General Call or Free Offer?

[cygnusx1]

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.



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

just as I said , there you have in your own post two Gospels ;

one from the preacher and the other from God .

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men (even reprobates) because we don't know who the elect are " my words in brackets.

Jesus knew who was reprobate and he still preached to all ... therefore not knowing who is elect is irrelevent .

You cannot have desires for sinners to be saved ever because you just may be and probably indeed are opposing God ... if He has only a desire to save the elect ... it's unavoidable.

Paul prayed and wept for the Jews most of whom were not even elect (Romans 9) as did Christ .

The Gospel is worthy of all acceptation

There are offers of grace not merely operations .....

Mercy is for those who want it , whosoever will receive Christ believe upon him is an open door .

Spurgeon perhaps was the first to see decretive theology oppose practical theology , he often spoke out against it , his sermons are full of soul winning , his branch of Calvinism was rich in the classic Calvinist sense , it agreed wit the Puritans Calvinism , which was a rich warm reasonable faith , encouraging all sinners to look away from themselves and only to Christ who is able to save to the uttermost any person who comes in faith to him.

The reason why God is angry with the reprobate is because He was willing and they were unwilling , all day long He held out His arms to disobedient Israel , notice He did not fold His arms all day long .

Gods longsuffering is over the reprobate (Romans 9) He grants men the good things in life in order that they should repent and be saved , the fact they have been offered salvation and rejected it means they are storing up wrath (Romans 2)

None can store up wrath unless they have something gracious to reject .

If there is Grace only for the elect then no-one can reject God or the Gospel , or harden their hearts against God's loving kindness.

 

[cygnusx1]

LOUIS BERKHOF
​

(20th Century American Presbyterian Theologian)
​

"We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance…The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation of all those who accept Christ by faith. This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover it is contingent on a faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one… It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonise the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately… " (Systematic Theology BOT p.397-398)


​

LORRAINE BOETTNER
​

(20th Century American Presbyterian Theologian. Famous for his definitive work on Roman Catholicism)
​

"The decree of election is a secret decree. And since no revelation has been given to the preacher as to which ones among his hearers are elect and which are non elect, it is not possible for him to present the Gospel to the elect only. It is his duty to look with hope on all those to whom he is preaching, and to pray for them that they may each be among the elect. In order to offer the message to the elect, he must offer it to all; and the Scripture command is plain to the effect that it should be offered to all. Even the elect must hear before they can believe and accept, Romans 10:13-17" (Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Eerdmans p.285)


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/g...alvinists.html​

 

[Osage Bluestem]

just as I said , there you have in your own post two Gospels ;

one from the preacher and the other from God .

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men (even reprobates) because we don't know who the elect are " my words in brackets.

There is only one gospel. We preach it in the hearing of men. It is true that whoever believes will be saved. It is also true that the numberincluded in that whoever is not reprobates. Those who believe have always been elect and no reprobate will ever believe.

Jesus knew who was reprobate and he still preached to all ... therefore not knowing who is elect is irrelevent .

Jesus was clear that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the end.

You cannot have desires for sinners to be saved ever because you just may be and probably indeed are opposing God ... if He has only a desire to save the elect ... it's unavoidable.

If he wanted the reprobate saved he would save them. We save no one only God saves. Salvation is of the Lord.

Paul prayed and wept for the Jews most of whom were not even elect (Romans 9) as did Christ .

As do we still. We preach the gospel to everyone and don't want anyone to reject it. The reprobate rejects the gospel because he wants to reject it. He wants to reject it because he is evil.

The Gospel is worthy of all acceptation

There are offers of grace not merely operations .....

Mercy is for those who want it , whosoever will receive Christ believe upon him is an open door .

The only people who will believe in Christ do so because they were elected by the Father in eternity past, they were bought at calvary by Jesus and they are regenerated by the power of the HOly Spirit. No man has the power in and of himself to repent without God's irresistible grace to come to repentance.

