General Call or Free Offer?

[cygnusx1]

You are sounding very Arminian here, tread lightly, you are discarding what you claim to affirm by doing so.





j

easily refuted ;

One of my fav sites freeoffercalvinists

 

[JM]

its more than just a call , its a call to obtain salvation . God desires that sinners are saved by using the means .

Assert, not proven and contradicts the rest of your theology.

then read further , the God who takes no delight in the death of the wicked states , but rather that you would turn and live , and you think this has nothing to do with Gods desire ? baffling .

Ezekiel 18 and 33 is about temporal, not eternal things, and is dealing with Israel being under the Babylonian captivity. It is a passage about judgement for current sins and not the previous sins of their ancestors, as they believed. They were told to turn from their sins and the temporal judgement would cease.

Is salvation available to men through the Gospel ? yes !

No! The Gospel is a historical proclamation by which the elect of God are regenerated.

Does God plead with men ? sure does .

Nope. But I bet you’ll try and say He does…

beseech is a Pauline word , and he stated , we bessech you be reconciled to God .... even as though God were saying this through him , He was , it is Gods Gospel , woe betides anyone who invents their own Gospel or conditions or invitations unless God Himself wishes it !

You are quoting Paul and his humanly desires. The Bible is inspired but are Paul’s desires now God’s? Nope.

the Gospel is far more than a call .... what is a call ? it is merely a command , but God goes much further than a despot merely "commanding" , He beseeches , implores , woes , reasons and convinces men .

That’s where the contradiction comes in. You claim God offers all salvation, he “beseeches, implores, woes, reasons and convinces” but ultimately He doesn’t. He is able to save only some of those He tries to save by woes and reasoning’s, etc.

The Gospel Offer is a mirror image of Christs condescension.

The Gospel command is from a King and that He would condescend to issue such a command is condescension enough.

History of the Free Offer
Fullerism

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm convinced that God commands the reprobate to repent because it is right for the reprobate to repent. But God isn't trying to save the reprobate from his sins in any way at all. Actually by commanding him to repent and allowing him to hear and reject the gospel he is heaping even more condemnation on his head.

He hasn't provided an atonement for the reprobate to receive. The atonement is for God's elect only. If God realy loved the reprobate in a familial way he would have saved them because love that has the power to save will certainly do so.

The reprobate is damned and was created to be damned and that is all. He serves his purpose within the umbrella of damnation and evil. The same way cancer serves it's purpose within the umbrella of sickness and death.

 

[student ad x]

I would say Ezekiel 18 is about moral responsibility/obligation and consistent with Dordt......... I do not see it as proof of the OPC statement.

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” Ezekiel 18:30-32 ESV

..........What did I miss?

 

[JM]

The effects of preaching on reprobate:

Isa 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

 

[cygnusx1]

Assert, not proven and contradicts the rest of your theology.


Ezekiel 18 and 33 is about temporal, not eternal things, and is dealing with Israel being under the Babylonian captivity. It is a passage about judgement for current sins and not the previous sins of their ancestors, as they believed. They were told to turn from their sins and the temporal judgement would cease.

No! The Gospel is a historical proclamation by which the elect of God are regenerated.

Nope. But I bet you’ll try and say He does…

You are quoting Paul and his humanly desires. The Bible is inspired but are Paul’s desires now God’s? Nope.

That’s where the contradiction comes in. You claim God offers all salvation, he “beseeches, implores, woes, reasons and convinces” but ultimately He doesn’t. He is able to save only some of those He tries to save by woes and reasoning’s, etc.

The Gospel command is from a King and that He would condescend to issue such a command is condescension enough.

History of the Free Offer
Fullerism

Paul and his ALLEGED human ideas have no place in Gods Gospel , an ambassador must not give his own ideas , he is to act and state exactly what he has been commanded , if Paul weeps over sinners it is because God does , I see no contradiction at all , we beseech men as though God in Christ is doing the beseeching because , He is .... otherwise the Gospel is false and Paul is loving those whom God is said to hate .... offering and beseeching men when God just hardens , the result is a deformed Gospel with two heads ..... in fact the Apostolic as well as the OT Prophetic beseeching is therfore man-made and bears no reflection upon God who sent it !

it's a falsity and a travesty .

