Henry James Carpenter on the Double Payment Argument

But I proceed to notice another objection, and one very commonly urged against this doctrine [general redemption]. It is objected, that if our Lord died for all, then it would be unjust to punish any one, for this would be to exact a double penalty for the same offence—to punish the same sins twice over.

No doubt it would be unjust to punish the sinner if Christ had borne his sins, with the stipulation that his sins should be absolutely forgiven—that, in consequence of his sacrifice, all men should be unconditionally pardoned, irrespective of their state of mind, irrespective of their believing or not believing, of their receiving the Gospel or rejecting the Gospel.

But nothing like this doctrine can be discovered in the Bible; the death of our Lord is nowhere in Scripture represented in this light. There we read, as I observed before, that a certain medium is necessary before the benefits of Christ's death can be actually applied to any man. Men must have faith; they must believe on Christ—they must trust wholly in his atoning sacrifice, that they may be forgiven their trespasses. "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." The Lord Jesus is "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood."

It is undeniable that our Lord could have annexed what condition he, in his wisdom, thought fit, in order that man should receive the benefits of the sacrifice he was about to offer; and it is no more unjust to punish the sinner who rejects Christ's offer of salvation than to treat an imprisoned debtor as still liable to his debt, because he refuses to send a petition to his rich benefactor, who freely paid his debt, but stipulated that the benefits of his generous payment should only be enjoyed by those debtors who would comply with his condition, and petition him for their release.

Henry James Carpenter, Did Christ Die For All Men, Or For The Elect Only? A Letter To A Friend In Ireland (London: T. Hatchard, 1857), 21.

Al Martin’s Agreement With John Murray On The Free Offer

Richard Mayhue reports the following about Al Martin's differences with the later John Gerstner, who rejected the well-meant offer:

In a letter dated September 12, 1991, the Elders of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey, pastored by Al Martin, himself a staunch proclaimer of Reformed doctrine, disavow Dr. Gerstner's teaching on the atonement beginning on p. 118 and continuing through p. 131. They write that, "Dr. Gerstner strays from the mainstream of historic Calvinistic teaching regarding the free offer of the Gospel." This disclaimer letter comes with every copy of Dr. Gerstner's book that they distribute. A review of Dr. Gerstner's work by Reformation Today seriously questions his discussion of total depravity, election, and irresistible grace as it relates to his analysis of dispensational thought.⁶
_______________
6. Tom Wells, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism: A Review," Reformation Today 125 (Jan–Feb 1992): 25–32.

Richard L. Mayhue, "Who Is Wrong? A Review of John Gerstner's Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth," in The Master's Perspective on Contemporary Issues, ed. Robert L. Thomas (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998), 2:62.

Another has reported the content of this letter as follows:

Trinity Book Service (of Reformed Baptist Al Martin’s church) sends a warning with Gerstner’s book that includes the following: “Dr. Gerstner strays from the mainstream of historic Calvinism regarding the free offer of the gospel. . . . [W]e cannot endorse his treatment of the subject of the atonement as it relates to the free offer of the gospel. We in fact commend the writing of Stonehouse and Murray on the Free Offer of the Gospel.

The same goes with Walter Chantry (see here and here) and Erroll Hulse. They are all influential Reformed Baptists who agree with John Murray's view that God desires the salvation of all men in the revealed will.

Thomas Manton (1620–1677) Comparing the Elect with the Reprobate

As truly as it can be said to John or Thomas, or any elect person, If you do not believe you shall be damned, so surely may it be said to a reprobate, to Judas, or any other, If you believe you shall be saved. If the reprobate have a like favour with the elect in the general offer of grace, they are left without excuse, the tender being so great, and so far the same unto both; though the elect’s receiving be the effect of special grace, yet the reprobate’s rejecting is without excuse, he voluntarily turning back upon his own mercies.

Thomas Manton, “A Practical Commentary, or An Exposition With Notes on the Epistle of Jude,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 5:133.

