Henry Scudder (c.1585–1652) on God's Love

4. Be persuaded of God's love to you in these good things, which he giveth to you: First, He loveth you as his creature, and if only in that respect he doth preserve you, and do you good, you are bound to thank him. Secondly, You know not but God may love you with a special love to salvation; God's revealed will professeth as much, for you must not meddle with that which is secret. I am sure he giveth all-sufficient proof of his love, making offers of it to you, and which you are daily receiving the tokens of, both in the means of this life, and that which is to come. Did not he love you, when, out of his free and everlasting goodwill towards you, he gave his Son to die for you, that you, believing in him, should not die, but have everlasting life? What though you are yet in your sins, doth he not command you to return to him? and hath he not said, he will love you freely? What though you cannot turn to him, nor love him as you would, yet apply by humble faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, as your only saviour and great physician, and endeavour, in the use of all good means, to be, and do, as God will have you; then doubt not but that God doth love you; and patiently wait, till you see it in the performance of all his gracious promises unto you.

Henry Scudder, The Christian's Daily Walk in Holy Security and Peace (Glasgow: Printed for William Collins, 1826), 182. This edition has an introductory essay by Thomas Chalmers.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

More from William Gurnall (1617–1679) on Christ Begging

Take heed thou dost not make thy private particular enemies the object of thy imprecation: we have no warrant, when any wrong us, to go and call fire from heaven upon them. We are bid indeed to, heap coals upon the enemy's head,' but they are of love, not of wrath and revenge. Job set a black brand upon this, and clears himself from the imputation of so great a sin'—'If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him: neither have I suffered my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his soul,' chap. xxxi. 29, 30. He durst not wish his enemy ill, much less deliberately form a wish into a prayer, and desire God to curse him. Our Saviour hath taught us a more excellent way, Matt. v. 44.: 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.' I know this is counted a poor, sheepish spirit by шаnу. What! go and pray for them? No, send them the glove rather, and be revenged on them in a duel, by shedding their blood. This is the drink-offering which these sons of pride delight to pour out to their revenge, or else curse them to the pit of hell with their oaths. O tremble at such a spirit as this!

The ready way to fetch a curse from heaven on thyself is to imprecate one sinfully upon another, Psalm cix. 17, 18: 'As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garments, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.' Moses, I suppose, had as noble a spirit as any of these that style themselves men of honour, yet did he draw his sword upon Aaron, or curse Miriam, when they had used him so ill? I trow not, but bore all patiently; nay, when God declared his displeasure against Miriam for this affront put upon him, see how this holy man interceded for her with God, Numb. xii. 13. This is valour of the right make, to overcome evil with good, and instead of seeking revenge on him that wrongs us, to have the mastery of our own corruption so far as to desire his good the more. Thus our Lord, when he was numbered amongst transgressors, even then interceded for the transgressors, Isa. liii. 12; that is, these very men who used him so barbarously, while they were digging his heart out of his body with their instruments of cruelty, then was he begging the life of their souls with his fervent prayers.

William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour, rev. by John Campbell (London: William Tegg, 1862), 728–729.

Bio:
Wiki

A. A. Hodge (1823–1886) on God's Kind, Honest, Free and Loving Offer

Since the salvation of guilty sinners is absolutely of free and sovereign grace, and must be received as such, the salvation of every man must depend upon a personal election of God. God offers salvation to all on the condition of faith. But he gives the faith to those whom he chooses (Eph. 2:8; Matt. 20:16; 22:14). Nevertheless, those who refuse to believe and be saved have only themselves to blame for it, because the only reason they do not believe is the wicked disposition of their own hearts, and because God kindly and honestly invites them and promises salvation by his Word, and draws them by the common influences of his Spirit.

A. A. Hodge and J. A. Hodge, The System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1888), 20–21.

This works no injustice to those not elected. They will be only treated as they deserve. They have willfully sinned. Many of them have willfully rejected a freely and lovingly offered Christ (Rom. 9:19-23).

Ibid., 39.

Observe:
1) It is God himself who offers and invites all, even "those who refuse to believe and be saved", i.e. "those not elected."
2) God freely, kindly, honestly and lovingly offers/invites these people through his word.
3) God even "draws them by the common influences of his Spirit," which, in A. A. Hodge's theology, is common grace.

A. A. Hodge has all the components of a well-meant gospel offer in his theology, even though he did believe in a strictly limited view of Christ's death (with some modifications in terms of the removal of all legal barriers, etc.). His view of God's love, God's grace, God's offers and God's will ("drawing") are all interrelated. To use material in a previous post of mine, he is a "Type B" Calvinist (high) in the chart.

His father, Charles Hodge, was a "Type A," or a classic Augustinian/Calvinist.

More from Ezekiel Culverwell (1554–1631) on Ezek. 33:11 and 2 Pet. 3:9

Here if ever, is a fit place for all such Scriptures, as set out God's mercy to poor sinners the more to persuade them to believe, as that of Ezek. 33:11. where the Lord swears by himself; saying, As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die oh house of Israel. And to like effect is that of S. Peter, That God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Which Scriptures and many the like, are not to be understood of God's determining will and decree, but of his revealed and approving will, which he would have us to know and believe, that thereby we might be drawn to rest ourselves upon him for salvation, which whosoever (though never so great sinner)shall do, he shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Ezekiel Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith (London: Printed by J.D. for H. Overton, and are to be sold by William Sheares, 1648), 35–36. I have updated some of the language.

Oliver Heywood (1630–1702) on God's Cordial Wish

1. Some absolutely and resolutely refuse to enter into any covenant engagement with God, and have no heart to take the terms thereof into consideration: of this sort were those that being invited to the marriage feast made light of it, they would not take it into their thoughts, but went away; they did not think it worth consideration, but turned their backs on it, and put it quite out of their minds, just as Esau did with his birth-right, when he had got his belly full of bread and pottage of lentiles; the text saith, "he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way," thus Esau despised his birth-right: just so do many now-a-days, let them but have the husks of worldly delights, they dismiss thoughts of God; most men have neither time nor inclination to consider whether heaven or hell be better, whether it be safer to have the eternal God to be their friend or enemy, whether the enjoyment of God or separation from him be more eligible, or titter to be chosen: no, this is the farthest from their thoughts. Poor sinner, canst thou find time for worldly business, and insignificant trifles? Thou art never weary of collecting toys, but canst thou got no time day or night to ruminate on God, Christ, pardon, or heaven? What hast thou thy rational soul for? Is eternity nothing in thy account? Shall gospel commodities be always accounted refuse-wares, so that thou wilt not so much as turn aside to ask of what use they are? what are they good for? or what rate are they at ? Base ingratitude! when God in the ministry of the word presents gospel commodities with greatest advantage, and tells you, you shall have them freely without money or price, will you still turn a deaf ear? will you still scorn the offer, and imagine that the thoughts of heaven will make you melancholy? must God complain of you as of his ancient people, "my people would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none of me ?" May not such a complaint from the eternal God break a heart of adamant? it is as if God should say, I have made them the fairest offers that ever were presented to a rational creature, I treated them as friends, gave them glorious deliverances, and precious ordinances, I answered their prayers, and bade them still farther open their mouths wide and I would fill them, yet nothing would prevail, they would none of me; I urged my suit with fresh arguments, and sighed out my cordial wish, Oh that my people would have hearkened unto me! I would have done so and so for them; did ever suitor woo more pathetically; yet all this will not do, Israel would none of me; well, let them go and seek a better husband. I have spoken and done fair in the judgment of impartial arbitrators; nay, I dare appeal to themselves, what could have been done more to them: well, it seems I must not be heard, I have given them up to their heart's lust, and they walk in their own counsels, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be, there is no remedy, since they refuse the remedy which I have prescribed, "they have chosen their own ways—I also will choose their delusions;" let them now go their own length, and be snared in the work of their own hands.