But the Gospel invitation is Gods invitation , to all men as they are to "come" and be saved , to take of the water of life , to repent ?

why ?

simply because God wants to see men repent ? No NO NO !

Repent for the remission of sin .

God's decree can never be frustrated

Gods command can be rejected

Gods will of approbation , what He delights in can be frustrated .

JOB 14:15 ; PS 40:6 ; 51:6,16 ; 132 :14-15 ; HOS 6:6 ; 10:10 ETC

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Wicked men useful in their destruction only – by Jonathan Edwards « Osage Bluestem

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm convinced that God commands the reprobate to repent because it is right for the reprobate to repent. But God isn't trying to save the reprobate from his sins in any way at all. Actually by commanding him to repent and allowing him to hear and reject the gospel he is heaping even more condemnation on his head.

He hasn't provided an atonement for the reprobate to receive. The atonement is for God's elect only. If God realy loved the reprobate in a familial way he would have saved them because love that has the power to save will certainly do so.

The reprobate is damned and was created to be damned and that is all. He serves his purpose within the umbrella of damnation and evil. The same way cancer serves it's purpose within the umbrella of sickness and death.

THE ATONEMENT is sufficient for all and any sinner .

there is a sufficiency in Christ's atonement to redeem any man .

If a man was added to the elect would Christ have to come and die again ?

NO.

When Calvinists speak of the all sufficiency of the atonement (it's creedal) they are not implying universal efficacy , they are saying there is no other Saviour for sinners , there is no more atonement for sin , and that there is enough power in the blood of Christ to save any sinner , Paul viewed himself as the "chief of sinners" saved in order to demonstrate God can forgive anyone !

Is there enough love in God to forgive any man ? then there has to be provision for any man .

... its not a question of God trying to save sinners , its a question of just HOW God invites , compells or draws sinners ... The Gospel has a variety of words to describe what is Gods condescension in reasoning with sinners ... imagine that , God reasoning with a wretch , what love what patience what power to implore instead of "click of the finger" ... mmmm Jesus is full of grace.


All idea of stint or insufficiency is out of place in reference to the Lord Jesus. When any man enquires, "Is there enough merit in the Savior's death to make atonement for my sin?" The answer is, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." When any say, "Perhaps I may not taste his love and believe on his name," the reply is, "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely." CHS


I am not Arminian ; Amyraldian , Socinian or Hyper calvinist .

I accept with full commitment the 5 points of Calvinism

but you have to distinguish between God's Decree and the Gospel Offer , furthermore you have to distinguish between Christ effectual atonement (for all the elect) and the sufficiency of the atonement (for any man) ...

btw , this area is not as cut and dried amongst Calvinists as you suppose , the Arminian position is severely different , they believe the death of Christ saved/secured no man but merely made all men salvable , a concept no Calvinist could ever agree with.

Synod of Dort (the epicenter for the 5 points) declares ;

“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”


W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”

 

[JM]

cyg, you are an Amyraldian same with Shedd. You believe in hypothetical universalism. We still love you brother, don't think we don't...just embrace it.

Amyraldism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Trinity Foundation - The Banner of Truth versus Calvinism

 

[cygnusx1]

The effects of preaching on reprobate:

Isa 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

compare that with Romans 2 ;

gotta dash , its wayyyyyyyyyyyyy past my bed time ... Gods best to you and all who read the thread

 

[student ad x]

I hope you get a good nights sleep Cyg.

Even though Tony quoted Shedd, it seems to me, that he is not implying in the former post the so-called limited unlimited atonement (or is it unlimited limited atonement [the 4.5 position]

)

To be able to understand our differences better, a discussion of the "infinite worth & value" of Jesus sacrifice, Section II:3, may be what's needed.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. Canons of Dort


just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. - John 10:15 ESV

 

[Osage Bluestem]

THE ATONEMENT is sufficient for all and any sinner .

there is a sufficiency in Christ's atonement to redeem any man .

If a man was added to the elect would Christ have to come and die again ?

NO.

