Free Offer?

[Brandan Kraft]

Recently on pal talk there has been a lot of discussion about the "free offer" of the gospel. After studying this issue recently, I don't find evidence in Scripture to indicate that the Gospel is to be "offered" to men, but to be proclaimed to all men indiscriminately. I have been called a hyper calvinist because of my observation. I'm curious as to what this forum thinks.

Brandan

[wildboar]

Calvin himself denied the idea of the "free offer" as it is presented today. It is absurd that people accuse others of being hyper-Calvinists when they are teaching what Calvin taught. The section in the Westminster Standards that mentions the idea of the gospel as an offer, has to do with what the word meant when it was translated. When it was translated the word carried more the idea of to present.

Banner of Truth has tried to accuse those who deny the well-meant offer by publishing a book called "Spurgeon Vs. Hyper-Calvinism". I don't know why they think Spurgeon is the mark by which we measure if something is Calvinism or not. The British Reformed Fellowship has responded by publishing a book called "Calvin Vs. Hyper-Spurgeonism". Probably the most thorough refutation of the idea of the well-meant offer was written by a Congregationalist minister by the name of Joseph Hussey called "God's Operations of Grace But No Offers of Grace" which can be found at http://geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/...ce/hussey.html I have a copy of it which was published by Primitive publications. Pink also denies the well-meant offer in his book "The Sovereignty of God".

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by Dr. Gill
Recently on pal talk there has been a lot of discussion about the "free offer" of the gospel. After studying this issue recently, I don't find evidence in Scripture to indicate that the Gospel is to be "offered" to men, but to be proclaimed to all men indiscriminately. I have been called a hyper calvinist because of my observation. I'm curious as to what this forum thinks.

Brandan

i think some of it may be semantics. if i say "offer" i don't mean that Christ is to be sold or that we are casting pearls before swine but i mean that He is the only one available and the only way for someone to be saved and that everyone needs to hear about it. i don't see any support in Scripture for specifically saying that he is to be offered to all rather than preached to all. i think the idea that we are to proclaim Him to all people is more in line with Scripture but if i were to say that we are to offer Him to all people that's how i would mean it and understand it. in other words, He is offered (by the preacher) to all not to just a select few. i don't see why anyone would have trouble with preferring that proclaim be said rather than offer. but i think a lot of it may just be semantics.

[Jabbok]

That is an offer and implies that you have the power in and of yourself to either accept or reject it.

But, to announce that Coke is the "Real Thing" and nothing can satisfy your thirst as effectively is a proclamation.

Our duty is to proclaim Christ as the only hope for sinners. The sinners response to this proclamation is an evidence of the effectual calling of God.

[Brandan Kraft]

Amen Jabbok, if people want to call a proclamation an "offer" - I guess that's fine with me. But to me it will always be a proclamation.

Now I have another question. Should we "plead" with sinners to embrace the gospel proclamation?

[PILGRIM313]

That is an offer and implies that you have the power in and of yourself to either accept or reject it. But, to announce that Coke is the "Real Thing" and nothing can satisfy your thirst as effectively is a proclamation. Our duty is to proclaim Christ as the only hope for sinners. The sinners response to this proclamation is an evidence of the effectual calling of God.

Mankind likes to make much adoo about words, the word 'offer' has had a change of meaning since the original useage of it, and we seem not to be able to accept that. Any of the staunch old Calvinists were meaning 'proclaimed' or 'the cure' for man's lost state. Are we not spending time haggling over words, when praise of a Glorious Saviour would be time better spent.

the comparison of 'coke being the real thing' is simply a sales pitch and really has no comparrison.
Pilgrim

[wildboar]

The problem is that the idea of the "well-meant offer" has been tied up with common grace. It is taught by many in Reformed and Presbyterian churches that in the preaching of the Gospel, God sincerely desires the salvation of everyone that hears it and offers salvation to them. This is Arminianism and unBiblical. They accuse those who deny this of being hyper-Calvinists, when the reality is that they are hypo-Calvinists.

For further info read: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by PILGRIM313
Mankind likes to make much adoo about words, the word 'offer' has had a change of meaning since the original useage of it, and we seem not to be able to accept that. Any of the staunch old Calvinists were meaning 'proclaimed' or 'the cure' for man's lost state. Are we not spending time haggling over words, when praise of a Glorious Saviour would be time better spent.

the comparison of 'coke being the real thing' is simply a sales pitch and really has no comparrison.
Pilgrim

that is a very good point. we often rehash old debates forgetting that language is always in flux and the meanings and usages of words are constantly changing. i was sort of trying to reflect that in my post (even though i didn't know it! ). if i were to say that i believe that Christ should be offered to all (which i would have no problem saying, though i don't think i've ever said it) i would not mean that all are saved, that Christ spilled His blood indiscriminately, or that we should cast pearls before swine. i do not mean that we should offer Christ as a salesman offers his wares. i don't know what offer meant back in the heyday of the free-offer debates, but i think the semantic range of the word "offer" (at least today) is much broader than some are allowing.

