Your entry got cross-posted at Boar's Head Tavern. I hope you don't mind my butting into your train of thought.

I think the real problem may be that we demand a "substantive explanation" where one may not be available at our level of thinking (i.e. finite and fallen). Even Charles Spurgeon ran into this, and just said in effect, "I can't reconcile them, but God says both, so I must submit."

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm

(BTW, when I first read this sermon, I threw the book it contained back onto the shelf in disgust. I still regarded logical consistency and the resolution of all possible mysteries as the highest theological good at that time.)

If our taking our system of theology to its logical end leads us to ends like this, ought we not step back and admit that there are things that we *ought not* to take too far?
Doug | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 1:01 pm | #

Doug,

I have no problem with mystery. I have no problem with the answer to the question “Why doesn’t God save everyone?” being “I don’t know, scripture is silent on the question.”

What I object to is that, in light of all that Calvinism teaches on God’s sovereign election, the statement “God does not sincerely offer salvation to all men” is viewed as an aberration, but with no scriptural reasons provided. It is just declared wrong because it sounds wrong. I see no (although I would love to) scriptural ways to undo the problem while preserving the rest of Calvinism’s view on election.

And the explanations that are offered are off target, such as Horton discussing the inward and outward call. In fact, the inward and outward calls are not a explanation at all, but a restatement of the very problem: how can one who receives only the ineffectual outward call be said to have received a sincere offer?

If Horton said: it’s a really fair question and I have no answer, then I’d be fine with that. Instead he says, in effect, it’s a really fair question and I have no answer and, by the way, you’re a hyper-Calvinist.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 1:36 pm | #

Would it resolve the conflict if God offered salvation to everyone, everyone chose to reject the offer, and then God mercifully compelled some to accept?
Steve | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 2:07 pm | #

I know I shouldn't get into the middle of an intra-Calvinist debate, but I can't help it.

I see no ... scriptural ways to undo the problem while preserving the rest of Calvinism’s view on election.

Indeed. Something's got to give, doesn't it?

Scripture is not seed data, grist for our intellectual mill. If you treat it that way, you can come up with a consistent, intellectually satisfying theological system. But that is a religion of your own devising, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You must first receive the Gospel as it is proclaimed by the Apostolic Church, and know by experience Him Whom she proclaims. Then, and only then, can you begin to understand the Scriptures.

If the statement God does not sincerely offer salvation to all men does not "sound right", it is because we have beheld Him and heard His voice, and we know that that is not what He says. If that is what your intellectual system tells you, then there is something wrong with your intellectual system.

Go back and check your system. Start at its foundations.
Chris Jones | 10.10.05 - 2:18 pm | #

"What I object to is that, in light of all that Calvinism teaches on God’s sovereign election, the statement 'God does not sincerely offer salvation to all men' is viewed as an aberration, but with no scriptural reasons provided."

I guess you'd have to define "sincere offer" and compare that to what Scripture teaches on salvation and election. And I think this is something that cannot be completely "proof-texted" but must be intuited from the general thrust of Scripture and the Gospel.

So I guess the question is, can your model of "sincere offer" or "sovereign election" stand up to a comparison to the life and ministry of Christ recorded in the Gospels?
Doug | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:10 pm | #

Doug,

My model of a "sincere" offer, as I stated, is an offer that may and can be rejected or accepted. I believe scripture teaches that in our natural state, nobody can assent to the gospel, and in a regenerated state, nobody can refuse the gospel (at least not indefinitely.)

I see nothing in scripture that God makes this type of "sincere" offer to all--instead I see a clear teaching that the gospel should be presented to all. That is a related but different thing, in my opinion.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Hyper-calvinism is a warrented belief (in Plantinga's sense of properly basic) in my opinion.

Hyper Calivnism is a derived belief, in the sense that it is derived from the properly basic beliefs that come from the work of the Holy Spirit (that one is a sinner, that Jesus provides cleansing from sin and that confession and repentance is the way to get that cleansing) and meditating on scripture.