Oliver Heywood, "Address to Persons of Different Descriptions Commencing with Unconverted Sinners," in The Whole Works of the Rev. Oliver Heywood (Idle: Printed by J. Vint, 1826), 4:206–207.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Historic Calvinistic Language for God’s Revealed Will

[Note: The names listed below with all the source quotes can be found on my blog or on the Calvin and Calvinism blog.]

How meltingly doth he bewail man’s willful refusal of his goodness! It is a mighty goodness to offer grace to a rebel; a mighty goodness to give it him after he hath a while stood off from the terms; and astonishing goodness to regret and lament his willful perdition. He seems to utter those words in a sigh, “O that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my way” (Ps. lxxxi. 13)! It is true, God hath not human passions, but his affections cannot be expressed otherwise in a way intelligible to us; the excellency of his nature is above the passions of men; but such expressions of himself manifest to us the sincerity of his goodness: and that, were he capable of our passions, he would express himself in such a manner as we do: and we find incarnate Goodness bewailing with tears and sighs the ruin of Jerusalem (Luke xix. 42).

Stephen Charnock, “Discourse XIII: On the Goodness of God,” in The Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:286.

There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men. . . There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection.

Jonathan Edwards, “Concerning the Divine Decrees in General and Election in Particular,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 2:528–29.

The term will which [even when applied to God in the theological senses Dagg next went on to expound], always imports desire, is variously applied, according to the object of that desire.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, First Part: A Treatise on Christian Doctrine (Charleston, SC; Richmond, VA; Macon, GA; Selma, AL; New Orleans: Southern Baptist Publication Society; S. S. & Publication Board; B. B. & Colporteur Society; B. B. & Book Depository; B. B. Depository, 1859), 99. The term “desire” is no more problematic when applied to the will of God than is any other human language when applied to God in general. Beware of Calvinists who selectively quibble over that term when it comes to God’s well-meant offers, but not as much other terminology.

Since there has been some talk lately about “optative expressions” and God’s will, I have listed the various expressions that Calvinists have used in history for God’s revealed will. All of the following Calvinistic men affirm that God wills the salvation of all men, including those who finally perish. The sources can be found in my blog and in the Calvin and Calvinism blog. This will be updated when new names and information becomes available.

The various symbols before the names indicates that the person was involved in writing one of the Reformed confessions, or contributed to one of them (*Dort, §Heidelberg, ¶Second Helvetic, †Westminster, ‡Second London Baptist).

A

Adams, Thomas (willing; desires)
Ambrose, Isaac (willing; entreats; beseeches; desire; begs; invites; woos)

Aquinas, Thomas (wills; wishes; wants; urges; leads)
†Arrowsmith, John (wills; longs for)
Ascol, Tom (wills; desires)
Ashwood, Bartholomew (wills; affectionately seeks; desires; invites; beseeches; strives; woos; draws)
Attersoll, William (earnest desire; very desirous; willing; labors; seeks)
Amyraut, Moyse (wills; wishes; desires)

B

Bates, William (very willing, urges, entreats, beseeches, desires, designs)
Bavinck, Herman (wants, seeks) 
Berkhof, Louis (wills, pleads, earnestly desires)
Barlee, William (will, desire)

Boettner, Loraine (wishes)
Boyce, J. P. (wishes, yearns)

Brooks, Thomas (very willing, desirous)  
Bucer, Martin (wishes, wills, desires, directs, urges)
¶Bullinger, Heinrich (wills, desires, wants, wishes)
Bunyan, John (heartily willing)
†Burgess, Anthony (wills, affectionately desires, intends, entreats, delights, invites, draws)
Burgess, Daniel (wills, designs, strives, desires)
†Burroughs, Jeremiah (great willingness, wills, woos, desires, intends, begs)

C

†Calamy, Edmund (wills)
Calvin, John (wills, wishes, intent, desires, ardent desire, beseeches, allures, aims)
Candlish, Robert (willing, wishes, yearning desire, intense longing desire, earnest desire, strong desire)
Carey, William (wills)
Carson, D. A. (wills, desires, wishes, yearns, pursues, seeks, entreats, invites)
Cartwright, Thomas (wills, woos, earnestly desires)
†Caryl, Joseph (willing, begging)
Chalmers, Thomas (wills, desires, begs)
Chantry, Walter (willing, sincerely desires, pleads, lovingly desires, wishes, seriously invites, wants, begs, entreats)
Charnock, Stephen (wills, strives, begs, beseeches, entreats, courts, solicits, designs, sues, woos, aims)
Collinges, John (begging, willing, earnestness of desire, wishes)
Corbet, John (wills)
Cotton, John (seriously wills, seriously desires)
Crawford, Thomas J. (wills, delights in, earnest and intense desire)
*Crocius, Ludwig (wishes)
Culverwell, Ezekiel (very willing, desires, allures)

Culverwell, Nathaniel (draws, woos, beseeches)
Cunningham, William (wills, wishes, desires)

D

Dabney, R. L. (will, active principle, desire, propension)
Dagg, John L. (will, desire)
Daniel, Curt (will, wish)
*Davenant, John (will, intent)
Denison, Stephen (wills, entreats)
Doolittle, Thomas (desires, strives)
Durham, James (woos, seeks, very desirous, beseeches, heartily willing, aims, heartily invites, willingly desirous, passionately desirous, presses, craves, entreats)

E

Edwards, Jonathan (will, desire, wish, seeks, tries, woos, entreats, beseeches, begs, intends, draws)

F

Fairbairn, Patrick (yearns, earnestly desires, seeks, wills, allures)
Flavel, John (will, earnest and vehement desire, importunate desire, alluringly invites, begs, zealous and fervent concern, intent, design, yearns, strives, solicits, allures, woos, sues, entreats; draws)
Frame, John (will, wish, wants, intense desire)
Fuller, Andrew (wills, good-will, desires)

G

Gale, Theophilus (wills, extreme willing, really intends, really and cheerfully willing, desire, begs, seeks, invites)
Gearing, William (woos, begs, entreats, invites)
Gouge, Thomas (great willingness, entreats)
†Greenhill, William (will, earnestly desires, seeks)
Greijdanus, Seakle (ardent desire; great exertion to bring it about)
Grey, Andrew (will, exceedingly serious and earnest, begs)
Grosvenor, Benjamin (wills, desires, designs, wishes)
Gualther, Rudolph (wills, desires)
Gurnall, William (will, beseeches, begs, affectionately desires)

H

Halyburton, Thomas (desires, entreats)
†Harris, Robert (willing, begs)
Henry, Carl F. H. (sincere and strong wish)
Henry, Matthew (wills, wishes, desires, designs)
Heppe, Heinrich (lists many Reformed sources using "wish")