Bio:
Wiki

This quote is significant for a number of reasons:

1) It points out that the flip-side of sincere offers to the non-elect are sincere threats to the unbelieving elect. Those who reject the idea that God is giving well-meant offers to the non-elect sometimes see the other side and also reject the notion that God is ever threatening the unbelieving elect with perishing. They accuse their opponents of making a Christ of faith since their opponents insist that faith makes a vital, instrumental difference. Manton underlines the importance of faith.
2) He says that the elect and non-elect are favored just the same in the general offer of grace.
3) "Offer" is linked to the idea of a "tender."
4) Manton distinguishes the general offer of grace that all receive from "special grace," thus associating the "favour" that the non-elect receive in the offer with common grace, by implication.
5) Grace and mercy are associated, such that it would be absurd to think that God is being merciful to all, but not gracious.

Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) on God's Simultaneous Love and Hate

So far as the actual manifestation of the love of God in human consciousness is concerned, a fundamental difference lies in this, that the enjoyment of the common love of God outside of the kingdom does not exempt man from being subject at the same time to the divine wrath on account of sin. Love and wrath here are not mutually exclusive. Within the circle of redemption, on the other hand, the enjoyment of the paternal love of God means absolute forgiveness and deliverance from all wrath. Even this, however, is not sufficient clearly to mark the distinction between these two kinds of love, the wider and the narrower. For, previously to the moment of believing, those who are appointed for salvation, no less than the others, are subject in their consciousness to the experience of the wrath of God. It would seem, therefore, that in his pre-Christian state the one who will later become a child of God is not differentiated from the one who never will, inasmuch as both are in an equal sense the objects of the general benevolence of God and of His wrath in their experience.

Geerhardus Vos, "The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God," The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 13 (January, 1902): 24–25.

Bio:
Wiki

John Newton (1725–1807) Accurately Describing Some Calvinists

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of . Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress this wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify.

John Newton, “On Controversy,” in The Works of John Newton, 6 vols. (New York: Published by Williams & Whiting, 1810), 1:245.

Bio:  
Wiki

Substitute the term "controversy" with "debate," and read the quote again. There are some Calvinists who engage in debate, hold up their adversaries to ridicule in the process, and treat them with contempt. They provoke instead of convince, which serves only to harden the opposition instead of winsomely persuading them. This is contrary to their claim to be engaging in sincere evangelism in these debates. These verses are not heeded:

2 Timothy 2:24–26:  24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient,  25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,  26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Their combative approach serves to puff up their followers, instead of edifying them. While indulging in this behavior regularly, they consequently flatter their own superior judgments in the process, with the result that they consider themselves comparatively wise or good. Their self-righteousness feeds upon doctrines rather than upon good works. They still have the heart of a Pharisee, even though their heads are stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.

The Calvinists who are guilty of this would never admit to it, being blinded by pride, but their behavior gives them away. Watch how they are treating others in the midst of "controversy," or in the aftermath of "debate."

Samuel Willard (1640–1707) on God Begging

(2.) FROM this treaty they are brought to proceed to entreaty. They mutually ask peace one of the other. God, who in the law had breathed threatnings of wrath and ruine against the sinner, held no correspondence with him, and had sentenced him to hell, and destruction, now condescends to sollicit, beg, entreat, pray the sinner to be reconciled, and accept of his peace, which he freely makes tender of to him, and sends his Ambassadors to treat about it. 2 Cor. 5.20. Yea comes with his Spirit, swears that he delights not in his death, begs of him to turn, tells him he is a God of mercy. Ezek. 33.11. Jer. 3.12. And with these entreaties the sinners heart is broken, and he is melted, and falls down at God’s foot full of shame and confusion, freely confessing the unreasonable affronts and wrongs he hath offered to God, and begs of him for Christ’s sake to pardon and pass them by, and accept him in the beloved, and be at peace with him.

Samuel Willard, A Complete Body of Divinity in Two Hundred and Fifty Expository Lectures on the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Boston in New England: Printed by B. Green and S. Kneeland for B. Eliot and D. Henchman, and sold at their shops, 1726), 309–10.