Spurgeon perhaps was the first to see decretive theology oppose practical theology , he often spoke out against it , his sermons are full of soul winning , his branch of Calvinism was rich in the classic Calvinist sense , it agreed wit the Puritans Calvinism , which was a rich warm reasonable faith , encouraging all sinners to look away from themselves and only to Christ who is able to save to the uttermost any person who comes in faith to him.

Every christian should encourage every non christian to repent and accept Christ. That doesn't mean that those we plead with are elect and will repent.

The reason why God is angry with the reprobate is because He was willing and they were unwilling , all day long He held out His arms to disobedient Israel , notice He did not fold His arms all day long .

As stated before they will never believe because they are reprobated and left to their own devices.

Gods longsuffering is over the reprobate (Romans 9) He grants men the good things in life in order that they should repent and be saved , the fact they have been offered salvation and rejected it means they are storing up wrath (Romans 2)

The longsuffering is for the elect. God is only allowing this world to remain in it's evil state until the last elect person becomes saved.

None can store up wrath unless they have something gracious to reject .

If there is Grace only for the elect then no-one can reject God or the Gospel , or harden their hearts against God's loving kindness.

They reject what they hear and do not love God because they are reprobates.

There is irresistible grace only for the elect and only through the irresistible grace of regeneration can a man be saved.

There is no salvation possible outside of God's election to salvation.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

what of it ? they don't own them

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...

I never ever said God is trying to do anything .... the desire of God for the salvation of sinners is a desire for what they should do , NEVER what He should do.

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

much in every way , salvation is not only an opportunity it is a certainty , Christ died for the elect alone , His blood is for the forgiveness of sins , the sufficiency of Christs blood is for all men , it has power to save any man .
Election is not based upon anything other than Gods will , the Gospel is a universal proposal by Gods will.

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.

there is no limit to Gods love .... you cannot measure it by a number .

Arthur Pink ...

good , now we are getting somewhere ;

"The gospel is as free as the air, and I Timothy 1:15 gives us full warrant to tell a murderer in the condemned cell that there is a Savior for him if he will receive him…The ground on which any sinner is invited and commanded to believe is neither God's election, not Christ's substitution, but his particular need of responding to the free offer of the gospel. The gospel is that Christ died for sinners (not "elect sinners") and is addressed to their responsibility." (Letter to William Naismith 1949 Quoted by Iain Murray in the Life of Arthur Pink BOT p.195)





"Particular redemption (Christ making atonement for the sins of his own people only) must not prevent his servants from preaching the gospel to every creature and announcing that there is a Savior for every sinner out of hell who appropriates him for his own." (Studies in the Scriptures March 1951)

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

I will come back to Turretin if I get the time .

​

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.

true , and there are no limits to Gods love , Christ loved the rich young ruler even though the guy walked away from Christ ... don't give me "he must have been elect"

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.

every Calvinist who believes in the Free-Offer believes that ! (I reckon I could name 50)

You are using Arminian arguments cyg.

irrelevant . I am using Calvinist arguments JM

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.

read Romans 2 , no Calvinist denies the elect are perfected/secured by one offering , thus the charge of Amyraldianism/Arminianism is false , The "Gospel Offer" and the "All Sufficiency" of Christs atonement are held together ... notice you were silent on John Owen , the father of the systematic doctrine of Definite atonement ... he fought Arminianism and Amyraldianism and look what he has to say about the Gospel Offer !!

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

Yeh , I side with classic Calvinists , including Fuller and the Marrow Men like Thomas Boston because I think they are right and I have looked at the other side and found it way too lopsided and Hyper for me . I am glad not to be in the "E" camp* and in the Classic Calvinist camp .

you will be blaming me (or my doctrine) for the recession next bro.

* "E" camp being Ella and Engelsma

if I took your views seriously bro , I would have to say 99% of Calvinist theologians and authors are in error , and less than 1% are right . All the Puritans would have got there theology wrong , a bold step.

 

[cygnusx1]

.

until you can see you have posted a contradiction which results in two Gospels it is pointless going further ;

just as I said , there you have in your own post two Gospels ;

one from the preacher and the other from God .