Heywood, Nathaniel (willing, wishing, entreats, invites, draws, persuades, allures, solicits, knocks)
Heywood, Oliver (will, cordial wish, earnest desire, urges, woos pathetically)
Hildersham, Arthur (earnestly desires, wills, wishes, seeks, beseeches, labors)
Hodge, A. A.  (kindly and honestly invites, draws)
Hodge, Charles (will, desire)
Hoekema, Anthony (wants, seriously desires)
Hopkins, Ezekiel (wills, urges)
Howe, John (will, wish, desires, favourable propensions, design, intent, travails, draws)
Hulse, Erroll (will, desire, wants, purpose, seeks, intends, wish)
Hyperius, Andreas (wills, desires)

J

Jenison, Robert (seriously wills, seriously invites)
Johnson, S. Lewis (wills, desires)

K

Keach, Benjamin (good intention, gracious design and purpose, willing, very desirous, seeks)
Kingsmill, Andrew (seeks)
Kistemaker, Simon J. (want, wish, desire)
‡Knollys, Hanserd (willing, earnestly desires)
Kuiper, R. B. (wills, urgently invites, ardently desires)

L

Latimer, Hugh (will)

Lavater, Ludwig (ardently desires, wishes)
Leigh, Edward (seriously wills)
Levitt, William (wills)
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (wills, seeks, strives, tries, pleads)

M

MacArthur, John (will, wish, great desire, yearns, pleads, begs, tenderly calls, abundantly willing, longs)
Manton, Thomas (will, begs, labours, desire, pleads, woos, works to gain, allures, hunts, pursues, tries, draws)
Marlorate, Augustine (wills, gently invites, allures, seeks)
Mather, Cotton (wills, earnestly desires, aims at, delights, endeavors, urges, seeks)
Mather, Increase (desires, seeks)
McCheyne, R. M. (will, wishes, pleads, earnestly seeks, tries, draws)
*Martinius, Matthias (seriously wills, intends)
Murray, Iain (will, desire, wish)
Murray, John (will, wish, ardent desire, yearns)
Musculus, Wolfgang (wills, good-will)

P

Packer, J. I. (will, wish)
Palmer, Edwin H. (desires)
Pearse, Edward (lovingly invites, woos, entreats, allures)
Perkins, William (wills, desires, heartily seeks, looks for, pursues, earnestly knocks)
Piper, John (will, desire)
Polanus, Amandus (wants, wills, wishes)
Powel, Vavasor (willing)
Polhill, Edward (will, intent, woos)
Preston, John (wills, earnestly desires, draws)
Prynne, William (wills, seriously invites, seriously wishes, seriously desires, earnest wish)

R

†Reynolds, Edward (will, allures, beseeches, woos)
Richardson, John (suing, wooing, begging)
Robertson, O. Palmer (will, desire)

Rogers, Daniel (draws)
†Rutherford, Samuel (vehement desire, serious desire, ardent desire, unfeigned desire, extreme desire, begs)
Ryle, J. C. (willing, invites)

S

Saurin, James (wills, presses, ardent entreaties)
†Scudder, Henry (will, intent, draws)
Shedd, W. G. T. (will, sincerely desires, encourages, assists, aids, tries)
Shepard, Thomas (desire)
Sibbes, Richard (desires, begs)
†Simpson, Sydrach (begs)
Slater, Samuel (desires)
Spring, Gardiner (willing)
Spurgeon, Charles (pleads, desire, wish, begs)
Strong, A. H. (will, desire)
Swinnock, George (willing, desire, intent, begs, seeks, woos, draws)

T

Trapp, John (begging, kneels)
Turretin, Francis (will, wish, desire)

U

§Ursinus, Zacharias (will, desires)

V

Venema, Herman (seriously wills, wishes, purpose)
Vermigli, Peter Martyr (wills, wishes)
Vincent, Nathaniel (woos, earnestly entreats, passionately pleads, seriously and pathetically calls, design, aims, presses, purposes, draws, invites, strives, wishes) 
Vos, Geerhardus (desires, seeks [RD, 1:29; c. 2, q. 98])

W

Waldron, Samuel (will, wish, earnestly desires, saving intention, purpose, goal)
Warne, Jonathan (wills, wishes, invites, desires)
Watson, Thomas (will, wish, tries, woos, desires, kneels, knocks, labors, draws)
Westblade, Donald J. (willing)
Whately, William (desire)
Whitefield, George (will, wants, desires, labouring, intent, begs)
Wollebius, Johannes (will, wants)

Additional Notes:

1. Bartholomew Ashwood, Anthony Burgess, Nathaniel Culverwell, Jonathan Edwards, John Flavel, Nathaniel Heywood, A. A. Hodge, John Howe, Thomas Manton, R. M. McCheyne, John Preston, Daniel Rogers, Henry Scudder, George Swinnock, Nathaniel Vincent,  and Thomas Watson all spoke of God “drawing” in relation to the general call of the Gospel.
2. In addition to Thomas Cartwright, Stephen Charnock, Jonathan Edwards, John Flavel, Oliver Heywood, Thomas Manton, Edward Reynolds, George Swinnock, Nathaniel Vincent and Edward Polhill using the “wooing” metaphor in the context of God's gospel offers, one can also find it in the writings of the following Puritans as well: Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Gouge, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Greenhill, Thomas Sheppard, Richard Sibbes, Ralph Erskine, Joseph Alleine, Samuel Rutherford, William Fenner, William Gearing, Andrew Gray, and Isaac Ambrose.
3. Some Calvinists, whether high or moderate, such as Anthony Burgess (d.1664), Jeremiah Burroughs (c.1600-1646), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Davenant (1572-1641), Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), John Flavel (1630-1691), Theophilus Gale (1628-1678), John Howe (1630-1705), Richard Maden (c.1599-1677), Matthaeus Martinius (1572-1630), William Pinke (c.1599-1629), Edward Polhill (1622-1694), Henry Scudder (c.1585-1652), George Swinnock (1627-1673), and George Whitefield (1714-1770), used the strong volitional term "intent" for God's legislative will or for His revealed desire for the salvation of all men.
4. The Geneva Bible on Gen. 6:3, Thomas Manton, Thomas Watson, Jonathan Edwards, R. M. McCheyne, W. G. T. Shedd, and D. M. Lloyd-Jones all speak of God “trying” to save some who ultimately perish.
5. On Rom 9:22, the NKJV translates θέλων as “wanting,” but in an effective willing sense. The disputed 2 Pet 3:9 passage (“not willing”/“not wishing” commonly; βουλόμενός/βούλομαι) is sometimes translated as “wanting” (CSB; NIV; LEB; NJB; NRS; GNB; GW; LSV). The same goes with θελει/θέλω in 1 Tim 2:4 (NET [note: tn Grk “who wants”]; NIV; NJB; CEV; CSB; GNB; GW; LEB). Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Luther, Amandus Polanus, Johannes Wollebius, George Whitefield, Herman Bavinck, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, John Frame, Erroll Hulse, Walter Chantry, Anthony Hoekema, James Montgomery Boice, Thomas Schreiner, among several other staunchly Augustinian and Reformed theologians, used “want” for God’s revealed will.