When Calvinists speak of the all sufficiency of the atonement (it's creedal) they are not implying universal efficacy , they are saying there is no other Saviour for sinners , there is no more atonement for sin , and that there is enough power in the blood of Christ to save any sinner , Paul viewed himself as the "chief of sinners" saved in order to demonstrate God can forgive anyone !

Is there enough love in God to forgive any man ? then there has to be provision for any man .

... its not a question of God trying to save sinners , its a question of just HOW God invites , compells or draws sinners ... The Gospel has a variety of words to describe what is Gods condescension in reasoning with sinners ... imagine that , God reasoning with a wretch , what love what patience what power to implore instead of "click of the finger" ... mmmm Jesus is full of grace.


All idea of stint or insufficiency is out of place in reference to the Lord Jesus. When any man enquires, "Is there enough merit in the Savior's death to make atonement for my sin?" The answer is, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." When any say, "Perhaps I may not taste his love and believe on his name," the reply is, "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely." CHS


I am not Arminian ; Amyraldian , Socinian or Hyper calvinist .

I accept with full commitment the 5 points of Calvinism

but you have to distinguish between God's Decree and the Gospel Offer , furthermore you have to distinguish between Christ effectual atonement (for all the elect) and the sufficiency of the atonement (for any man) ...

btw , this area is not as cut and dried amongst Calvinists as you suppose , the Arminian position is severely different , they believe the death of Christ saved/secured no man but merely made all men salvable , a concept no Calvinist could ever agree with.

Synod of Dort (the epicenter for the 5 points) declares ;

“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”


W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”

God has already elected, predestined, and decreed. There will not be anyone else added. Christ died for the elect only and no one else. God never changes his mind.

Therefore there is no possibility of salvation for the reprobate. They are predestined to damnation and nothing will ever change that because God is immutable and doesn't change.

Should the reprobate repent? Yes. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Will they repent? Never. They are reprobates and reprobates don't repent because they are evil and are predestined to damnation. God never gives them the grace necessary to repent so they never will. However tey are absolutley responsible for their own evil because they do not repent of their own free will. They really do not want to repent and God never makes them want to through the grace of regeneration like he does his elect.

 

[cygnusx1]

God has already elected, predestined, and decreed. There will not be anyone else added. Christ died for the elect only and no one else. God never changes his mind.

Therefore there is no possibility of salvation for the reprobate. They are predestined to damnation and nothing will ever change that because God is immutable and doesn't change.

Should the reprobate repent? Yes. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Will they repent? Never. They are reprobates and reprobates don't repent because they are evil and are predestined to damnation. God never gives them the grace necessary to repent so they never will. However tey are absolutley responsible for their own evil because they do not repent of their own free will. They really do not want to repent and God never makes them want to through the grace of regeneration like he does his elect.

mostly true , but there is certainly more to God's will than the decree.

if you sin tomorrow , does Christ have to return and be sacrificed again ? no , there is a sufficiency in the atonement to potentially as well as actually to forgive sin.

The Good news is not restricted to the elect , why should you beseech or desire the salvation of many you think God simply hates ? why the massive discepency between your attitude and Gods alleged attitude ? its two Gospels !

God doesn't merely work on the unconditional decretal level , God has unconditionally decreed certain things will happen IF certain conditions are practiced , any man can be saved if they repent believe and obey the Lord.

The fact is only the elect will does not and cannot illiminate any man can , the door is open.

 

[cygnusx1]

I hope you get a good nights sleep Cyg.

Even though Tony quoted Shedd, it seems to me, that he is not implying in the former post the so-called limited unlimited atonement (or is it unlimited limited atonement [the 4.5 position]

)

To be able to understand our differences better, a discussion of the "infinite worth & value" of Jesus sacrifice, Section II:3, may be what's needed.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. Canons of Dort


just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. - John 10:15 ESV

Amen bro , neither Calvin nor Pink nor Spurgeon nor the Synod of Dort are amyraldian , they accept the Gospel Offer and the sufficiency of the atonement without falling into amyraldianism , I reckon even John Owen would agree with my position !

so far I have seen Arminian and Amyraldian cast in my direction , I have thus far not retalliated with the Hyper Calvinist slogan ..... I think just labelling kicks up more dust than light.