I don't think any regenerate Christian would deny the basics of faith, because the Holy Spirit works within them to asure them of these basics. However, plenty of regenerate Christians deny the doctrines of hyper-calvinism.

I am not willing to say that Hyper-Calvinism is wrong per se. I simply don't have enough data from scripture to answer the question in any kind of way.

But I do think that one should hold lightly to such beleifs, derived as they are, because we could be wrong. I am much more content with declaring it a mystery and avoiding the extremes of view on the matter (and encouraging others to avoid them, because I don't think it helps the believer f the unbeliever) that trying to intellecually resolve the unresolvable.

So I suppose all I am really trynig to do is to urge caution in this matter. I think, as does Spurgeon, that the bible preaches that a sincere option is available to everyone and that only the elect are saved. How God works that out is beyond me (and everyone else) so why don't we leave that to him and focus on the stuff he has asked us to do in the here and now.
matt | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Phooy! I meant to say, on the first line of my comment above that Hyper Calvinism is not a warrent beleif in my opinion.

Let me be clear about the term warrented here too. I don't mean that it is unwarrented and so thus we shouldn't believe it. I am using it in my limited understanding of Platinga's arguments for what can otherwise be known as 'properly basic' beliefs. That is beliefs that are held (and beheld) directly without evidence or anything else. Descartes "I think therefore I am" could be argued to be a warrented, or properly basic beleif.

In this context warrented beliefs are given to us, and held in us, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
matt | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:30 pm | #

Burdened (!) by the same credentials -- academic and theological -- (PhD, Theoretical Physics graduate education, evangelical affirmation, one-time membership in a Calvinist congregation) as you, David, I was only able to conclude that the "mystery" in the paradox forced me to conclude that I could not be a thorough-going Calvinist. It is simply beyond my ken to reconcile the tension and come down forthrightly on one side or the other of the free will/election dichotomy. The Bible teaches both. Like the Uncertainty Principle and the dual nature of light, there are just some things that I must accept on evidence, without claiming to fully grasp all that is involved. Let there be no mistake, however: I am saved by grace alone.

Chuck
Chuck | 10.10.05 - 8:11 pm | #

David,

There is no gospel offer. At all. The lie that there is centers on what-is-speech and how we are born again as real, literal new creations in Jesus Christ.

God IS His Word. We are born again by hearing Him as Word --Him as outright different speech than we had before.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

James 1:18 According to his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:23 being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God.

so not only are we born again by God as Word, which is not the speech of this world, but that Word IS the gospel:

1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

There is no mystery as to how we are born again. We are born again expressly by hearing God as Word. That IS the gospel.


God doesn't 'use language' to impart grace. He IS His Word as a separate and distinct speech from the non-creating speech of men which is the anti-Christ. God does not 'use language' as a neutral medium in which to communicate with man. Yet that is exactly the lie of anti-Christ: that there is only one speech in total reality and men and God both 'speak it': non-creating speech.

It is the very hope of anti-Christ in natural men that God is NOT His Word but merely 'uses' a non-'interefering' / non-creating speech so as to inform the non-regenerate that something called non-regeneracy exists and they are it. It is the anti-Christ who throws an accusation of 'hyper'-Calvinism by those who are in fact arminian and who think by so throwing the accusation they stake out a claim to the name Calvinist. They are very sincere deceived persons.

They have a lot at stake, wishing to claim the word Calvinism for themselves and make of it whatever they wish --in non-interfering / non-creating speech that can create no new creations in Jesus Christ, as a kind of iron-cald philosophy that creates nothing.

The anti-Christ / anti-Word of God, as non-creating speech has a purpose of speech lie that goes like this: the purpose of all speech is to deliver information by which the will is 'informed'. It (anti-Christ / Non-creating speech) tries to paint its absolute powerlessness to create (and therefore utter failure to create new creations in Jesus Christ) as a virtue by flattering men that no speech exists that can or will 'interfere' with their will and 'freedom'.