A. H. Strong (1823–1886) on the Sincerity of God's General Call

A. Is God's general call sincere?

This is denied, upon the ground that such sincerity is incompatible, first, with the inability of the sinner to obey; and secondly, with the design of God to bestow only upon the elect the special grace without which they will not obey.

(a) To the first objection we reply that, since this inability is not a physical but a moral inability, consisting simply in the settled perversity of an evil will, there can be no insincerity in offering salvation to all, especially when the offer is in itself a proper motive to obedience.

God's call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no more insincere than his command to all men to love him with all the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men's obedience to the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while yet he may, for certain reasons of justice or personal dignity, be unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to whom it is offered. So God's desires that certain men should be saved may not be accompanied by his will to exert special influences to save them.

hese desires were meant by the phrase "revealed will" in the old theologians; his purpose to bestow special grace, by the phrase "secret will." It is of the former that Paul speaks, in 1 Tim. 2:4 — "who would have all men to be saved." Here we have, not the active σωσαι, but the passive σωθηναι. The meaning is, not that God purposes to save all men, but that he desires all men to be saved through repenting and believing the gospel. Hence God's revealed will, or desire, that all men should be saved, is perfectly consistent with his secret will, or purpose, to bestow special grace only upon a certain number (see, on 1 Tim. 2:4, Fairbairn's Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles

The sincerity of God's call is shown, not only in the fact that the only obstacle to compliance, on the sinner's part, is the sinner's own evil will, but also in the fact that God has, at infinite cost, made a complete external provision, upon the ground of which "he that will" may "come" and "take of the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17); so that God can truly say: "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" (Is. 5:4). Broadus, Com. on Mat. 6:10 — "Thy will be done" — distinguishes between God's will of purpose, of desire, and of command. H. B. Smith, Syst. Theol., 521 — "Common grace passes over into effectual grace in proportion as the sinner yields to the divine influence. Effectual grace is that which effects what common grace tends to effect." See also Studien und Kritiken, 1887:7 sq.

(b) To the second, we reply that the objection, if true, would equally hold against God's foreknowledge. The sincerity of God's general call is no more inconsistent with his determination that some shall be permitted to reject it, than it is with foreknowledge that some will reject it.

Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:643—"Predestination concerns only the purpose of God to render effectual, in particular cases, a call addressed to all. A general amnesty, on the certain conditions, may be offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and even though, for wise reasons, he should determine not to constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their minds were within his power. It is evident, from the nature of the call, that is has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to grant his effectual grace to some, and not to others. . . . According to the Augustinian scheme, the non-elect have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their salvation, which, according to any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately. . . . . God designed, in its adoption, to save his own people, but he consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive them." See also H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 515–521.

A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tapppan, NJ: Revell, 1979), 791–792.

Bio:  
Wiki

Double-Payment and Double-Jeopardy

Flynn has responded to some of the recent talk about the Double-Payment and Double-Jeopardy arguments at Theology Online:

Double-Payment and Double-Jeopardy: Three Documented Responses

Questions for Ascol and White

Tom Ascol recently replied to Dr. Allen on his blog, and partially touched on the issue of hyper-Calvinism. Ascol claims to have agreement with White because both of them distinguish between God's decree and precept. He doesn't address the point of God wanting men to comply with his precepts so as to be saved. He makes no mention of God's desire for the salvation of all people (as in his own quote that Allen used). Even Gill acknowledged the difference between decree and precept. So does the Protestant Reformed Church. So what? The mere distinction between decree and precept is not the issue. Rather, the point involves God's desire that all men actually comply with what He has commanded them to do in the Gospel call. To be very specific, does God desire the salvation of any of those who will finally perish, i.e. the reprobates? This is "the crux" of the dispute on the free offer. John Murray (and those who really agree with him) do not hesitate to clearly and explicitly affirm that He does, according to the scriptures. They never thought that such an affirmation makes God "schizophrenic," or "purposing His own eternal unhappiness," or any such nonsense. That's an obvious straw man fallacy.

Questions for Ascol and White:

1) If Ascol and White actually agree, then does Ascol disagree with John Murray on the point? White apparently does, and thus sides with Reymond. He wrote:

I am thankful Phil can put up with my slightly "stiffer" form of Calvinism. I would be more on the Reymond side than the Murray side, for example, and I am for a pretty obvious reason, I hope.

2) If Ascol really agrees with White, then does Ascol somewhat disagree with Phil Johnson, to the point of having a "stiffer" form of Calvinism than Phil Johnson does? Phil seems to see something in White that is different from his own view of God's revealed will. What is it? It's not merely something semantic. Phil also distinguishes between decree and precept, so it can't be that.

*3) If White really agrees with Ascol, then what text of Scripture would White use to say that God desires the salvation of all people in his revealed will? There is no record of White ever using even a single passage to affirm the concept. On the contrary, he fights against the idea in all of his "exegesis." It doesn't matter if you bring up Ezek. 18 & 33. It doesn't matter if you bring up 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, John 5:34, Matt. 23:37, or any other text used by Murray in his treatment of the Free Offer. White doesn't think a single one of them teaches that God desires to save any of the reprobates. One of White's avid (and bizarre) listeners understands his position quite clearly when he writes:

The idea that God desires, wills the salvation of everyone makes God Schizophrenic, and I have said this many times.

This is the reason Dr White responds as he does, about God having these unfulfilled desires and disappointments etc.

Dr White is spot on, and just because Byrne and others wish to embrace irrationality, does not change the argument at all. Call it paradox if you wish and celebrate that kind of thinking, but I do not wish to go down that slippery slope, and for good reasons.

Dr. David Allen’s Points on God’s Will and Hyper-Calvinism at the John 3:16 Conference

Here are David Allen’s points on the subject of God’s will and hyper-Calvinism at the John 3:16 Conference:

1) Tom Ascol affirms that God desires the salvation of all men in his revealed will.

This is obviously true.

2) James White scornfully denies that God desires the salvation of all men in his revealed will.

This is a fact and no one has proven otherwise. In fact, White has said on his blog now (2) that he sides with Robert Reymond as over against John Murray on this very point. His denial is categorical, and does not merely involve problems with optative expressions.

3) This denial by White is based on his atonement views.

Almost everyone has missed this vital point. This is why Dr. Allen brought it up during the conference. White said, “And I just go, what does it mean to say that God desires to do something he then does not provide the means to do? What does that mean? And no one’s ever been able to tell me.” Dr. Allen’s lecture was on the extent of atonement, and he made some practical observations at the end. He argued that a strictly limited atonement (in the sense of Owen’s limited imputation of sin to Christ view) diminishes God’s universal saving will. This point is not new. Edward Polhill and John Bunyan addressed the same subject.

4) James White disagrees with Tom Ascol.

Given the factuality of #2, this obviously follows. No one has challenged this, not even Dr. Ascol himself.

5) Allen said James White is a hyper-Calvinist because of that specific denial.