The Gospel goes out all over the world , its Gods Gospel , we ought to reflect that in every detail even beseeching imploring persuading sinners ought to be because we see God in our every desire to see sinners saved , otherwise a type of spiritual split personality will ensue.

 

[cygnusx1]

John Owen , (hardly a proponent of Amyraldianism) said ;




1) Neither may we be charged as straiteners of the merit of Christ; for we advance the true value and worth thereof (as hereafter will appear) far beyond all the Arminians ascribe unto it. We confess that that “blood of God,” Acts 20:28, of the “Lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19, was so exceedingly precious, of that infinite worth and value, that it might have saved a thousand believing worlds, John 3:16; Romans 3:22. His death was of sufficient dignity to have been made a ransom for all the sins of every one in the world. And on this internal sufficiency of his death and passion is grounded the universality of evangelical promises; which have no such restriction in their own nature as that they should not be made to all and every one, though the promulgation and knowledge of them are tied only to the good pleasure of God’s special providence, Matthew 16:17; as also that economy and dispensation of the new covenant whereby, the partition-wall being broken down, there remains no more difference between Jew and Gentile, the utmost borders of the earth being given in for Christ’s inheritance. “Display,”in Works, 10:89.


2) To the honour, then, of Jesus Christ our Mediator, God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer, we affirm, such and so great was the dignity and worth of his death and blood-shedding, of so precious a value, of such an infinite fulness and sufficiency was this oblation of himself, that it was every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, and reconcile and save all the sinners in the world, and to satisfy the justice of God for all the sins of all mankind, and to bring them every one to everlasting glory. Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation unto two things:–
First, The general publishing of the gospel unto “all nations,” with the right that it hath to be preached to “every creature,” Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation. Owen, “Death of Death,” in Works, 10:295-297.


3) Fourthly, The gospel requires a resting upon this Christ, so discovered and believed on to be the promised Redeemer, as an all-sufficient Savior, with whom is plenteous redemption, and who is able to save to the utmost them that come to God by him, and to bear the burden of all weary laboring souls that come by faith to him; in which proposal there is a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself, for whomsoever (fewer or more) it be intended. Now, much self-knowledge, much conviction, much sense of sin, God’s justice, and free grace, is required to the exercise of this act of faith. Good Lord! how many thousand poor souls within the pale of the church can never be brought unto it! The truth is, without the help of God’s Spirit none of those three before, much less this last, can be performed; which worketh freely, when, how, and in whom he pleaseth. Owen, “Death of Death,” in Works, 10:315..


4) The foundation of God’s command unto men to use the means granted them is not Christ’s dying for them in particular, but the connection which himself, by his decree, hath fixed between these two things, faith and salvation; the death of Christ being abundantly sufficient for the holding out of that connection unto all, there being enough in it to save all believers. Owen, “Death of Death,” Works, 10:344.


5) Thirdly, What can be concluded hence, but that the death of Christ is of such infinite value as that it is able to save to the utmost every one to whom it is made known, if by true faith they obtain an interest therein and a right thereunto, we cannot perceive. This truth we have formerly confirmed by many testimonies of Scripture, and do conceive that this innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to elect and reprobate. Owen, “Death of Death,” Works, 10:376.


6) Ans. The intention of this proof is, to show that men shall be condemned for their unbelief, for not believing in Christ; which, saith the author, cannot be unless three things be granted, –First, That there be enough in the atonement made by Christ for them. Secondly, That there be truth in God’s offer of mercy to them. Thirdly, That there be sufficient will and power given them by the Spirit, at some time or other, to believe. Now, though I believe no man can perceive what may be concluded hence for the universality of redemption, yet I shall observe some few things: and to the first thing required do say, That if, by “Enough in the atonement for them,” you understand that the atonement, which was made for them, hath enough in it, we deny it; not because the atonement hath not enough in it for them, but because the atonement was not for them. If you mean that there is a sufficiency in the merit of Christ to save them if they should believe, we grant it, and affirm that this sufficiency is the chief ground of the proposing it unto them (understanding those to whom it is proposed, that is those to whom the gospel is preached). Owen, “Death of Death,” in Works, 10:383-4.

 

[student ad x]

mostly true , but there is certainly more to God's will than the decree.

if you sin tomorrow , does Christ have to return and be sacrificed again ? no , there is a sufficiency in the atonement to potentially as well as actually to forgive sin.

