On a discussion board, the question was asked "Should we tell everyone that God loves them and that Christ died for them?"
Here's part (not all) of my reply:
"After some reflection on the question(s), I feel content to go ahead and say yes. By the very fact that Christ commands us to go out and indiscriminately declare the good news, we are declaring the love of God for mankind. So, we need not say "God loves you" to still communicate the idea. When the Holy Spirit works in us to go and preach the gospel, the world should know that we are doing so out of a concern for their salvation and well-being. They should implicitly know, at the very least, that God is loving them through us.
God is pleading through us in the gospel call for men to be reconciled to himself by means of Christ. That is a loving act on His part and our part when we join Him in that pleading. Since we are to declare that God has set forth his Son as a sufficient means for the salvation of every man, we are telling them that Christ has died for them. The Apostle Paul, when he first spoke to the Corinthians who were dead in trespasses and sins, said that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." If Christ did not die for all in terms of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, then all do not have warrant to believe. They could only have warrant if they were first sure they were one of the elect, which is hyper-Calvinistic absurdity.
If God wants all men to live and not die according to Ezekiel, then he is declaring that he loves them and wishes them well. If He does that, then we should do the same. Even warning a calloused sinner to turn from their wicked ways and live is a loving act that God would have us do according to his revealed will.
Whether explicitly or implicitly, by some form of communication, we should let people know that God loves them and that Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, was ordained as a sufficient sacrifice to save them through faith."
I will put the rest of my reply in the comment section.
3 comments:
The vote question asks the following:
"Should we tell everyone that God loves them and Christ died for them?
These are really two questions:
1) Should we tell everyone that God loves them?
and
2) Should we tell everyone that Christ died for them?
I will just say this with respect to the second question. Should we preach the sufficiency of Christ's death to save every sinner who hears the external gospel call? If his death is really sufficient for all, then he must have died for all. If his death is not sufficient to save everyone that the gospel is addressed to, then we are making a sham offer. Christ's satisfaction, if not sufficient for all, would not be able to save everyone that experiences the external call. Many good Reformed theologians have realized this truth and have taught a universal aspect to Christ's death, but not to the negation of the special aspect that concerns the elect alone.
As Ursinus puts it:
"He satisfied for all regarding satisfaction, but not with respect to application."
The Summe, pp.131-132; Doctrinae Christianae Compendium, London 1586 (An edition of Ursinus' explanation of the Catechism), p.406.
And even Zanchius, a high Calvinist, said that:
"It is not false that Christ died for all men: for the passion of Christ is offered to all in the Gospel. But he died effectually for the elect alone, because indeed they only are made partakers of the efficacy of the passion of Christ."
Zanchius, Miscellanea Tract. de Praed. Sanct., p. 14. Quoted by Davenant, The Death of Christ (1650; in Vol. II of his On the Colossians, ed. Allport, London, 1832), p. 548.
And again, William Twisse said:
"Now I am ready to profess, and that, I suppose, as out of the mouth of all our Divines, that every one who hears the Gospel (without distinction between Elect and Reprobate) is bound to believe that Christ died for him, so far as to procure both the pardon of his sins, and the salvation of his soul, in case he believe and repent."
William Twisse, The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford, 1653), Vol. 1, page 154.
Also, there is a difference between these two questions:
A) Did Christ die for you as a sinner?
and
B) Did Christ die for you as one of the elect sinners?
We should not go around telling unbelievers that B) Christ died for them as one of the elect, but we may say (and do say by implication) that A) Christ died for them as a sinner when we preach the gospel indescriminately to all. In fact, everyone may know that Christ died for them by what God has revealed in scripture, i.e. that Christ died for sinners.
Here's an interesting observation: The Strict Particularist cannot know that Christ died for him in particular by scripture. According to what their view entails, they can only know that Christ died for the elect according to scripture. In order for them to know that Christ died for them in particular, it seems that they must go through an introspective and subjective analysis to determine whether or not they are one of the elect.
The key question is whether or not it is true that there is a sense in which Christ died for all mankind. Or did he merely die for the elect alone? If the former is true, then we may say to everyone that Christ died for them. If the latter view is true, then we may not. We should only speak what is true to our hearers.
Here's the next important question:
1) Should we tell everyone that God loves them?
First, there's a difference between these two ways of asking the question:
A) May we tell everyone that God loves them?
and
B) Should we tell everyone that God loves them?
If it's true that God loves all mankind, then we may tell them that God loves them. However, sinners in particular contexts need to hear some truths more than others. If we perceive that a calloused sinner needs to be warned rather than comforted, then we may not talk about God's love but instead emphasize his wrath and judgment. If we perceive that we are talking to a despairing sinner under a great deal of conviction, then we may encourage them to trust Christ by speaking of God's desire to forgive them in his love. What we SHOULD do depends on the kinds of people we are talking to in the context of the situation, but what we MAY do depends on what is true to scripture.