Few, if any, have actually addressed this point. All talk about how White engages in “evangelism” and “preaching to all” is a red herring. It doesn’t address this subject, which is: Does the denial of God’s universal saving will constitute a form of hyper-Calvinism? Phil Johnson has come the closest to addressing it, but he plans on clarifying his position further. Perhaps he thinks that the denial would have to be coupled or mixed with other hyper-Calvinistic ingredients in order to properly call someone a hyper-Calvinist by this criteria. He has created the subjective, ahistorical label “über-high Calvinist” for some instead of labeling them “hyper.” I have now quoted Iain Murray and Curt Daniel to support my claim that such a denial constitutes a form of hyper-Calvinism, even if it’s not “full-blown” hyper-Calvinism. They both refer to the denial of God’s universal saving desire as a “main argument against free offers” (Daniel) or one of “the most serious differences of all between evangelical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism” (Murray). Murray, in his book on Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, said that “Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God.” Anthony Hoekema also associated the denial of God’s desire to save all  men, or the well-meant offer, with hyper-Calvinism.

6) Allen said James White is a hyper-Calvinist based on the criteria in Phil Johnson’s Primer.

This is really what Phil Johnson has sought to specifically address in his replies, rather than the first five propositions above. It is clear that he does not think his Primer suggests that someone is a hyper-Calvinist if they merely deny God’s universal saving will. Now, note this carefully: He has not explicitly said that his Primer does not make any point about God’s universal saving will. Rather, he has been talking about the fact that his Primer doesn’t make a point about God’s “desires,” since such optative expressions are, in his view, “always problematic.” The bottom line is this: Phil does not think that his Primer entails what Dr. Allen thought it said about this subject. That’s fine. He knows what he meant to say by it. Nevertheless, he hasn’t shown that it is unreasonable to conclude what Dr. Allen concluded, since there are obvious references in the Primer that make the point that one needs to rightly understand the orthodox Reformed teaching on God’s will, in contrast to hyper-Calvinistic distortions of it. Perhaps he thinks Allen could have been warranted in saying that White has a very serious hyper-Calvinistic tendency, based on Phil Johnson’s Primer. We shall see.

The above summarizes where things stand right now, as I read the posts. I find it very disappointing to see my fellow Calvinists not even admitting that Dr. Allen made any valid points whatsoever. Genetic fallacies abound. It’s as if the entirety of what he said is false, and “unthinking.” They should at least acknowledge that the first four propositions above are true and serious matters. Honesty demands that.

Calvinistic bloggers have not refuted Allen’s first four facts above, but they’re just taking exception to the characterization of those facts (#5 and #6). Fine. If you don’t like to label White’s scornful denial of God’s universal saving desire as a form of “hyper-Calvinism,” then just call it “Dead-Wrongism,” on a serious level, based on what the Scriptures and orthodox Calvinists historically affirm.

Curt Daniel on God's "Universal Saving Will"

Yet another problem facing Calvinists is the nature of the universal saving will in the Revealed Will. Much of it revolves around the exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:4. Some say that salvation belongs only to the Secret Will; the Revealed has only to do with the Law. If that were so, then the Gospel is a secret -- how could we preach it? The truth is that the call of the Gospel commands faith in all who hear it -- God wills for them to believe the Gospel, in the Revealed Will. In that sense, He wills all to be saved. But remember, the Revealed Will is conditional. He wills for them to be saved by believing the Gospel. But He has not intended to give them all faith. This too is a paradox which we will examine more closely later.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2003), 208.

John Piper also used the expression "universal saving will of God" three times in his article "Are There Two Wills in God?," in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2000). See pages 107, 108 and 122.

C. H. Spurgeon on Loving Christ Through Doctrine

There is a tendency, however, on the other hand in certain quarters, to make doctrinal knowledge everything. I have seen, to my inexpressible grief, the doctrines of grace made a huge stone to be rolled at the mouth of the sepulchre of a dead Christ, and I have seen sound doctrine, so called, made as a very seal to seal in the dead Christ, lest by any means the energy of his grace should come out for the salvation of sinners. Oh, what is doctrine after all but a throne whereon Christ sitteth, and when that throne is vacant what is the throne to us? It is the monarch and not the throne that we reverence and esteem. Doctrines are but as the shovel and the tongs of the altar, while Christ is the sacrifice smoking thereon. Doctrines are Christ’s garments; verily they all smell of myrrh, and cassia, and aloes out of the ivory palaces, whereby they make us glad, but it is not the garments we care for so much as for the person, the very person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

C. H. Spurgeon, “‘The Love of Jesus, What It Is—None but His Loved Ones Know’ (No. 455),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1862), 8:339 (on Eph. 3:19); also cited in Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 122.

Bio:

Wiki

Answering an Email on the Narrow Mind

I called into The Narrow Mind radio program again and answered a couple of questions about my historiography and hyper-Calvinism. Here's the edited portion that includes my call:

Download Clip Here

More from MacArthur on God's Universal Saving "Wish" and "Desire"

God sincerely wishes that all men and women would turn to Him in saving faith; yet He chose only the elect "out of the world" (John 17:6) and passed over other sinners, leaving them in their depravity and wickedness (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). As a result, they are damned solely because of their sin and rejection of God. He is in no way to blame for such unbelief and is not happy that many people ultimately choose hell. However, God will receive glory even when unbelievers are damned (cf. Rom. 9:22-23).

How this great program of redemption and condemnation, with its apparent paradoxes and divine mysteries, unfolds in a way that is completely consistent with God's will can be answered only by Him. Believers who seek to be faithful witnesses as they embrace God's truth must do so by faith in His Word, trusting in such profound declarations as this:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. -Rom. 11:33-36

Since the Lord "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Matt. 23:37), it is not our concern to know if someone is elect before praying for that person's salvation We may pray for anyone who is unsaved, knowing that such prayers are fully consistent with God's desire. After all, "The LORD is gracious and merciful; slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The LORD is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works" (Ps. 145:8-9).

John F. MacArthur, Nothing But the Truth (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 1999), 43.

Radio Interview on the Conference Chart

Last Saturday morning, I did a radio interview with Gene Cook of Unchained Radio (click) on the subjects contained in my conference chart (Arminianism, Classic Calvinism, High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism). Here's the audio for the show:

Download Broadcast Here (click)

Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) on God Begging

On the authority of my text I call you—Christ speaketh there, and what he utters is an actual prayer to you, that you would be reconciled unto God. And what is more, God speaketh there—I and the Father am one, says the Saviour; and such is the unity of mind and of purpose between them, that a call from Christ is a call from God. And accordingly, what do we read in the text? God beseeching you—the Lord of heaven and earth descending to beseech you—He whom you have trampled upon and put far away from you—He before whom you stand with a load of sins calling for vengeance, in what situation does the text represent Him? The mighty God who fills all space, and reigns in majesty over all worlds, standing at the door of the sinner's heart, humbling Himself to the language of entreaty, beseeching the sinner to come and be reconciled to Him, begging for admittance, and protesting that if you only come unto Him through Christ, He is willing to forgive all, and to forget all. Oh! my brethren, ought not this to encourage you? Yes! and if you refuse the encouragement, it ought also to fill you with terror. The terrors of the Lord are doubtless sometimes preached to you, and I am now preaching to you the goodness and the tenderness of the Lord; but be assured that this goodness, so far from setting aside the terrors, will, if despised and rejected by you, give them their tenfold aggravation.

Thomas Chalmers on "The Embassy of Reconciliation" in Sermons and Discourses by Thomas Chalmers (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1877), 549.

Bio:
Wiki

A Timely Quote from Matthew Henry on John 3:21

It is a common observation that truth seeks no corners. Those who mean and act honestly dread not a scrutiny, but desire it rather.