The Good news is not restricted to the elect , why should you beseech or desire the salvation of many you think God simply hates ? why the massive discepency between your attitude and Gods alleged attitude ? its two Gospels !

God doesn't merely work on the unconditional decretal level , God has unconditionally decreed certain things will happen IF certain conditions are practiced , any man can be saved if they repent believe and obey the Lord.

The fact is only the elect will does not and cannot illiminate any man can , the door is open.

.... I'm not tracking on this part..... and my first read impression wasn't right. This must be a more nuanced compatabilist view than what I'm comfortable with..... probably why my vote is Dordt

 

[cygnusx1]

.... I'm not tracking on this part..... and my first read impression wasn't right. This must be a more nuanced compatabilist view than what I'm comfortable with..... probably why my vote is Dordt

Hi Cam , I posted this a week or so ago , if you read Turretin (he is a genius) read the quote a few times it may help ;

<b>it's a philosophical question , can God Unconditionally Decree things that are open and conditional as well as things that are unconditional ?

Can God create the possibility that given certain prior conditions being met that men , any man , can be saved ?

I remember someone a year or two ago bringing in the opportunity for salvation to Ninevah , God knows what will be , sure , but does God not also know what could be IF CERTAIN conditions are met?

Given the fact that the Gospel Offer is a promise , an invitation , a welcome , as well as a command and also a TRUE opportunity are we to say God offers forgiveness in vain ?

I think not.

The door is wide open , the Gospel is light , if any man elect or otherwise , was to repent and trust the Lord they too would be saved !

what , a none elect person being saved ?

it's a question of what are the conditions for salvation not what are the conditions for being elect.

Is it not evident that some of God's will is contingent ?

It is one thing for the thing decreed to be conditional; another for the decree itself. The former we grant, but not the latter. There can be granted an antecedent cause or condition of the thing willed, but not immediately of the volition itself. Thus God wills salvation to have the annexed condition of faith and repentance in the execution, but faith and repentance are not the condition or cause of the act of willing in God, nor of the decree to save in the intention.
Conditional promises and threatenings do not favor conditional decrees because they do not pertain to the decreeing will, but to the preceptive will and are appendages to the divine commands, added to stimulate and excite men. So he who promises and threatens under an uncertain condition does not predict or decree what will actually happen, but only what may happen by the performance or neglect of the condition. Hence such promises and threats show only the necessary connection of the condition with the thing conditioned, but involve no futurition of the thing. Now the decrees have a categorical verity concerning the thing about to be or not about to be.
​

The Decrees of God
by Dr. Francis Turretin



.... How many times do we read "If you will obey , I will bless " ?


consider the Jews ;

Romans 11
[20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
[21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
[22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.</b>

 

[Osage Bluestem]

mostly true , but there is certainly more to God's will than the decree.

if you sin tomorrow , does Christ have to return and be sacrificed again ? no , there is a sufficiency in the atonement to potentially as well as actually to forgive sin.

I believe that all the sins I have ever done or will ever do were paid for at calvary and I received that atonement when I first believed.

The Good news is not restricted to the elect , why should you beseech or desire the salvation of many you think God simply hates ? why the massive discepency between your attitude and Gods alleged attitude ? its two Gospels !

It's not two gospels. There is no gospel for the reprobate. They don't believe it....ever. They mock it and treat it with scorn and they always will.

We preach the gospel to all men because we don't know who the elect are. There might be elect children of God anywhere so the gospel should be preached everywhere. As stated before it is good to preach the gospel to the reprobate because it deserves to be preached and it is good to command all to repent.

God doesn't merely work on the unconditional decretal level , God has unconditionally decreed certain things will happen IF certain conditions are practiced , any man can be saved if they repent believe and obey the Lord.

God is immutable and knows the final unchangable outcome of every decree. He is never surprised and never changes his mind. The elect were elected before the foundation of the world. God's purpose of election and adoption is the purpose of all history as we know it. He created certain people to be adopted inot his family ahnd all of history is the story of bringing that to be. The reason there is evil is because God is glorified in it's destruction and the elect are edified in the knowledge of it that shows the high qualities of goodness and their knowledge of God's hatred for evil and their eventual witness of his destruction of it. Reprobates simply exist to maintain an evil world until the time that God has chosen to destroy it in front of all of his family.