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men (even reprobates) because we don't know who the elect are " my words in brackets.

you accept men preach to reprobates a Gospel , and God has no Gospel for reprobates .

 

[JM]

[FONT=&quot]Cyg, I don’t want to keep arguing but you are defining “classic” Calvinism how you like it, you are choosing the men who put forth the Marrow of Modern Divinity and saying, “see, that’s classic Calvinism!” History teaches us differently. The Marrow Men were told by their Synod not to teach the universal, well meant offer and they did anyway. This lead to them breaking away and starting what you now call “classic Calvinism.” Adding quotes from Banner of Truth works or men only show you are not willing to look outside your Seceder tradition. As I have already pointed out in pervious threads Banner of Truth has revised A. W. Pink’s works so they no longer resemble the intent of the author, they have admitted doing so, because they want to push their Marrow theology. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

true , and there are no limits to Gods love , Christ loved the rich young ruler even though the guy walked away from Christ ... don't give me "he must have been elect"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A love that doesn’t save is not love. You are thinking of the modern sense of love, “God so loved the world that He gave them roses and they rejected it…” that’s not love my brother. Love in the Bible is demonstrated by “doing” not just receiving. God love us so much He demonstrated it by saving us, not offering us roses…uh, I mean salvation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In reference to what I posted about the Gospel you replied; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

every Calvinist who believes in the Free-Offer believes that ! (I reckon I could name 50)

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But not all “Calvinists” (I really do not like the term anymore) do not believe the Gospel is well intentioned in offering salvation. If what you believe is true about the atonement than God has made no provision for the reprobate. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

irrelevant . I am using Calvinist arguments JM

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are using both. Abraham Booth said Andrew Fuller was lost for doing so, for being so inconsistent and contradictory. ( Feileadh Mor ) I would never say that, but it shows historically, your view was not welcomed among Strict & Particular Baptists until Fuller propagated it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

read Romans 2 ,

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But brother I did. I read it after I quoted Isa. 6 and you told me to read Romans 2. Isa. 6 is the other side of preaching the Gospel and that is reprobation. Romans 2 is about general revelation. The two are not the same. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

no Calvinist denies the elect are perfected/secured by one offering , thus the charge of Amyraldianism/Arminianism is false ,

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It’s not false, you are inconsistent…by claiming the offer of the atonement allows a provision for the reprobate. By state thusly you have undone your own doctrine.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

The "Gospel Offer" and the "All Sufficiency" of Christs atonement are held together ... notice you were silent on John Owen , the father of the systematic doctrine of Definite atonement ... he fought Arminianism and Amyraldianism and look what he has to say about the Gospel Offer !!

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I was silent on many of the cut and paste quotes you posted, we haven’t time to go through every single cut and paste you make. Be careful who you quote, they may be as inconsistent as you are…John Owen;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"‘The will of God,’ say some, ‘for the salvation of all, is here set down both negatively, that he would not have any perish, and positively, that he would have all come to repentance....’ Many words need not be spent in answer to this objection, wrested from the misunderstanding and palpable corrupting of the sense of the words of the apostle. That indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in an answerable proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed, is a rule in the opening of the Scripture.... Will not common sense teach us that us is to be repeated in both the following clauses, to make them up complete and full,—namely, ‘Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance’? ... Now, truly, to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world (even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly ... I shall not need add any thing concerning the contradictions and inextricable difficulties wherewith the opposite interpretation is accompanied.... The text is clear, that it is all and only the elect whom he would not have to perish."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"n all these expostulations there is no mention of any ransom given or atonement made for them that perish... but they are all about temporal mercies, with the outward means of grace.... [T]here are no such expostulations here expressed, nor can any be found holding out the purposes and intention of God in Christ towards them that perish. Secondly, ... all these places urged ... are spoken to and of those that enjoyed the means of grace, who ... were a very small portion of all men; so that from what is said to them nothing can be concluded of the mind and purpose of God towards all others.... Fifthly, that desires and wishing should properly be ascribed unto God is exceedingly opposite to his all-sufficiency and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than he hath eyes, ears, and hands."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Yeh , I side with classic Calvinists , including Fuller and the Marrow Men like Thomas Boston …