Matthew Henry, "An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of the Gospel According to St. John," in Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1991), 1931.

Dr. Curt Daniel on the Free Offer, The Will of God, and Hyper-Calvinism

Hypers usually reject the idea of offers that are free, serious, sincere, or well-meant.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill.: Good Books, 2003), 89.

Curt Daniel lists four "main Hyper-Calvinist arguments" against "free offers" along with the historic Calvinist reply. The fourth in the list says:

(4) “Free offers imply that God wishes all men to be saved. This contradicts the doctrine of election. It also implies that grace is universal.” But: The Reformed doctrine of the revealed will of God is that there is a sense in which God certainly does will the salvation of all who hear the Gospel, just as He wills all who hear the Law to obey. He has no pleasure in the death of the one who rejects either Law or Gospel. True Reformed theology keeps the balance between the secret will (election) and the revealed will (Gospel), but Hyperism over-emphasizes the secret will. Similarly, special grace reflects election and the secret will, but there is also common grace for all men as creatures in the revealed will.

Ibid., 90.

Curt Daniel also briefly discusses this in his doctoral dissertation.

See Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 426–429.

‘Free offer’ was the debated term in mainstream Hyper-Calvinism, but ‘well-meant offer’ has been the debated phrase within the Hoeksema school. In essence, however, they are one and the same. The first simply brings out the aspect that God wishes to give something without cost, while the second points to God’s willingness that it be accepted.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 410.

HYPER-CALVINISM

Hyper-Calvinism is a conservative form of traditional *Reformed theology that holds to the five points of Calvinism as formulated by the Synod of *Dort. In contrast with mainstream Calvinism, however, it denies the free offer of the gospel. Many Hyper-Calvinists also reject the historic Reformed doctrines of common *grace and duty faith (i.e. that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to savingly believe in Christ). They contend that free offers, common grace and duty faith are *Arminian concepts and are incompatible with the Five Points. Their justification for their position is that God sincerely desires the salvation of only the elect, not all men. All Hyper-Calvinists have been supralapsarian, but not all supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinist (see *Predestination).

The movement is mainly associated with the Strict and Particular Baptists in England and the Protestant Reformed Church in America. It began in England around the year 1700. The first significant work was God’s Operations of Grace, But No Offers of Grace (1707) by Joseph Hussey. The leading theologian has been John *Gill, whose Body of Divinity, The Cause of God and Truth and other works continue to be reprinted. Other leaders include John Brine, William Huntington, William Gadsby, Joseph Charles Philpot,  B. A. [Benjamin Ashworth] Ramsbottom [who from 1971 to 2015 was the editor of the Gospel Standard] and George Ella. The English movement was much curtailed by Andrew *Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785) and the ministry of C. H. *Spurgeon. Herman Hoeksema (1886–1965) has been the leading American exponent, as in his Reformed Dogmatics (Grandville, 22004). Homer Hoeksema, David Engelsma and Herman Hanko have continued his tradition, which has been opposed by Cornelius *Van Til, John *Murray and others. The movement has always been a very small minority in the Reformed community.

Bibliography

C. D. Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1983); A. De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer (Franeker, 1953); D. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grandville, 21994); M. A. G. Haykin (ed.), The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771) (Leiden, 1997); I. H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (Edinburgh, 1995); J. Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001); R. W. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 1771–1892 (Edinburgh, 2001); P. Toon, The Emergence of Hyper- Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765 (London, 1967).

C. D. Daniel

Curt D. Daniel, “HYPER-CALVINISM,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 432–33.

John MacArthur on the Sincerity of the Gospel Offer and the External Call

Is God Sincere in the Gospel Offer?
Of course, people who assert that God's love is exclusively for the elect will usually acknowledge that God nevertheless shows mercy, longsuffering, and benevolence to the unrighteous and unbelievers. But they will insist that this apparent benevolence has nothing whatsoever to do with love or any sort of sincere affection. According to them, God's acts of benevolence toward the non-elect have no other purpose than to increase their condemnation.

Such a view, it seems to me, imputes insincerity to God. It suggests that God's pleadings with the reprobate are artificial, and that His offers of mercy are mere pretense.

Often in scripture, God makes statements that reflect a yearning for the wicked to repent. In Psalm 81:13 He says, "Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!" And, again, in Ezekiel 18:32 He says, "'I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,' declares the Lord God. Therefore, repent and live.'"

Elsewhere, God freely and indiscriminately offers mercy to all who will come to Christ: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light" (Matt. 11:28-30). "And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes [whosoever will—KJV] take the water of life without cost" (Rev. 2:17).

God Himself says, "Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isa. 45:22). And, "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost" (Isa. 55:1). "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (v. 7).

There are some who flatly deny that such invitations constitute any sincere offer of mercy to the non-elect. As far as they are concerned, the very word offer smacks of Arminianism (a name for the doctrine that makes salvation hinge solely on a human decision). They deny that God would "offer" salvation to those whom He has not chosen. They deny that God's pleadings with the reprobate reflect any real desire on God's part to see the wicked turn from their sins. To them, suggesting that God could have such an unfulfilled "desire" is a direct attack on divine sovereignty. God is sovereign, they suggest, and He does whatever pleases Him. Whatever He desires, He does.

Let us be completely honest: this poses a difficulty. How can unfulfilled desire be compatible with a wholly sovereign God? For example, in Isaiah 46:10, God states, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure." He is, after all, utterly sovereign. It is not improper to suggest that any of His actual "desires" remain unfulfilled?

This issue was the source of an intense controversy among some Reformed and Presbyterian denominations about fifty years ago—sometimes referred to as the "free offer" controversy. One group denied that God loves the non-elect. They also denied the concept of common grace (God's non-saving goodness to mankind in general). And they denied that divine mercy and eternal life are offered indiscriminately to everyone who hears the gospel. The gospel offer is not free, they claimed, but is extended to the elect alone. That position is a form of hyper-Calvinism.

Scripture clearly proclaims God's absolute and utter sovereignty over all that happens. He declared the end of all things before time even began, so whatever comes to pass is in perfect accord with the divine plan.

What God has purposed, He will also do (Isa. 46:10-11; Num. 23:19). God is not at the mercy of contingencies. He is not subject to His creatures' choices. He "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). Nothing occurs but that which is in accord with His purposes (cf. Acts 4:28). Nothing can thwart God's design, and nothing can occur apart from His sovereign decree (Isa. 43:13; Ps. 33:11). He does all His good pleasure: "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps" (Ps. 135:6).

But that does not mean God derives pleasure from every aspect of what He has decreed. God explicitly says that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). He does not delight in evil (Isa. 65:12). He hates all expressions of wickedness and pride (Prov. 6:16-19). Since none of those things can occur apart from the decree of a sovereign God, we must conclude that there is a sense in which His decrees do not always reflect His desires; His purposes are not necessarily accomplished in accord with His preferences.

