His grace? And are not those rebels getting their just deserts? If He were somehow obligated to give it to all, it would no longer be grace now would it?

Remember we indiscriminately cast the seed of the gospel to all people. God is holding no one back from believing. Their rejection of Christ and His gospel is completely willful and voluntary. They will not have Christ rule over them. Yet God still has mercy on many such rebels, giving them eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe.

(1 Cor 1:23-24, 29-31, 2:14, 12:3, 1 Thess 1:4-5, Rom 9:15-16, Eph 2:1, 5, 8-9, John 6:37, 63-65)
from Reformation Theology

Actually it is not a matter of God being fair or unfair, it is a matter of justice. God indeed has the right to do as He wishes with His grace and He has said He will give His grace to those that believe. Those that believe are saved those that do not believe are condemned. Joh 3:17-18 If God gave His grace to all how would that make it any less His grace? If God saved none, one or all it is still only His grace that can save.

"God is holding no one back from believing. Their rejection of Christ and His gospel is completely willful and voluntary." So if God holds no one back and it is mans choice to reject the gospel then logically that means it is also man choice to receive the gospel. In other words man has a free will choice.

But I notice that latter in this comment from Reformation Theology they say this "Yet God still has mercy on many such rebels, giving them eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe." which contradicts what they said earlier "God is holding no one back from believing." But if God only gives a select group "eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe" then He is holding back those that He does not give those to. That is not God being unfair that is God being unjust.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually it is not a matter of God being fair or unfair, it is a matter of justice. God indeed has the right to do as He wishes with His grace and He has said He will give His grace to those that believe. Those that believe are saved those that do not believe are condemned. Joh 3:17-18 If God gave His grace to all how would that make it any less His grace? If God saved none, one or all it is still only His grace that can save.

"God is holding no one back from believing. Their rejection of Christ and His gospel is completely willful and voluntary." So if God holds no one back and it is mans choice to reject the gospel then logically that means it is also man choice to receive the gospel. In other words man has a free will choice.

But I notice that latter in this comment from Reformation Theology they say this "Yet God still has mercy on many such rebels, giving them eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe." which contradicts what they said earlier "God is holding no one back from believing." But if God only gives a select group "eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe" then He is holding back those that He does not give those to. That is not God being unfair that is God being unjust.

SH,
Good response, you are working through it.
Now let me try and illustrate God is holding no one back.
Was the door on the ark open years before the flood?
Did men want to go in? Did God hold them back?
They hated God and His word, then the time came for the door to be sealed shut.