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You may redefine the term if you must but the Marrow Men and Fuller taught controversial Calvinism. Just because their false teaching is widespread, like the prosperity Gospel, doesn’t mean it is true to scripture.

if I took your views seriously bro , I would have to say 99% of Calvinist theologians and authors are in error , and less than 1% are right . All the Puritans would have got there theology wrong , a bold step.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are reading into history what isn’t there. Marrow theology is started with the reprint of The Marrow of Modern Divinity. It’s not the measuring rod for all that is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have the benefit of being able to cut and paste what you like from a site dedicated to low Calvinism, Amyraldian thought and Fullerism, we may not be able to keep up with your cut and pasting. Submit to scripture on this one, not Owen, Banner of Truth, etc. scripture.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]jm[/FONT]

 

[student ad x]

At least from where I'm sitting, we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater when one considers Fuller lost.

If theology doesn't edify, it is worthless.

 

[JM]

...and that brings us to the next point, reconciliation. cyg, myself and others have offered a whole lot to think about. At this point neither cyg or I are willing to change our positions and I feel it best if I shut up now...for a little while at least to let the dust settle, the smoke to clear, etc. We can rest as brothers and sisters if we recognize the difference of opinion without drilling for the nerve and pray God unite us on this and other issues in heaven.

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

until you can see you have posted a contradiction which results in two Gospels it is pointless going further ;

just as I said , there you have in your own post two Gospels ;

one from the preacher and the other from God .

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men (even reprobates) because we don't know who the elect are " my words in brackets.

you accept men preach to reprobates a Gospel , and God has no Gospel for reprobates .

The gospel means the good news. It is preached everywhere to everyone.

However it is only really good news to the elect who believe it. Those who reject it do not accept it as good news they don't accept it at all.

So...for the reprobate who will never believe the "good news" there really isn't any good news. They are all going to perish.

Do you understand? Are you sure you're a calvinist? Election and reprobation predestination and election are fundamental to calvinism. You are arguing against reprobation entirely.

 

[cygnusx1]

The gospel means the good news. It is preached everywhere to everyone.

However it is only really good news to the elect who believe it. Those who reject it do not accept it as good news they don't accept it at all.

So...for the reprobate who will never believe the "good news" there really isn't any good news. They are all going to perish.

Do you understand? Are you sure you're a calvinist? Election and reprobation predestination and election are fundamental to calvinism. You are arguing against reprobation entirely.

well if that doesn't beat all ... the good news ceases being the good news when it is not accepted



tell us , is this good news or bad news ?

and how can you even mention the reprobate getting any Gospel ? you already stated there is no Gospel for them , except the one a human might share , which cannot be the same Gospel God sends because , according to you He has nothing for the reprobate , no Gospel for them at all .....

Lets cut to the chase , there is only one Gospel , the Apostles preached and beseeched men with the same Gospel and the same desires and longings Christ and God the Father have , Paul wept over reprobates as did Christ .

The idea we can preach the good news to the none elect because we don't know who they are is frankly hillarious , they get the good news (badnews) by accident !

I don't think so , they resist grace , they resist the Holy Spirit and they reject the word of God . If this is the case you would expect God the gracious one to be outraged and so He is .



Am I a Calvinist ? I let my friends answer that ......

you still are yet to explain how there is no Gospel for the reprobate , but they can have a Gospel from men .

it's been a long time since I have witnessed such a contradiction as this one on CF ;

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men "

its a classic !

The free Offer of the Gospel is simply the "outer call" , its real , its sincere , its a proposal which heightens wrath for those who reject it .
The inner call is the Spirit drawing the elect effectually , this is always accomplished and cannot be reversed .

Reprobation and Election are but one side of soteriology , they do not impinge or illiminate the Gospel Offer , the Love Of God over mankind , or common grace .