If it is true that God loves all mankind, then we may tell all mankind that truth. However, there's a time to speak certain ways and other times to speak different ways, as the preacher in Ecclesiastes tells us.
If I was asked if I think it is true that God loves all mankind and that Christ died for all mankind, I would say yes. How these views would manifest themselves in an evangelistic context may be determined by what I have said above.
Hi James,
Duty-faith, simply put, refers to man's responsibility to believe the gospel upon hearing it. The act of faith is man's "duty." Some people have a problem with the idea because they so want to stress the control of God in the salvation process that they end up minimizing human responsibility. They misunderstand the idea that faith is the gift of God. It's not as if faith is some kind of commercial commodity dropped into the passave lap of some creature. Rather, faith is the gift of God in the sense that God grants moral ability to humans through regeneration which results in their act of faith. So, as Charles Spurgeon said, "Faith is the act of man, but it is only the act of the renewed man."
Common grace refers to God's general goodness and kindness shown to all creatures through the bounties of providence and such things. Grace refers to God's unmerited favor. He's kind to the undeserving or ill-deserving. When sinful human beings receive the blessings of health, rain, sunshine, food, clothing, just governmental constraint etc., it's because God is dealing with them graciously. The term "common" refers to the frequency and broadness of God's grace. It's shown to all on a frequent or daily basis.
Some Christians have a problem with this idea because they only associate God's grace with his effectual salvation, i.e. with the conversion process. Also, they don't think that God loves all humanity, but that's patently false and unbiblical. Hyper-Calvinists are those who reject the idea that God is gracious and loving to all mankind.
The well-meant gospel offer is a doctrine that needs some unpacking. First, the gospel is an offer or proposal. This assumes a conditionality in the gospel call (If you do P [believe], then Q [eternal life] will be yours). The idea of offers is connected to the idea of human responsibilty because the sinful human must take or leave Christ as revealed in the gospel. If they embrace the living Christ through faith, they will be saved. If they do not, then they will die in their sins and remain lost forever. Faith is that necessary prerequisite or condition one must meet in order to be saved.
Also, God is the one offering through his servants. It's not just that Christians are to preach, command and offer Christ to all indescriminately, but that God is preaching, commanding and offering Christ through us. In the gospel call, God himself is offering Christ to every single human being who hears it, and he does so sincerely.
This brings us to the idea of the sincerity or "well-meaning" nature of the offer. When God commands something, this presupposes that he desires compliance. It would be hypocritical or insincere for God to say to a sinner "Do X (some action)" when he really doesn't want the sinner to do X. You can see how God's desire or will comes into play here. God's commands and offers presuppose that he desires compliance. Also, in coming to lost sinners in order to reconcile them to himself, he has their best interests in view. He sincerely wants what is best for them (for them to live and not die), i.e. he is "well-meaning" in the gospel offer.
When a Christian speaks to some other sinner and tells them the gospel accurately, the lost sinner should know that God himself is offering Christ and eternal life to that individual in a sincere and well-meaning way. He really does want that specific sinner to repent and believe. He pleads with the perishing because of his grace and compassion for them.
Some people have a problem with the biblical doctrine of well-meant gospel offers for the same reasons why they have problems with common grace and duty-faith. They do not think that God loves all mankind and has the well-being of all of them in view when the gospel is preached. Furthermore, they don't think of faith as the act of man since it is the "gift of God."
All of these problems are associated with the ideology of hyper-Calvinism, which is an extemely imbalanced and perverted view of God as revealed in his word. Since I am a Calvinist (a theological viewpoint that stresses God's sovereign control over all of the universe, particularly in the salvation of men) in my view of salvation doctrines, I frequently combat this error and ideas that lead to it on my blog.
I hope that helps. Some of these terms can get kind of complicated but they are worth asking about. If you want further clarification, feel free to ask. I may have used some technical terms to explain the technical terms you asked about :-(
God bless,
Tony
Since you asked for "simple" definitions, I will attempt it:
1) Duty-Faith = It's man's duty or responsibility to believe or have faith in Christ.
2) Common grace = God is gracious, loving, kind or patient to all on a regular basis.
3) Well-meant Gospel Offer = God himself sincerely and/or well-meaningly [he desires or wills all to comply] offers [He has conditions for acceptance] Christ to all men [not merely those appointed to eternal life] in and through the external gospel call.
That is about as simple as I can keep it without compromise. The well-meant gospel idea is difficult to capture in only a few words, hence the detailed explanations above.
Post a Comment