So the first thing you find among those deceived by anti-Christ that they are Calvinist, but who in truth have only heard vain non-creating philosophy is an absolute divorce between salvation and non-metaphorical new birth in Jesus Christ. They say 'saved' but almost never do they say 'new birth or new creation in Jesus Christ' unless draped in mystery and the word 'paradox'.

So you hear them over and over declaring that the gospel is an 'offer' in powerless speech.

But God says we must be born again and that we are new creation expressly by hearing His Word.

Romams 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

2 Corinthians 5:17 So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new:

The anti-Christ objects that that makes salvation a 'magic act'. I. E. Something he can't control with non-creating speech.

In truth salvation and new birth are the same as is belief as is repentance is forgiveness.

1 John 5:1 Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loves him that has begotten loves also him that is begotten of him.

Those that could not hear God as Word? God does not say to them "My fellow believers, you have bad theology." or "I said one thing and you thought I meant another." or "You are mis-educated".

The pharisees grew up in non-creating, human speech and thought themselves masters of it. They thought such mastery of it gave them their position. They worshiped their own speech. Their own false Word: anti-Christ.

But what does God say to them? He plainly calls them sons of Satan.

John 8:43-47 Why do ye not know my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of the devil, as your father, and ye desire to do the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks falsehood, he speaks of what is his own; for he is a liar and its father: and because I speak the truth, ye do not believe me. Which of you convinces me of sin? If I speak truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God hears the words of God: therefore ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

and God says very plainly to us who are real, literal new creation in Jesus Christ:

1 John 4:4-6 Ye are of God, children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. They are of the world; for this reason they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God; he that knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

The anti-Christ must claim that there is only one speech in total reality: non-creating speech. Yet there are two speaks in total reality, not one. God Is One, He created the other (non-creating speech) for His Own purposes.

Job 12:16 With Him is strength and effectual knowledge; the deceived and the deceiver are his.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
tim | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 9:32 pm | #

My view is that this question is not about the Gospel at all; rather it is about the temptation to judge oneself as apart from others. To ask the question is to put oneself in Christ's position as judge. The Gospel is God's action of redemption and reconciliation of God's creation. As Christians we have the call and opportunity to tell the good news of the Gospel so that others might come to knowledge of its gift of life transforming salvation. But the work of the Gospel is God's and God's alone. Questioning who is and who is not the object of God's work in the Gospel effectively presumes one's own role (both in the delivery and personal efficacy) in the work of the Gospel when the role is entirely God's.

On a previous note is it merely Calvinistic or is it hyper-Calvinistic to deny one's material nature, at least such as one receives it in one's conception, development, and birth?

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.12.05 - 5:03 pm | #

I agree with Shaggy. One of the problems with all this is that it can lead a person into the rpide of proclaiming judgement of salvation over others.

It's at the very core of our fallen nature to want to compare and rank ourselves with others and to see who we are above and who is above us.

Thus, Calvinism, can becaomse a source for this kind of judgement. And Arminianism can lead to it from another angle (such and such lost their salvation).

This is not however an argument against either position, it's an explanation of our fallen psychology and how it will use our doctrines to lead us in to sin. This, we should be careful about holding to these doctrines so strongly that they tempt us to act in judgement over others.

We must not place stumbling blocks before our Christian fellows and it is rather unwise to place them in our own paths.
matt | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 5:44 pm | #

David, it might be helpful to approach this question from the vantage point of God's love, and his common grace. I think that God's sincerity can be genuinely established there. Have you read D. A. Carson's The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God? That book has been incredibly helpful to me in balancing my understanding of God's sovereignty with my understanding of his other attributes (such as love). As Calvinists, we at times have a tendency to focus overly much on God's sovereignty and his decrees, while forgetting that none of his attributes exist in isolation.