The problem I have (I am not alone) with anti-free-offer theism is it has no explanation why it is sinful to reject Gods love , Gods Gospel or Gods grace . The reason why men are punished for sin and have every excuse appears to be ready made , it furthermore degenerates into crazy introspection that can send men mad ..... what possible reason does anyone have to believe upon Christ , to recieve Him and repent and obey the Gospel if it may not even be for "me" ? no wonder many Calvinists have suffered deep doubt and discouragement if they feel God is little more than a DECREE --- must be real difficult having a relationship with one who offeres no hope to millions of souls , they , the masses must rely on the kindness and love of the Preacher who accidently reaches out in love (against Gods wishes) and offers pardon by his Gospel .... it surely makes the preacher look more loving than God . sad but true.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

well if that doesn't beat all ... the good news ceases being the good news when it is not accepted

How does one that doesn't believe it claim it's good news?

and how can you even mention the reprobate getting any Gospel ? you already stated there is no Gospel for them , except the one a human might share , which cannot be the same Gospel God sends because , according to you He has nothing for the reprobate , no Gospel for them at all .....

There isn't because they don't believe it and they are destined to spend eternity in hell anyway. They hate God. Nothing God does is regarded by them as "good news."

Lets cut to the chase , there is only one Gospel , the Apostles preached and beseeched men with the same Gospel and the same desires and longings Christ and God the Father have , Paul wept over reprobates as did Christ .

There is good reason to pity the reprobates.

The idea we can preach the good news to the none elect because we don't know who they are is frankly hillarious , they get the good news (badnews) by accident !

When you preach the gospel to a crowd of people there may be some elect in there and there may not be. Everyone is commanded to repent and that is good. However only the elect who believe have heard "good news"

I don't think so , they resist grace , they resist the Holy Spirit and they reject the word of God . If this is the case you would expect God the gracious one to be outraged and so He is .

Irresistible grace can't be resisted. Only the elect receive irresistible grace.

you still are yet to explain how there is no Gospel for the reprobate , but they can have a Gospel from men .

I've explained it many times. The reprobate will never repent and believe. Since he doesn't believe it and is told that those who don't believe it are damned, then how is that good news to him? It is actually a curse for him.

it's been a long time since I have witnessed such a contradiction as this one on CF ;

"there is no Gospel for the reprobates"

and

"we preach the Gospel to all men "

its a classic !

That's not a contradiction at all. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. That means that the elect people who God gave over to sin so that they could be redeemed, are going to hear the good news, be regenerated, place their faith in Christ repent and be justified.

The free Offer of the Gospel is simply the "outer call" , its real , its sincere , its a proposal which heightens wrath for those who reject it .
The inner call is the Spirit drawing the elect effectually , this is always accomplished and cannot be reversed .

It's a sincere command to repent. However, God who knows who is reprobated knows also that they will never come to repentance.

Reprobation and Election are but one side of soteriology , they do not impinge or illiminate the Gospel Offer , the Love Of God over mankind , or common grace .

Common grace has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with allowing the reprobate to live for awhile without punishment.

The problem I have (I am not alone) with anti-free-offer theism is it has no explanation why it is sinful to reject Gods love , Gods Gospel or Gods grace . The reason why men are punished for sin and have every excuse appears to be ready made , it furthermore degenerates into crazy introspection that can send men mad ..... what possible reason does anyone have to believe upon Christ , to recieve Him and repent and obey the Gospel if it may not even be for "me" ? no wonder many Calvinists have suffered deep doubt and discouragement if they feel God is little more than a DECREE --- must be real difficult having a relationship with one who offeres no hope to millions of souls , they , the masses must rely on the kindness and love of the Preacher who accidently reaches out in love (against Gods wishes) and offers pardon by his Gospel .... it surely makes the preacher look more loving than God . sad but true.

I understand you're not alone. Everyone who rejects limited atonement is right there with you. No one will ever be saved against God's wishes.