The language here is necessarily anthropopathic (ascribing human emotions to God). To speak of unfulfilled desires in the Godhead is to employ terms fit only for the human mind. Yet such expressions communicate some truth about God that cannot otherwise be expressed in human language. As noted in chapter 3, God's own Word uses anthropopathisms to convey truth about Him that cannot adequately be represented to us through any other means. To give but one example, consider Genesis 6:6: "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Yet we know that God does not change His mind (1 Sam. 15:29). He is immutable; "with [Him] there is no variation, or shifting shadow" (Jas. 1:17). So whatever Genesis 6:6 means, it cannot suggest any changeableness in God. The best we can do with such an anthropopathism is try to grasp the essence of the idea, then reject any implications we know would take us to ideas about God that are unbiblical.

That same principle applies when we are grappling with the question of God's expressed desire for the wicked to repent. If God's "desire" remains unfulfilled (and we know that in some cases, it does--Lk. 13:34), we cannot conclude that God is somehow less than sovereign. We know He is fully sovereign; we do not know why He does not turn the heart of every sinner to Himself. Nor should we speculate in this area. It remains a mystery the answer to which God has not seen fit to reveal. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God"; only "the things revealed belong to us" (Deut. 29:29). At some point, we must say with the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain it" (Ps. 139:6).  

John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 107–110.

Commenting on this book by MacArthur, Armstrong wrote:

A biblical study which demonstrates that the Father’s heart is one of love for all people, especially for His own. A good corrective to the emphasis of newer hyper-Calvinism.

John Armstrong, “Annotated Bibliography,” Reformation and Revival 7:2 (Spring 1998): 146.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXTERNAL CALL

The external call to salvation as presented in the gospel is marked by several key characteristics. First, it is a general, or universal, call. That is, the good news of repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to all people without distinction. Whereas the internal call of regeneration is given only to the elect, the external call of the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to elect and reprobate alike. Some desiring to exalt God’s absolute sovereignty contradict this teaching by insisting that since God intends to save only the elect, his preachers ought to proclaim the gospel to them alone. However, not only is that impossible (for we have no means by which to distinguish the elect from the rest of humanity), it is patently contrary to Scripture. God represents himself as earnestly desiring that the wicked should repent (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:20), and in accordance with that desire, he exuberantly calls all people to himself: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.… Incline your ear and come to me; hear, that your soul may live” (Isa. 55:1, 3). He entreats sinners to seek him, and is eager to have compassion on them and to forgive them (Isa. 55:6–7). Without discrimination he commands “all the ends of the earth” to turn to him and be saved (Isa. 45:22). The depth and breadth of divine compassion is also fully manifest in the One who is the exact representation of the Father’s nature. If it were the case that gospel preachers ought to limit the external call to the elect alone, surely we would find such an example in Jesus’s ministry, for, unlike us, he knew full well who the elect were. And yet our Lord made no such discriminations but preached the gospel even to those who rejected him (Matt. 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24), inviting everyone who was weary to find rest in him (Matt. 11:28–30). This universality is represented in the church’s Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19; cf. Luke 24:47) and to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15 NKJV). Thus it is no surprise to see it modeled in apostolic preaching, as Paul declared to the philosophers on Mars Hill that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Indeed, the universality of the gospel call cannot be denied.

A second characteristic of the external call is that it is a sincere, bona fide offer. Some object that because God intends only to save those to whom he has chosen to grant repentance and faith, the universal call of the gospel cannot be genuine on God’s part. This is nothing less than a blasphemous accusation from those who have exalted their own reasoning above God’s revelation. As has been demonstrated, God truly does call all to repentance, and he represents himself as sincerely desiring the repentance of the wicked. He asks, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked … and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezek. 18:23; cf. 18:32; 33:11). Can anyone doubt the sincerity of the God who says, “Oh, that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!” (Ps. 81:13)? Indeed, he says of Israel, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom. 10:21). While it may be difficult to understand how statements of compassion toward the nonelect can be reconciled with the doctrines of sovereign election and particular redemption, it is not an option to conclude that God does not mean what he says! As Berkhof comments,

The external calling is a calling in good faith, a calling that is seriously meant. It is not an invitation coupled with the hope that it will not be accepted. When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.⁹⁰

The God who “has mercy on whomever he wills” and “hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18) is the God who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. To reason that the former is incompatible with the latter is not an option for the Bible-believing Christian. The offer of the salvation communicated in the external call of the gospel is conditioned on repentance and faith. For it to be a genuine, well-meant offer on God’s part, he simply has to be sincerely disposed to provide the promised blessings upon the satisfaction of the offer’s conditions.⁹¹ And this is precisely the case; if anyone repents and trusts in Christ, God will forgive and save him. However, such repentance and faith are impossible for the natural man (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Apart from regenerating grace, no man will ever repent and believe. Thus, in the case of the nonelect, the conditions of the offer will never be met. To suggest that God’s offer is insincere—indeed, that he feigns sincerity!—because he does not provide the necessary grace to overcome man’s depravity is to suppose that God is obligated to give grace to all. To such a notion the Lord himself responds, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” (Matt. 20:15). The potter has the right over the clay “to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (Rom. 9:21). God is not obligated to give grace to any man, let alone all men. The deficiency in the gospel call lies in man’s depravity, not in any supposed parsimony in God’s grace. To suggest such a thing approaches the highest strains of blasphemy.

Finally, a third characteristic of the external call is that, in and of itself, it is not efficacious. Unlike the effectual call in which man is summoned irresistibly to spiritual life (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; cf. John 6:44, 65) and is of necessity justified and eventually glorified (Rom. 8:30), the external call can be resisted. Jesus makes this distinction in his conclusion to the parable of the wedding banquet: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). That is, many are invited to partake in the feast of the blessings of eternal life, yet because the Father has only chosen some and not all, few are effectually called. Therefore, many who are invited reject the external call. Any instance in which the gospel is preached and rejected is evidence for the inherent inefficacy of the external call (e.g., John 3:18; 6:64; 12:37; Acts 7:51; 17:32). It is for this very reason that the external call is insufficient for salvation.
_______________
90. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462.
91. Nicole reasons, “The essential prerequisite for a sincere offer [is] simply this: that if the terms of the offer be observed, that which is offered be actually granted.” Roger R. Nicole, “Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement,” JETS 38, no. 3 (1995): 403–12. [Note: Nicole’s reductionistic view of the ground of the sincerity of the offer is very problematic. Nicole is basically saying that the offer is sincere because all that come to Christ get what was offered, i.e., consequent to coming, they are granted what was offered. That is all that is required for it to be sincere. That ignores the fact that there must be certain antecedent truths that must pertain in order for God’s offer to be sincere. For example, God must desire that all who hear the gospel offer comply with it. Moreover, there must be a sufficient provision made for all who hear the offer in order for it to be sincere. Before the great King invited all to come to the wedding feast in the gospel (Matt. 22:4), he first stated, “Tell those who are invited, ‘See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready,’” etc. Prior or antecedent preparations were made for all, which they could even “see” for themselves, before the invitation went out to all.]

John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 574–76.

Gonzales on God's Heart for the Non-Elect

Direct Sermon Audio Link

This sermon compliments the material by Sam Waldron in the previous post, which has been updated.

Brief Biography:

Robert R. Gonzales Jr. has been a pastor since 1997 and currently serves as one of the pastors of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. He is a graduate of the Reformed Baptist School of Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He also holds a Master of Arts degree (M.A.) in Theology and a Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) in Old Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University. He is an Associate Editor of and contributor to the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (RBTR) and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). Bob and his wife, Becky, have five children.