[Jabbok]

I don't have a problem with the Gospel being understood as an offer or a proclamation. Neither is it relevant to me how the word(s) have changed from their original meaning. I believe that we will be able to determine how we've preached the Gospel by the response of the sinner. If the sinner is smitten, impotent and dependent upon God for His mercy and grace then that is a pretty good proof that we have presented the Gospel appropriately. Of course, if God hadn't worked through the ages in spite of the errors of His messengers, where would any of us be?

[Robert R. Higby]

Dr. Gill asks:

Should we "plead" with sinners to embrace the gospel proclamation?

I'm struggling with this question and have no 'pat answer,' although I'm sure that scriptural revelation addresses it.

If 'pleading' is the equivalent of 'begging,' I'm sure that would contradict God's sovereignty. But what about pleading in the sense of 'genuine concern' over the state of souls? Does that not have a place?

Just trying to reason it out in a way that honors God's working.

[Jabbok]

How is pleading any different from compelling? Aren't we to compel them to come to the Lord's house so they can hear the Gospel preached?

We don't "Plead" with sinners to "Accept" Jesus. We plead with sinners to consider the Gospel message that they are lost in sin, in need of a savior and King Jesus is the only savior available!

Consider this truth....please....I beg of you.

[PILGRIM313]

Should we "plead" with sinners to embrace the gospel proclamation?

Acts 2:22,29, show Peter 'pleading' with the sinners, and vs. 37 shows the working of the Holy Spirit. Acts also includes him pleading with people to come to Christ,

It isn't that we 'plead' that they come 'take the gift' but rather to show them their lost condition, thier hoplessness, their doom, 'Today is the day of salvation' 'harden not your hearts'.
Pilgrim

[jhamrick]

Should we "plead" with sinners to embrace the gospel proclamation?



I'm not sure what one is "pleading" or "begging" for when this takes place. The first thing that comes to mind is preachers that I have seen in my life who give an invitation, and when noone is coming forward, begin pleading for someone to come forward. This seems to be pleading for someone to "make a decision" for God. In my opinion, the core motivation here is often to validate the preachers ministry. I think it is obvious that this is wrong, and many times we could make that same correlation with our personal witness. What is my core motivation if I begin begging someone to come to Christ?

I don't think the King needs a beggar to do his bidding. I think we should proclaim the truth to all, and trust God for the Harvest.

Mt 28:19, (KJV), Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

[disciple]

Originally posted by Dr. Gill
Now I have another question. Should we "plead" with sinners to embrace the gospel proclamation?

2 Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

the word beg is DEOMAI which thayers describes thusly:

1. to want, lack
2. to desire, long for
3. to ask, beg
   a. the thing asked for
   b. to pray, make supplications

here are some other versions:

2 Co 5:20 (NLT) We are Christ's ambassadors, and God is using us to speak to you. We urge you, as though Christ himself were here pleading with you, "Be reconciled to God!"

2 Co 5:20 (GNT) Here we are, then, speaking for Christ, as though God himself were making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ's behalf: let God change you from enemies into his friends!

2 Co 5:20 (GW) Therefore, we are Christ's representatives, and through us God is calling you. We beg you on behalf of Christ to become reunited with God.

2 Co 5:20 (HCSB) Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, "Be reconciled to God."

2 Co 5:20 (ISV) Therefore, we are Christ's representatives, as though God were pleading through us. We plead on Christ's behalf: "Be reconciled to God!"

2 Co 5:20 (NCV) So we have been sent to speak for Christ. It is as if God is calling to you through us. We speak for Christ when we beg you to be at peace with God.

2 Co 5:20 (AMP) 20So we are Christ's ambassadors, God making His appeal as it were through us. We [as Christ's personal representatives] beg you for His sake to lay hold of the divine favor [now offered you] and be reconciled to God.

2 Co 5:20 (NET) Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea (Or, as though God were begging) through us. We plead (Or, we beg you) with you on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!”

[jhamrick]

Thank You Disciple, I was wrong. My mind is changed.

[disciple]

i found this here (Part 3):

This Gospel preaching is to display the very heart of God who freely calls sinners to come to Himself. “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance.” Is. 55:1 ff. It ought to demonstrate through Christ’s representative the hearty offer of Jesus Himself who cried, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt. 11:28. Such preaching should be marked by such apostolic fervor that it can say boldly, truthfully, and freely, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you (i.e. “we beg you”) on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” 2 Cor. 5:20. And none of this zeal for a Gospel freely offered to sinners should be hindered by our commitment to Calvinism; indeed our belief that God does, indeed, have an elect whom He will save by the ministry of the Word should be the great spur to our evangelistic energies.

...

Unlike evangelistic preachers who fall into the trap of Arminianism, Spurgeon is clear that only the sovereign grace of God can truly bring a soul to faith in Christ. Yet, at the same time, he makes memorable use of the full range of motivations to call these souls to decision, e.g., the inevitability of death, the brevity and unpredictability of life, the return of Christ...Reformed ministers today who rightly stand against the manipulative techniques of evangelism based on flawed and erroneous views of the human will should ask themselves if, in throwing out the dirty bath water of Arminianism, they have also thrown out the baby of genuine biblical urgency in pleading with the lost. Spurgeon surely did not!

