The Free Offer of the Gospel

In this episode, we speak about the free offer of the gospel. The real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men. This issue was related to several theological controversies of the 1940s and stemming back decades earlier. Much of this particular issue comes the split of 1924 within the Christian Reformed Church which led to the formation of the Protestant Reformed Church under the leadership of Herman Hoeksema.

For some, the antithesis is so absolutized that there can be no real transition from wrath to grace and no free offer of the gospel. Cornelius Van Til spoke of the antithesis as an ethical rather than metaphysical antithesis. In a letter to Jesse de Boer, he indicated that it was merely another way to speak of total depravity.

As we walk through a study committee report delivered to the 15th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we are confronted with the great mystery of God’s will and his infallible revelation to us in Scripture.

Links



Participants: , ,


Christ the Center focuses on Reformed Christian theology. In each episode a group of informed panelists discusses important issues in order to encourage critical thinking and a better understanding of Reformed doctrine with a view toward godly living. Browse more episodes from this program or subscribe to the podcast feed.

Leave a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Gregory Baus

6 months ago

Thanks guys. Two comments:
1. The “report of the minority” is superior and offers biblical correction to your view of God’s desire and “mystery.”
2. This additional material is useful on the topic: https://www.monergism.com/topics/grace/common-grace

Chris Coldwell

6 months ago

Anthony Castellitto

5 months ago

Well spoken and vital distinctions…..

Geoffrey Willour

5 months ago

Great discussion, thanks guys! While I agree with all you were affirming regarding the doctrine of common grace, I have two small quibbles:

(1) I don’t believe Second Peter 3:9 is a helpful passage to bring forward in defense of the doctrine of common grace. In the context of that passage Peter is addressing believers and reminding them of God’s patience toward THEM (“The Lord is not slow…but is patient toward you”); and thus it seems that the “any” in his statement that God is “not wishing that any should perish” has the thrust of: “any of YOU” (and thus, by implication, “any of you who are elect”). God’s patience delays our Lord’s return so that the full number of the elect might be brought to repentance through the gospel.

(2) As Reformed believers of course we affirm “double predestination.” However, God does not “predestine” the wicked reprobate in the same sense in which He “predestines” the elect. (As you brothers know, in the case of the elect God decrees to actively intervenes with His sovereign grace, whereas in the case of the reprobate He decrees to simply pass over them in the operations of His saving grace, leaving them to their own freely-chosen sin, and decreeing to punish them for that sin, for which they bear full responsibility.) In order to avoid potential confusion on this subject (especially when discussing it with the non-Reformed), and also because Scripture uses the term “predestine” positively to refer to the elect, I think it is best to avoid using the word “predestine” when speaking of God’s decree with respect to the reprobate. I think it would be best to follow the example of the Westminster Divines, who in Confession of Faith 3.3 speak of elect angels and men as “predestinated unto everlasting life,” whereas they speak of reprobate angels and men as having been “foreordained to everlasting death.” God’s people are “predestined”; the wicked reprobate our “foreordained”.

Hope I’m not being too picky here, but just thought I’d share some feedback. Again, great job on a difficult subject!

Geoffrey Willour

5 months ago

*are “foreordained”.

Ben Mordecai

4 months ago

Gentlemen, I enjoyed this episode and had been thinking about it enough that I listened again to see if it answered some new questions that I had and since it did not touch on this topic I would like to ask it here:

How does the free offer to the reprobate square with the doctrine of Limited or Particular Atonement? I understand the idea that God has a desire for even the reprobate to repent, but if we affirm that the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect, how can we (hypothetically) or God (actually) say to a reprobate that he would forgive their sins if they would turn, seeing as Jesus did not, in fact, pay for their sins? The free offer would seem to collapse us into Amyraldianism, unless we said something like, “God sincerely calls you to repent such that if you do, it will have already been true that Jesus died for your sins.” In the hypothetical situation, if God sincerely desired a reprobate to repent and he actually did repent, God would suddenly have to come up with a new way to atone for the reprobate’s sins, since Jesus didn’t die for them.

I am wondering if anyone can shed some light on this conundrum.

reformed-forum-logo-white400

Contact Info

Reformed Forum
P.O. Box 27422
Philadelphia, PA 19118

+1 440.973.6786
mail@reformedforum.org

Copyright © 2018 Reformed Forum