I highly recommend Carson; it's a short and very profitable read. You might also enjoy Murray's essay on common grace.
Scott Moonen | Homepage | 10.25.05 - 9:01 am | #

Doug, I'm so late getting here I suppose this thread is "dead" by now, nevertheless I'll put in my two cents worth.

Tim, a previous commenter, was right when he said the the Gospel was not an offer. (I'm not sure I folllow the rest of his agrument, but that's for another time.) Read Peter's and Paul's sermons in Acts and find any offer of the Gospel, sincere or insincere. Peter and Paul did not offer the Gospel, they proclaimed it. They did not call for a response; they depended on the Holy Spirit to act on the elect. Phillip didn't offer the Gospel to the Ethiopian, he declared it from Scripture. The Holy Spirit acted and the Ethiopian responded.

Hear what Paul says in Philippians 1:15 -18: "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." Here Paul doesn't even care about the sincerity of the proclaimer.

The problem here, like in so many others, is the importing of man's ideas into Scripture. People read a passage of Scripture and say, "See, there is man's free will," when in fact the passage doesn't say anything about man's free will. They find man's free will there because the assume man's free will. They simply beg the question.

The fact is that most people who say they're Calvinist are really Arminians because they insist that in some way, to some extent man must be free from God's control.

I offer this friendly challenge. Find any passage of Scripture where man's free will, free from God's control, is explicitly given or where it can be deduce from good and necessary consequences. In doing so you must never assume that there is any such thing as man's free will relative to God, because that is what is to be proved.

In the meantime,forget about "hyper" labels and sincere or insincere offers of the Gospel. Simply proclaim the Gospel because you know "...it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."

Peace brother,

Gordon
Gordon Woods | 10.25.05 - 9:34 am | #

Oops! my previous post should have been addressed to David.
Gordon Woods | 10.25.05 - 9:36 am | #

Common grace, hmmm.
From Murray: "The decree of reprobation is of course undeniable. But denial of the reality of temporal goodness and kindness, goodness and kindness as expressions of the mind and will of God, is to put the decree of reprobation so much out of focus that it eclipses the straightforward testimony of Scripture to other truths."

What about folks who experience no real "temporal goodness and kindness."

I am sure that "common grace" would have gone over big in Ravensbrook for Corrie Ten Boom as she shared Jesus with the perishing. "This experience is God's common grace for you. Be happy, even if you are not elect. Because, if you think this is bad, wait until you finally die. Then you get to be tormented for all eternity. In hell you will really see how wonderful this camp really was."

Or for some poor woman in some remote Indian village. Hungry, beaten, sexually abused in childhood, and finally, set on fire by her husband. That's her common grace. Then, the cherry on top is going to Hell because she was not elected.

If there is a sincere offer, it is to all men. If there is not, let's give up the illusion of common grace.
JohnB | 10.25.05 - 11:26 am | #

I'm with Gordon on this one. God commands men everywhere to repent, not to consider His sincere offer. The very term "sincere offer" smacks of an Arminian "Christ didn't accomplish salvation at the cross; He only made men saveable" kind of soteriology.

JohnB, I think you're missing the point of common grace (and Reformed theology, for that matter). Just as total depravity doesn't mean everyone is as bad as they could be, common grace doesn't mean everything is as good as it could be--it means that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." James 1:17

The poor woman in India didn't experience common grace when she was abused or murdered. It was when she held her newborn baby and felt a mother's love. That is common grace. And if the "cherry on top" was going to Hell, it was because she was a guilty sinner. No one is innocent, even if their life is tough. I don't know your theodicy, but what I described is a lot closer to a Reformed viewpoint than what you wrote.
Randy | Homepage | 10.25.05 - 3:07 pm | #

G'day
it seems at some point everyone must believe God to be "insincere" if we define that as Him making an offer that cannot be taken up. Take, for example, the Arminian theologian who believes God offers salvation freely to all and anyone can accept in their own strength. Now, since God knows everything He knows ahead of time that some will reject His offer yet he offers freely anyway. Is this not also, by the previous definition, insincere since what God knows WILL happen? He's making a seemingly free offer to folks who he knows (and has known since before the foundation of the World) won't take Him up.