Dr. Sam Waldron on the 1689 LBC and God’s Saving Will

B. The free offer in the Bible

'But the witness which I receive is not from man, but I say these things, that you may be saved' (John 5:34). This text epitomizes the crux of the free offer. That crux is God's indiscriminate desire for the salvation of sinners. The 'these things' of the text refer to the testimony of John the Baptist to the messianic dignity of Jesus (John 5:33, 35–36). The phrase, 'that you may be saved', states Jesus' goal in mentioning the testimony of John. This clause begins with one of the most important Greek words which express purpose. His true purpose in alluding to the testimony of John is not to defend himself, but to save his hearers. The pronoun 'you' clarifies those who are the objects of Jesus' saving intention. This pronoun in this context plainly refers to the 'Jews' (cf. John 5:18–19, 33 with 1:19–24). Throughout this Gospel this designation refers to the Jewish leaders (5:10, 15, 16, 18, 33; 1:19–24; 9:22). The character of these 'Jews' is abundantly clear. They were those who, though blessed with great light (5:35), had ultimately rejected that light (5:38–47). These men were no ordinary sinners, but murderers who would bring about Jesus' death (5:16, 18; 18:12, 14, 31, 36, 38; 19:7, 12, 38; 20:19). The destiny of many of them, at least, was to die under the wrath of God (John 8:21, 24; Matt. 12:24, 31; 24:15–28; Luke 21:20–24; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). This very, in fact, teaches that these Jews, having rejected the true Messiah, would receive false messiahs (John 5:43). The phrase, 'I say', emphasizes that it was no one less than God's eternal Son (John 1:18; 5:18–26) and God's eternal Word who uttered these sentiments (John 1:1; 5:19, 43). Given this emphasis of the Gospel of John, we must recognize that Jesus here reveals God's heart and God's will (John 12:49–50; 14:10. 24; 17:8).

The doctrine of this text that God earnestly desires the salvation of every man who hears the gospel and thus freely offers Christ to them is confirmed throughout the rest of Scripture. The Bible teaches that the good gifts which God bestows upon men in general, including the non-elect, are manifestations of God's general love and common grace towards them (Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 6:35; Acts 14:17). While they do serve to increase the guilt of those who misuse them, this is not the sole intention of God towards the non-elect in giving them. The Scriptures teach that God desires the good even of those who never come to experience the good wished for them by God (Deut. 5:29; 32:29; Ps. 81:13–16; Isa. 48:18). The Scriptures also teach that God so loved sinners that in the person of his Son he weeps because of the destruction they bring upon themselves (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 19:41–44). God emphatically expresses his desire that some should repent who do not repent (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Rom. 10:11). The Scriptures teach a general gospel call which comes to the hearers of the gospel indiscriminately and which may be, and often is resisted (Prov. 1:24; 8:4; Isa. 50:2; 65:12; 66:4; Jer. 7:13–14; 35:17; Matt. 22:14).

This biblical witness does not overthrow the scriptural teaching of an unconditional election and an irresistible grace. When our finite minds contemplate the glory of the incomprehensible God revealed in the Scriptures we often will be unable to penetrate completely how two seemingly contradictory truths may be reconciled. It ought, however, to rid us of every hesitation in calling men indiscriminately, passionately, freely and authoritatively to embrace Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.

Samuel E. Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1989), 121–122. See also his exposition of John 5:34 in his book The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel (Greenbrier, AR: Free Grace Press, 2019), 17–24.

Most people who believe in particular redemption also believe in the free offer. I emphatically am one of them. God not only commands but also desires the salvation of everyone who hears the gospel, whether they are elect or not. This view is embedded in the Canons of Dort themselves (third and fourth heads, Article 8): “As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.”

Sam Waldron, “The Biblical Confirmation of Particular Redemption,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen & Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008), 149.

Robert Reymond’s (1932–2013) Denial of God’s Universal Saving Will

25. Some Reformed theologians teach that God can and does earnestly desire, ardently long to see come to pass, and actually work to effect things which he has not decreed will come to pass. Basing his conclusions on his expositions on Deuteronomy 5:29, Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matthew 23:37 and 2 Peter 3:9, John Murray states in “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), that God represents himself as “earnestly desiring the fulfillment of something which he had not in the exercise of his sovereign will actually decreed to come to pass,” that he “expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass,” that he “desires … the accomplishment of what he does not decretively will,” that Christ “willed the bestowal of his saving and protecting grace upon those whom neither the Father nor he decreed thus to save and protect,” that “God does not wish that any man should perish. His wish is rather that all should enter upon eternal life by coming to repentance,” and finally, that “there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not decreed to save” (4:119, 130, 131–132). John H. Gerstner similarly asserts, but without the requisite scriptural support, in A Predestination Primer (Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha Publications, 1979) 36–37, that God sincerely “strives with men whom He knows and has predestined should perish,” that “God, who knows all things, including the fact that certain persons will in spite of all efforts reject and disbelieve, continues to work with them to persuade them to believe,” and that “God, who knows the futility of certain endeavors to convert certain persons, proceeds to make these endeavors which He knows are going to be futile.” If one followed this trajectory of reasoning to its logical end, one might also conclude that perhaps Christ, though he knew the futility of his endeavor, did after all die savingly for those whom his Father and he had decreed not to save. But all such reasoning imputes irrationality to God, and the passages upon which Murray relies for his conclusions can all be legitimately interpreted in such a way that the Christian is not forced to impute such irrationality to God. For these other interpretations I would refer the reader to John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Sovereign Grace, 1971), 4–6, 22–26, 28, 62.

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 692–693n25.

Bio:
Wiki 

From the above citation, one can see that Robert Reymond did not think that God in any sense wills, wishes, or desires to save the non-elect, in contrast to John Murray and the early John Gerstner. I say “early” John Gerstner because he changed his position (from that which is in his Primer), as can be seen in his Foreward to David Engelsma’s Hyper-Calvinism & The Call of the Gospel, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994), vii–ix, and his statements in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2nd ed. (Morgan, Penn.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000), 142–46.

It is also astonishing to see Robert Reymond’s reference to and approval of John Gill on this point.

Similarly, Gordon Clark, who also appeals to John Gill on the will of God, said:

If this verse [Deut. 5:29] or any verse speaks of God as wishing the salvation of someone whom he has rejected as reprobate, there would be an inconsistency implying hypocrisy.

Gordon H. Clark, Biblical Predestination (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974), 130. Also, in Clark’s commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, he said, “…God does not will the salvation of every member of the human race. It is not his will that every man without exception should repent.” See New Heavens, New Earth: A Commentary on First and Second Peter (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1993), 231–32.

Gill, Hoeksema, Clark, Engelsma, and Reymond are all in agreement on this particular topic, though they differ on other matters.

Iain Murray on the Love of God and Hyper-Calvinism

Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, denies, in the words of John Murray, ‘that there is a love of God that goes forth to lost men and is manifested in the manifold blessings which all men without distinction enjoy, a love in which non-elect persons are embraced, and a love that comes to its highest expression in the entreaties, overtures and demands of gospel proclamation.’³
_______________
3. ‘The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel’ in the Banner of Truth (London, 1968), July–August, p. 29.

Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 98. In the 2010 reset edition in larger form, the pages are 86–87, and the footnote number is 1, not 3.