Listen to this short clip by Pastor Don Fortner. It may clear some things up for you.

YouTube - Jesus Shall Not Fail

 

[cygnusx1]

At least from where I'm sitting, we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater when one considers Fuller lost.

If theology doesn't edify, it is worthless.

Cam , its both sad and despicable but kind of what to expect from such narrow harsh dogmas ... as a man thinks so is he.

I fully expect to see Andrew Fuller in glory .....

Truth be told even amongst Strict and Particular Baptists there is division , I almost became a member because we have much in common , until I began to understand the guys were a VERY exclusive bunch (called Gospel Standard Baptists) these were an extreme bunch and when I mentioned having misgivings about 3 articles of faith where they deny it is safe to follow Apostolic preaching , I kid you not , it was told to me "we don't insist on those three points that have caused so much trouble" ... and so it was left to me to decide should I sign up to membership , and pretend I agreed with the creed including those 3 points , or should I decline and admit I have to be honest I just don't agree ... remember it may have been all fine and dandy for that Church to accept I signed up to a creed I wasn't in total agreement with , but somewhere down the line , someone visisting from another GS Chapel would have said "why did you become a member if you couldn't agree " ? ...... I left.

Strict and Particular Gospel Standard articles of faith ;

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe… we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God….


XXIX While we believe that the gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world…. we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.


XXXII We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely- different circumstances…




XXXIII Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.
​

Now you know why I am not an anti Free Offer Calvinist .

 

[cygnusx1]

How does one that doesn't believe it claim it's good news?



There isn't because they don't believe it and they are destined to spend eternity in hell anyway. They hate God. Nothing God does is regarded by them as "good news."



There is good reason to pity the reprobates.



When you preach the gospel to a crowd of people there may be some elect in there and there may not be. Everyone is commanded to repent and that is good. However only the elect who believe have heard "good news"



Irresistible grace can't be resisted. Only the elect receive irresistible grace.



I've explained it many times. The reprobate will never repent and believe. Since he doesn't believe it and is told that those who don't believe it are damned, then how is that good news to him? It is actually a curse for him.



That's not a contradiction at all. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. That means that the elect people who God gave over to sin so that they could be redeemed, are going to hear the good news, be regenerated, place their faith in Christ repent and be justified.



It's a sincere command to repent. However, God who knows who is reprobated knows also that they will never come to repentance.



Common grace has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with allowing the reprobate to live for awhile without punishment.



I understand you're not alone. Everyone who rejects limited atonement is right there with you. No one will ever be saved against God's wishes.

Listen to this short clip by Pastor Don Fortner. It may clear some things up for you.

there is good reason to pity reprobates ? what and be more loving and compassionate than God ?

I wish only to have Gods desires , Love and compassion ...... I do not wish to be in opposition to God.

The arguement has never been about my rejection of reprobation seeing as I don't reject it , so it is amuzing that you wish me to debate a subject I agree with

The only disagreement I can see is over God's desire to save all men .

The Calvin quote is taken from his commentary on Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 18:23

Ezekiel 18:23
23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
23. An cupio cupiendo mortem impii, dicit Dominator Iehovah? An non ut convertatur a viis suis, et vivat?



