PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
I have no time for a comprehensive survey of every historical Reformed formulation on the extent of the Atonement, but it might be helpful to point out a few to show that there is more than one option. Let’s start with Calvin: In Book III of his Institutes, “The Way in Which […]
1 Comment »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
PART ONE
PART TWO
Murray writes,
If some for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character. We shall have none […]
No Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
[CONTINUED FROM HERE]
Murray asks, “Did Christ come to make the salvation of men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, and merely to make provision for salvation? Or did he come to save his people?”[Redemption: Accomplished & Applied, p. 63] Now this question has plenty of teeth in it when used […]
2 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
What happens when a Reformed Protestant sees an argument for Roman Catholic prayers to the dead? Or Roman Catholic suffering in Purgatory to make up for sins to merit Heaven? Or Eastern Orthodox arguments for icons? Or the rite of chrismation?
Pretty much, mocking ridicule, not just because the conclusion is wrong but […]
2 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
[Despite the length of this post, I left out some thing I met to say. I completed my thoughts about Gerstner’s essay here.]
When the Westminster Confession writes “Of the Church” it defines it as both visible and invisible (chapter 25, first two paragraphs: invisible and visible respectively).
But when John Gerstner writes of the Church, he […]
5 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel, Bible & Theology
Murray insisted that the genuine offer was compatible, not only with the doctrine of reprobation (which it is), but also with the doctrine of limited atonement–”the doctrines of particular election, differentiating love, and limited atonement do not erect any fence around the offer of the Gospel” [“The Atonement & the Free Offer of the Gospel,” […]
3 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
A major reason for the posts in this category is to remove imagined obstructions to Calvinists sharing the Gospel in true sincerity. A second major reason is to convince arminians that those imagined obstructions are indeed imaginary, and any imagined evidence from those called “Calvinists” is an accident, not some “essence of the system”–if […]
1 Comment »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
Hypercalvinism is a commitment to only using the word “grace” for that which brings about eternal salvation. Anything less than that must never be thought of or spoken of as gracious.
And that is exactly what we find argued. The only grace worth mentioning is the “amazing” kind that leads infallibly for eternal life.
And like Hoeksema […]
No Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
This argument has been going on in some way in all the posts in this category. However, some posts are more directly involved than others.
A sermon I preached many years ago from Ephesians
The Genuine Offer of the Gospel
Hoeksema and Engelsma against the Genuine Offer of the Gospel.
Gary North against the Free Offer of the Gospel.
Grace, […]
No Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
Gary North wants to make a decisive distinction between God’s “favor” and “favors”-only allowing the latter to the reprobate. Hoeksema maintains the same sort of division. In his self-interrogating catechism he writes:
9. Is it then, not also true, that in these things of this present life both the godly and ungodly receive tokens of God’s […]
No Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
The texts Murray cites to prove that God sincerely desires the repentance of the reprobate are rather straightforward. Indeed, the issues are more or less settled by whether or not one acknowledges the reality of common grace. If God’s desires or pleasures can only be exhaustively identical to His decrees, then such statements as, “‘As […]
No Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
I’m not home yet, but regarding my earlier post, I remembered that Hodge’s Systematic theology is available online.
With apologies to David, I’m not seeing the quotation the way he does:
The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the facts to be explained. The difficulty with all the Anti-Augustinian views as to […]
13 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
Charles Hodge:
All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that the great design of Christ’s death was to make the salvation of all men possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race.Systematic Theology, 2: 553.
[Lane brought up a possible problem with this quotation. I’m not at home […]
8 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
In my series on The “free” (i.e. genuine) offer of the Gospel, I pointed out in this post Berkhof’s reply to a hypercalvinist that Berkhof believes that the justified, can, in this life, also be in some sense under God’s wrath. I wrote,
it is well worth asking how we are to interpret the destructive forces […]
5 Comments »
Filed under: "free offer" of the gospel
To understand Murray’s view of the Free Offer of the Gospel, it seems needful to give the issue some more elaboration. In Romans 1.18ff, the Apostle Paul sets forth the fundamental predicament of all men: All people everywhere are sinners against God. The primary message usually taken from this passage is that people are self-deceived […]