What's the answer? Open Theism perhaps, but then under that school can God really make such an offer, and is He really able to deliver on it?

It seems we all must say that the free offer of the Gospel (which I believe it is) has limitations based on God's limitations (he cannot sin or lie), and our own limitations as fallen creatures. I'd prefer not to then define this as insincere, but I get what your saying...

Still, theres much more than just this I cannot reconcile in my own mind, and agree with a previous poster, that's okay by me.

Bless you
Rob | 10.25.05 - 11:17 pm | #

Thanks for the interesting discussion. In reading this post I am a bit befuddled; do I even know what Calvinism is? Is there such a wide variety within the theological tradition?

From what I understand of it (growing up Arminian and only recently becoming Reformed in my own thinking), Calvinism teaches that those who are elect will receive the gospel in faith and be saved (and, vice versa, those who are not elect will not). But, like Randy said above, the language of "sincere offer" indicates in contradistinction that salvation is not something that is finished for the elect, but rather a possibility that is extended and must be accepted or rejected.

Is the notion of God offering the gospel of salvation really applicable in a Calvinistic model? If one is not among the elect and hears the gospel, the sincerity of the evangelist, the hearer, or God himself seems immaterial.
Darren | Homepage | 10.26.05 - 12:49 am | #

There may be a problem with the definition of "sincere" used here. Usually sincereity is judged by one's intent. For example, if I offer you a dollar on the completion of such and such a condition, I am sincere if I actually intend to give you the dollar if you meet the condition. Now I may not want you to meet the condition, or I may want you to meet the condition for a harmful reason rather than a beneficial one, but isn't my offer of the dollar still "sincere" -- since I intend to actually give it to you if you meet the condition?

Can't God be "sincere" in the offer of Christ to all, and yet determine not to give the grace necessary to embrace Christ to some? Wouldn't He still be "sincere" if He intended the common mercies He displays to all to result in the greater condemnation of some? So long as God intended to actually do what He says He will do, then isn't He sincere?

These issues are discussed further here.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G
Jordan Callicoat | 10.26.05 - 3:42 am | #

The Gospel offer is eternal life to all those who believe.

Therefore the offer is made only to some -those who believe, even though it is proclaimed to many.

It is not proclaimed to all. All have not heard the Gospel. To all who have heard the Gospel, and who believe, the offer of eternal life is of course, sincere.

Arminianists stumble because they tink to believe is a choice of man when faith is belief and action, where man chooses to act on his belief. because we believe, we confess and are saved.
mike | 10.28.05 - 8:22 am | #

I enjoyed this article, and it caused me to think how I would have responded to it. In my blog, I offered what would have been my response. I just wanted to make you aware of this, providing you an opportunity to respond if you so desire. God bless, and keep up the terrific writing.
Ryft | Homepage | 11.04.05 - 4:54 am | #

The bible speaks of devine sovereignty and human responsibility. Many people not liking the fact that these truths don't seem to mesh so well accoding to our fallen minds, coose to take one and leave the other. When you do this you run into heresy. Heresy anyways is more often a half truth rather then a whole lie. God does not reveal why or how he has ordained that man be responsible for his sin and predestined. However the bible speaks of it and therefor should be kept. Spurgeon when asked how he would go about reconciling these two truths he said, "I wouldn't try, I never reconcile friends." When it comes to evangelsim though one thing is for sure. God has commanded that we speak the gospel, that is how he has chosen to call out his sheep. And I believe that it is sincere because God has not revealed to us who are not elect and who are. Therefor God has chosen to use unable beings as the vessel that he uses to bring people to himself. I don't know why but I know that i sure don't deserve to be used by the almighty God.
mike | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 6:43 pm | #