“Weary, but not quite wearied out, O impenitent man, I plead with thee! Though thou hast so often been pleaded with in vain, once more I speak with thee in Christ’s stead, and say—Repent of thy sin, look to thy Saviour, and confess thy faith in his own appointed way. I verily believe that if I had been pleading with some of you to save the life of a dog I should have prevailed with you a great while ago. And will you not care about the saving of your own souls? Oh, strange infatuation—that men will not consent to be themselves saved; but foolishly, madly, hold out against the mercy of God which leads them to repentance. God bless you, beloved, and may none of you despise his goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering.”

[disciple]

Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace

A yet further charge against us is, that we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate, that, in fact, our theology is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners. Gentlemen, if you dare to say this, I would take you to any library in the world where the old Puritan fathers are stored up, and I would let you take down any one volume and tell me if you ever read more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in any of your own books. Did not Bunyan plead with sinners, and whoever classed him with any but the Calvinist? Did not Charnock, Goodwin, and Howe agonise for souls, and what were they but Calvinist? Did not Jonathan Edwards preach to sinners, and who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters. The works of our innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted. Oh, sirs, if I should begin the list, time should fail me. It is an indisputable fact that we have laboured more than they all for the winning of souls. Was George Whitfield any the less seraphic? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with the less compassion because he believed in God's electing love and preached the sovereignty of the Most High? It is an unfounded calumny. Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellowmen; we can hold all our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. Again, I must say, I am not defending certain brethren who have exaggerated Calvinism. I speak of Calvinism proper, not that which has run to seed, and outgrown its beauty and verdure. I speak of it as I find it in Calvin's Institutes, and especially in his Expositions. I have read them carefully. I take not my views of Calvinism from common repute but from his books. Nor do I, in this speaking, even vindicate Calvinism as if I cared for the name, but I mean that glorious system which teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last. And again, then, I say it is an utterly unfounded charge that we dare not preach to sinners...

And the wind comes, and the effect of his ministry is seen in their life. So preach we to dead sinners; so pray we for the living Spirit. So, by faith, do we expect his Divine influence, and it comes,—cometh not from man, nor of man, nor by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, but from the sovereign will of God. But not withstanding it comes instrumentally through the faith of the preacher while he pleads with man, "as though God did beseech them by us, we pray them in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God."

[disciple]

alex montoya, a man who i highly respect and is the professor of pastoral ministries at the master's seminary said this (i think i recall that he said that spurgeon said this but i don't know where the quote comes from):

we need to believe as calvinists but preach as arminians

the point being that since we don't know who is elect, we are to plead with and beg sinners to be reconciled to God. we are to have compassion and genuine concern for all souls and appeal to everyone to repent and embrace Christ.

[disciple]

http://www.gracesermons.com/doctrine...Wells-toc.html
http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/g...alvinists.html
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0227.htm
http://www.thevine.net/%7Ephillipj/o_cg.htm#2_3
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0804.htm
http://www.fbinstitute.com/spurgeon/advice.html
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0174.htm

[disciple]

http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Portraits/fuller.htm

Like Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller was a Biblical theologian driven by a pastor’s heart. His study into the nature of salvation and the Gospel call was fueled by his dealings with people in his congregation rather than by cold academic considerations. As a young pastor Fuller began to question the hyper-Calvinistic view of his day which rejected any gospel invitation to the lost. At his first church Fuller wrote:

"With respect to the system of doctrine which I had used to hear from youth, it was in the hyper-Calvinistic strain ... Abstinence from gross evils might be enforced. But nothing was said to them from the pulpit in the way of warning them to flee from the wrath to come, or inviting them to apply to Christ for salvation ... I began to doubt whether I had got the truth respecting this subject ... "

While never straying from the doctrines of Grace, Fuller came to see that such doctrines did not preclude offering the gospel to all men. He saw this offer of salvation in the writing of such a diverse group of men as Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Bunyan, and David Brainerd. Beyond such men, Fuller saw in Scripture itself a firm insistence on freely preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all men. Gilbert Laws notes that on moving away from hyper-Calvinism: "Fuller had followed what he found for himself in the Scriptures. He had dared to preach as John the Baptist preached and as the Master Himself had preached, and as the apostles preached, inviting and beseeching sinners to believe and live."

Andrew Fuller’s greatest work is The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. "It is the single merit of Andrew Fuller ... that he demonstrated that a man can be both a Calvinist and an Evangelical." Contrary to many modern arguments, holding to the Doctrines of Grace does not kill evangelism but rather grounds it solidly in Scripture. This work presented clearly Fuller’s belief that one could hold both to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man at the same time. A good example of Fuller's beliefs on the subject of salvation can be found in his sermon, The Great Question Answered.