The Free Offer Of The Gospel

[Silverhair]

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?

The gospel is offered freely to all people. What the Gospel Coalition adds is just the calvinist view and really has little to do with whether the gospel is accepted or not.

Total Depravity does not remove the obligation to repent, being responsible for their choices nor is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent.

The calvinist idea of total inability removes the obligation to repent, or be counted responsible and it would be inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent. Calvinism has essentially kneecapped the gospel message. Under calvinism the only ones that can respond to the gospel message do not really need it as they are saved already. They just don't know it. That's calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I don't know if you are familiar with "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" but that is the most exhaustive place where the controversy about the "free offer" of the gospel is discussed to my knowledge. I notice that some of the modern Calvinist writers, like those on the Gospel Coalition have tried to slightly change the definition of "free offer" to just mean that the gospel should be preached to everyone whether they are elect or not. That is not false, but it is I think an incomplete treatment of the free offer. It's true that there were plenty of Calvinists, I call them hyper, who did or do not believe there is any point in preaching the gospel to everyone, or even anyone in some cases. In the Marrow controversy they had begun to start looking for fruit of the Holy Spirit acting on someone, or signs of a person being "elect" before they felt the gospel should be offered. The Marrow men said not only that this was a wrong approach but they said something that was highly controversial at the time among Calvinists. They said that the free offer of the gospel meant that when you preached to someone, or witnessed to someone, and in any way gave them the gospel - the offer for salvation was real. You had a warrant from Jesus himself to tell them that if they believed the gospel they would be saved. Election was not to be brought up at this point because they would be saved if they believed. It upset the Calvinists so much that according to Sinclair Ferguson the book "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" is technically banned to this day by Scottish Presbyterians. This set off a firestorm because it obviously puts a difficulty in the way of a limited atonement, not an insurmountable difficulty, but one to think about. It also brings up the controversy about saying "Christ died for your sins".

 

[Iconoclast]

The gospel is offered freely to all people. What the Gospel Coalition adds is just the calvinist view and really has little to do with whether the gospel is accepted or not.

Total Depravity does not remove the obligation to repent, being responsible for their choices nor is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent.

The calvinist idea of total inability removes the obligation to repent, or be counted responsible and it would be inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent. Calvinism has essentially kneecapped the gospel message. Under calvinism the only ones that can respond to the gospel message do not really need it as they are saved already. They just don't know it. That's calvinism.

I am in a public place right now. When God provides gospel opportunities The person I am speaking with does not know a Calvinist, from an RC. nothing is lacking from a solid gospel presentation being offered freely.
Total depravity is a fact, but the unsaved person is not resisting saying, well I am depraved so I have no opportunity to repent and believe...they are saying i reject you and your God and His word.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

You notice that it is your calvinism that withholds the true offer of salvation. The bible does not restrict salvation to just a select group. You will support your views with your calvinist confessions but they do not mean anything to me as I do not ascribe to the calvinist view.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know if you are familiar with "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" but that is the most exhaustive place where the controversy about the "free offer" of the gospel is discussed to my knowledge. I notice that some of the modern Calvinist writers, like those on the Gospel Coalition have tried to slightly change the definition of "free offer" to just mean that the gospel should be preached to everyone whether they are elect or not. That is not false, but it is I think an incomplete treatment of the free offer. It's true that there were plenty of Calvinists, I call them hyper, who did or do not believe there is any point in preaching the gospel to everyone, or even anyone in some cases. In the Marrow controversy they had begun to start looking for fruit of the Holy Spirit acting on someone, or signs of a person being "elect" before they felt the gospel should be offered. The Marrow men said not only that this was a wrong approach but they said something that was highly controversial at the time among Calvinists. They said that the free offer of the gospel meant that when you preached to someone, or witnessed to someone, and in any way gave them the gospel - the offer for salvation was real. You had a warrant from Jesus himself to tell them that if they believed the gospel they would be saved. Election was not to be brought up at this point because they would be saved if they believed. It upset the Calvinists so much that according to Sinclair Ferguson the book "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" is technically banned to this day by Scottish Presbyterians. This set off a firestorm because it obviously puts a difficulty in the way of a limited atonement, not an insurmountable difficulty, but one to think about. It also brings up the controversy about saying "Christ died for your sins".

yes, Sinclair Ferguson preached a series of sermons on the marrow men, on sermonaudio.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

If the Gospel is offered to the entire human race, {which it is} then the Death of Jesus Christ, which is part of the Gospel, is also for the entire human race. {which it is} The death of Christ Jesus was sufficient to cover the sins of all human kind but is only efficient for those the believe.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

 

[Iconoclast]

You notice that it is your calvinism that withholds the true offer of salvation. The bible does not restrict salvation to just a select group. You will support your views with your calvinist confessions but they do not mean anything to me as I do not ascribe to the calvinist view.

I use election and predestination if i need to when i present the gospel.
I use it evangelistically. If the conversation goes that way, it comes out in a biblically consistent fashion.
I do not avoid it at all, but at first i just concentrate on the fact we are sinners, and Jesus saves sinners who trust in him to save them.

The bible does not restrict salvation to just a select group.