Why is there evil?

The fact is only the elect will does not and cannot illiminate any man can , the door is open.

The door is only open to the elect. There is no chance God will change his mind an unreprobate a reprobate.

 

[JM]

cyg, you are using all the same passages the Arminians and Amyraldians use in support of your unlimited limited atonement view.

So lets get this strait, you believe that God is trying to save the reprobate and has even made provision for them in the atonement, offers it to them, tries to convince them to come, invites them, even promises them salvation BUT can only save some of His choosing? According to your thinking God is trying to save everyone and choosing only some...

How is this view different from hypothetical universalism or the Arminian idea of basing election on foreknowledge?

It's not different. You make the efficiency of the atonement less than it's sufficiency. I’m not drilling for the nerve here but trying to see your point. I believe your view does damage to the biblical idea of covenant especially in light of Christ dying for His sheep or his bride. The scriptural analogy of the church as the bride of Christ is made into a plural marriage, where He loves the church but also a bunch of others…He’s keeping His options open. This is the same promiscuous love the Arminians and Amyraldians teach and believe.

Arthur Pink explaining the covenant:

a covenant is an agreement between two parties who are under mutual engagements. Something is to be done by one of the parties, in consequence of which the other party binds himself to do something in return. When a master, for example, enters into an agreement or covenant with a servant, he prescribes certain duties to be performed by the servant and promises to recompense him with suitable wages. By consenting to the compact, the servant becomes bound to perform the stipulated work, and the master is bound to bestow the reward when the term of labor is finished. Such an agreement, such a compact, was entered into between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. Clear proof of this is found in Isaiah 49:1-19; 2 Timothy 1:9. In Isaiah 53:10-12 we have recorded the promises which God made to the Mediator. In John 17:24 we hear Christ putting in His claim to the fulfillment of that promise.
​

Understanding Turrentin can be tricky and he has been quoted making unguarded statements in this thread.

In the first place, Turretin repudiated the whole concept of the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, along with its corollary that Christ in some sense died for all. Secondly, Turretin did not deny that the command to believe in Christ comes to all. This truth he steadfastly maintained and those who repudiate the idea of a free offer have always maintained this truth. In the third place, as he attempted to harmonize this with a particular or limited atonement, he distinguished between the activity of faith in such a way that he separated the "assent" of faith from its "assurance." With this we cannot entirely agree, and there is no Scriptural warrant for doing this. Nevertheless, he clearly maintained that the atonement of Christ was limited to the elect only and that no idea of a universal atonement can serve as the basis for an offer that expresses God's intent to save all. In this respect Turretin stands in the line of Reformed thought.[ Chapter 4: Amyrauldianism]
​

If the Gospel is an offer to all men, meaning Christ died savingly for all men, we must also conclude that the rest of the Gospel is for the salvation of all men as well. The Gospel cannot be parcelled out or divided. Christ died in a covenantal manner securing salvation, He conquered the grave for them. He died for and lives and reigns in Heaven at the right hand of the Father making intercession for those He died.

This is the Gospel; the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ who died savingly for His people for Christ did not die to offer salvation but works salvation by His life, death, burial and resurrection. Christ's death is propitious, that means the wrath of the Father has been removed from sinners, their sin imputed to Christ. For Christ to have died for all in any sense would mean their sins were imputed to Him and they are no longer under the wrath of the Father for their sins...the list goes on. You are using Arminian arguments cyg.

Hebrews 10.14 states clearly; the offering Christ made will result in the perfection of all for whom it was offered. There is no extra offering being made, no offer of salvation to anyone, only the proclamation of truth for the people of God.

cyg, consider the effects the Enlightenment had in the church during the 1700's and you'll see the influence of subjectivism on Amyraut, the Marrow Men and Andrew Fuller. This view reduces the objectivity of the cross to a purely subjective cross that is applied to the sinner because he has merritted it by faith.

jm

 

[JM]

As of right now the vote is 6 for the general call and 2 for the free or well meant offer...I thought the well meant offer would be much higher.