He confirms the same sentiment in other words, that God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. And for this reason not only is the Gospel spread abroad in the world, but God wished to bear witness through all ages how inclined he is to pity. For although the heathen were destitute of the law and the prophets, yet they were always endued with some taste of this doctrine. Truly enough they were suffocated by many errors: but we shall always find that they were induced by a secret impulse to seek for pardon, because this sense was in some way born with them, that God is to be appeased by all who seek him. Besides, God bore witness to it more clearly in the law and the prophets. In the Gospel we hear how familiarly he addresses us when he promises us pardon. (Luke 1:78.) And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ. It follows, then, that what the Prophet now says is very true, that God wills not the death of a sinner, because he meets him of his own accord, and is not only prepared to receive all who fly to his pity, but he calls them towards him with a loud voice, when he sees how they are alienated from all hope of safety. But the manner must be noticed in which God wishes all to be saved, namely, when they turn themselves from their ways. God thus does not so wish all men to be saved as to renounce the difference between good and evil; but repentance, as we have said, must precede pardon. How, then, does God wish all men to be saved? By the Spirit’s condemning the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment at this day, by the Gospel, as he did formerly by the law and the prophets. (John 16:8.) God makes manifest to mankind their great misery, that they may betake themselves to him: he wounds that he may cure, and slays that he may give life. We hold, then, that; God wills not the death of a sinner, since he calls all equally to repentance, and promises himself prepared to receive them if they only seriously repent. If any one should object — then there is no election of God, by which he has predestinated a fixed number to salvation, the answer is at hand: the Prophet does not here speak of God’s secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects — this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready, that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us. Although, therefore, God’s will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish. While we look now through a glass darkly, we should be content with the measure of our own intelligence. (1 Corinthians 13:12.) When we shall be like God, and see him face to face, then what is now obscure will then become plain. But since captious men torture this and similar passages, it will be needful to refute them shortly, since it can be done without trouble.
God is said not to wish the death of a sinner. How so? since he wishes all to be converted. Now we must see how God wishes all to be converted; for repentance is surely his peculiar gift: as it is his office to create men, so it is his province to renew them, and restore his image within them. For this reason we are said to be his workmanship, that is, his fashioning. (Ephesians 2:10.) Since, therefore, repentance is a kind of second creation, it follows that it is not in man’s power; and if it is equally in God’s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it. But again they argue foolishly, since God does not wish all to be converted, he is himself deceptive, and nothing can be certainly stated concerning his paternal benevolence. But this knot is easily untied; for he does not leave us in suspense when he says, that he wishes all to be saved. Why so? for if no one repents without finding God propitious, then this sentence is filled up. But we must remark that God puts on a twofold character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. As I have already said, the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about his incomprehensible plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God’s word. Now, what are the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent. this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all without exception: meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual: and as I have now said, the Prophet only shows here, that when we have been converted we need not doubt that God immediately meets us and shows himself propitious. The remainder tomorrow.

Commentary on Ezekiel - Volume 2 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library





I still find it somewhat amuzing , actually hillarious , that we can preach the good news to all men because we don't know who the elect are

I mean , suppose for a moment that you did know who the elect are , and who the reprobate are , would you still love all men indiscriminately ?

Would you still tell them the good news ?


and how can it be good news if The Gospel both saves and damns ?

the ramifications are truly fascinating!


take time to consider God knew all along who would be saved and who wouldn't , yet He sends out the Gospel to all , even though He could just as easily have chosen to reach out to the elect alone , see Philip and the salvation of the Eunuch (Acts 8)

Also God told Moses beforehand that He would harden Pharoah , no need for Pharoah to know , but Moses knew. so , it seems to me that the argument that we can call all men to Christ for salvation because we don't know who are elect and who are reprobate completely misses the point that God knows , and He sent the Church with the Gospel to all mankind in the first place.

If the Gospel preached to reprobates is far from gracious (it was hard to even type that) then what of God's blessings unto the reprobate (Matthew 5) are these also far from gracious ?

Are God's blessings to the none-elect like laced food , looking good on the outside but full of poison on the inside ....... the idea of God deliberately setting out to use blessings only to curse is little short of blaspheme. If such were the case you could never know what are blessings and what are curses ...and you could never know if God had even blessed you.... thankfully the nature of God is altogether different.


Luke 11 . The character of God is trustworthy.


9 "And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? 12 Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? 13 If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit 5 to those who ask him?"

 

[JustAsIam77]

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.”

+1 Cyg. Amen, well thought out and explained, I've tried to expand on sufficiency vs efficiency with mixed agreement from other Calvinists, I believe you are spot on in your assessment.

 

[JM]

Now you know why I am not an anti Free Offer Calvinist .

Brother cyg, you are posting with a lot of emotion now, a lot of cut and pastes and not really getting anywhere.