Most assuredly it does, and if need be I show exactly how it works

 

[Iconoclast]

If the Gospel is offered to the entire human race, {which it is} then the Death of Jesus Christ, which is part of the Gospel, is also for the entire human race. {which it is} The death of Christ Jesus was sufficient to cover the sins of all human kind but is only efficient for those the believe.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

the gospel is freely offered by believers in our day. It has not been freely offered to the entire human race, many lived and died in their sins without ever hearing about Jesus.

ps...add verse 13 in jn 1

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Here you go reading into the text again.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
You have to throw your calvinism into the mix in order to get what you are presenting as the text does not say what you want it to say.

You do like to do smorgasburg theology and that my work for you but that is not how the bible is to be read. With that view it is not the bible that you believe but rather you want the bible to say what you believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

It has not been freely offered to the entire human race, many lived and died in their sins without ever hearing about Jesus.

That is a good point. It is observable that in all areas of human life it is not "fair".

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Was Christ Jesus denouncing the rulers in Jerusalem, YES but for you to say that there is no contrast between the wills of the people and of God is hard to fathom.
How often I wanted to gather your children together
but you were not willing.

To deny the text of scripture and foist your view on the text is unwarranted but that has not stopped you yet so why would I expect you to change now.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

SBG I agree with what you have said up to the last word "unfair". The bible nowhere tells us that God has to be fair, but it does tell us that He is "just".

God is called the Just One Act_22:14, the just "suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust" 1Pe_3:18, and "that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" Rom_3:26

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Was Christ Jesus denouncing the rulers in Jerusalem, YES but for you to say that there is no contrast between the wills of the people and of God is hard to fathom.
How often I wanted to gather your children together
but you were not willing.

You avoiding the clear text so as to read into the text what you want to find.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

I agree man is responsible to make a choice as to what he will do with Christ Jesus.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned;
but he who does not believe is condemned already,
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted,
after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation;
in whom also, having believed,
you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Man is responsible to freely make choices. Some choose to trust in Christ Jesus and some do not. That is free will.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

You really missed what I said didn't you. Go back and read it again.
God offers salvation to all and those that freely reject it are lost those that freely accept Christ Jesus are saved. The calvinist view is not biblical. Calvinists want man saved before they even believe and even then faith has to be given to them. So if God has to give them faith to believe and He does not give this faith to all then He is the one the holds back all those that may have come to Him because they do not have that faith from Him.

You are trying to justify your errant view of salvation, that it is for the "elect" before time only. But the bible does not agree with your view so sorry I am not "working through it" as you might think and like. The bible is clear that God has made a well meant offer to all that whoever believes in His son will be saved. And we know this is a universal offer because Christ Jesus told us so Himself:
Joh 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
Luk_5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
So if your part of the "all peoples" or if you are a "sinner" then Christ Jesus came to save you. And that is real good news don't you think?

 

[Silverhair]

I use election and predestination if i need to when i present the gospel.
I use it evangelistically. If the conversation goes that way, it comes out in a biblically consistent fashion.
I do not avoid it at all, but at first i just concentrate on the fact we are sinners, and Jesus saves sinners who trust in him to save them.



Most assuredly it does, and if need be I show exactly how it works

Oh I know how it works but the question is, do you? If calvinist preachers were honest when they present the gospel then I would suggest that the response would be, you have got to be kidding. Actually I am surprised that you even spend time talking to people about the gospel when you consider your theology.

Calvinism in a nut shell with regard to Christ Jesus
The absolutely elect must have been saved without him;
and the non-elect cannot be saved by him

 

[Silverhair]

the gospel is freely offered by believers in our day. It has not been freely offered to the entire human race, many lived and died in their sins without ever hearing about Jesus.

ps...add verse 13 in jn 1

But they have always had the ability to know there is a God and thus are without excuse. Rom 1:20

Unlike many calvinists I do not restrict the sovereignty of God, He can and does reach out and save those that trust in Him. Rom 10:13
It is the calvinist that wants to say who can and who can not be saved, and how or why it can happen. I would rather leave those decisions to God.

So you want to add verse 13
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

How does that change what I said? Man is only saved by the will of God, we can not save our selves. God saves those that reach out to Him. Do you not agree with that?

 

[AustinC]

[QUOTE="Silverhair, post: 2785779, member: Man is only saved by the will of God, we can not save our selves. God saves those that reach out to Him. Do you not agree with that?[/QUOTE]

You really can't see the contradiction in your statement, can you? It's like a big cataract is in front of your eyes so that you just cannot see it.

I'll just wait to see how long it takes you to see your own contradiction.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It has not been freely offered to the entire human race

again you contradict yourself! looks like you don't understand your own theology?

 

[SavedByGrace]

They are responsible to repent and believe the gospel

I really don't think that those who are "reformed" in their theology, really understand their own theology!

In the first place, we are told that no humans have a FREE WILL, to make a CHOICE to either accept, or reject the Lord.
Secondly, we are also told, that both faith and repentance are GIFTS from God, given only to His ELECT
Thirdly, God only "quickens", those who are the ELECT, who are thereby REGENERATED (born-again), to that they can call on the Lord for their salvation.

I keep on asking this very simple question. IF, both faith and repentance are GIFTS from God, given only to His ELECT, this must exclude any of the NON-ELECT, who are the "vessels of wrath". Then HOW is it POSSIBLE for it being the RESPONSIBILITY of ALL, "to repent and believe the gospel", when this is an IMPOSSIBILITY? God has by His own actions, made sure of this! They CANNOT repent and believe! They have not been GIFTED by faith and repentance to do so!