You are trying to equate "anti Free offer" with "anti means." It does not follow. Just because someone denies that God, in some sense, desires to save those He did not provide atonement for does not mean they would deny the free proclamation of the Gospel to all.

That dog don't hunt brother, it doesn't follow...the logic isn't there.

I am against the anti means doctrine as well. God uses the preaching of the Gospel to save His people and harden the reprobate, it's the means, you are denying Hardshell Primitive Baptist teaching...so am I.

I posted some info from Gill about the subject;

Gill on the use of means in the New Birth « Feileadh Mor

 

[JM]

The ever helpful Calvinism Chart! I would be somewhere between #2 and #3 and change the name to Consistent Predestinarian.



1. Hyper-Calvinism
​

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

​

2. Ultra High Calvinism


Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America


3. High Calvinism


Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink


4. Moderate Calvinism


Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney


5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal


6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt


7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers


8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists


copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

 

[the particular baptist]

I fully expect to see Andrew Fuller in glory .....

Abraham Booth didnt, and many more didnt either.

Truth be told even amongst Strict and Particular Baptists there is division , I almost became a member because we have much in common , until I began to understand the guys were a VERY exclusive bunch (called Gospel Standard Baptists) these were an extreme bunch and when I mentioned having misgivings about 3 articles of faith where they deny it is safe to follow Apostolic preaching , I kid you not , it was told to me "we don't insist on those three points that have caused so much trouble" ... and so it was left to me to decide should I sign up to membership , and pretend I agreed with the creed including those 3 points , or should I decline and admit I have to be honest I just don't agree ... remember it may have been all fine and dandy for that Church to accept I signed up to a creed I wasn't in total agreement with , but somewhere down the line , someone visisting from another GS Chapel would have said "why did you become a member if you couldn't agree " ? ...... I left.

Strict and Particular Gospel Standard articles of faith ;

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe… we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God….


XXIX While we believe that the gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world…. we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.


XXXII We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely- different circumstances…




XXXIII Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.
​

Now you know why I am not an anti Free Offer Calvinist .

If i lived in England or in the three US cities where there is a gospel standard church i most certainly would be part of them for precisely the reasons you object to. God's flock isnt always the most popular, the most extravagant, the most successful, the most accepted, in fact it almost never is. I love you bro

 

[the particular baptist]

YouTube - Jesus Shall Not Fail

Love brother Fortner. I drove my family 3 hours to hear him preach Christ to my soul in person.

 

[the particular baptist]

You are trying to equate "anti Free offer" with "anti means." It does not follow. Just because someone denies that God, in some sense, desires to save those He did not provide atonement for does not mean they would deny the free proclamation of the Gospel to all.

That dog don't hunt brother...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

there is good reason to pity reprobates ? what and be more loving and compassionate than God ?

I wish only to have Gods desires , Love and compassion ...... I do not wish to be in opposition to God.

Having compassion on reprobates isn't in opposition to God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. That doesn't mean that he isn't glorified in justice. It just means he apporves of the justice but doesn't take pleasure in the pain.

The only disagreement I can see is over God's desire to save all men .

If God desired to save all men that ever lived they would all be saved. God always gets what he wants.

I still find it somewhat amuzing , actually hillarious , that we can preach the good news to all men because we don't know who the elect are

I mean , suppose for a moment that you did know who the elect are , and who the reprobate are , would you still love all men indiscriminately ?

If we knew who the reprobates were for certain then we would not try to convert them and we would stay away from them. But that is not what God has decreed to happen. He has said that the wheat and the tares will grow together. So the gospel is preached to both children of God and children of the devil.

and how can it be good news if The Gospel both saves and damns ?

It only saves the elect who believe it. It damns the reprobate further because he rejects it even in the face of being told the outcome.

the ramifications are truly fascinating!

The ramifications are the same as the bible shows. Christ died for the elect they are his people. The reprobate are not his people. The elect hear his voice and follow him the reprobate doesn't.

John 10:24-30 ESV
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”