Use. Let the Consideration of these things call on us all, on Children in particular, to labour to make sure of the Adoption. Let this be your great Ambition, to be the Children of God: And that, not by an outward relation in the Gospel Covenant only, but by that which is introduced by Faith in Christ, thro' whom only you can obtain Sonship & Heirship to this incorruptible and never fading Inheritance. Your Earthly Parents must dye shortly, if they are not gone already, and it is a poor Portion, which they can bestow on you, which can never make you happy. But if God once be your Father in Christ, you are happy indeed: He will be your Father in Heaven. He lives for ever, He will take care of you, He will never fail nor forsake you; He will keep you safe through an evil World, and bring you without fail to his Heavenly Kingdom: He will do more for you, then you can ask or think. He offers this to you, and begs of you to accept it. Receive Christ for your Spouse, and his Father will be your Father, his God your God, and nothing shall ever seperate you from his Love. [February 14 1698]

Samuel Willard, A Complete Body of Divinity in Two Hundred and Fifty Expository Lectures on the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Boston in New England: Printed by B. Green and S. Kneeland for B. Eliot and D. Henchman, and sold at their shops, 1726), 490–91.

7. In the grief he expresseth when men after all wilfully reject his tendered forgiveness. He speaks after the manner of men, when he tells us of his Spirit being grieved at such carriages, Psal. 95.10. And what is this but a grief of compassion, extended to such as are in misery! he might justly be enraged at mens despising of such favour offered them, and fall on them in his fury; and may in time be provoked to it by their obstinacy; but how often doth he express such compassion, as Christ did, in Mat. 23.37. Luke 19.41, 42. And this shows how ill God takes it, when men refuse him the glory of his Grace in forgiving them, by disregarding it, when he comes and begs their entertainment of it.

Samuel Willard, The Truly Blessed Man (Boston in N.E.: Printed by B. Green, and J. Allen, for Michael Perry, 1700), 259–260.

Bio:
Wiki

Matthew Poole's (1624–1679) Annotations on Matthew 5:45

The Puritan and English Presbyterian John Collinges (1623–1690) actually wrote the annotations on Matthew's gospel in Poole's commentary, but here is what is said:

As your heavenly Father hath a common love, which he extendeth to all mankind, in supplying their necessities, with the light and warmth of the sun, and with the rain; as well as a special love and favour, which he exerciseth only toward those that are good, and members of Christ; so ought you to have: through you are not obliged to take your enemies into your bosom, yet you ought to love them in their order. And as your heavenly Father, though he will one day have a satisfaction from sinners, for the wrong done to his majesty, unless they repent; yet, to heap coals of fire on their heads, gives them good things of common providence, that he might not leave them without witness, yea, and affords them the outward means of grace for their souls: so, although you are bound to seek some satisfaction for God's honour and glory from flagitious sinners, and though you may in an orderly course seek a moderate satisfaction for the wrong done to yourselves, yet you ought to love them with a love consistent with these things; that so you may imitate your heavenly Father, and approve yourselves to be his children.

Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, 3 vols. (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1852), 3:26.

Bio:

Wiki
DNB

Note: Like the other Puritans, notice the connection Collinges makes between God's common love and the common bounties of providence, or common grace. They are all interconnected.

Paul Zylstra Defines the Well-Meant Offer

First of all, we should define what is meant by the well-meant offer in the light of such Scripture passages as Ezekiel 33:11; 18:23, 32; Matthew 5:44-48; 23:37; Luke 6:35, 36; 13:34; Acts 14:17; Deuteronomy 5:29; 32:39; Psalm 31:13f.; Isaiah 48:18; 45:22; II Peter 3:9.

God does not "desire," "will," "delight in" the death of the impenitent and reprobate; rather He desires, wills, and delights in their repentance and salvation. This grace deals with the full and free offer of the gospel to all without distinction—with respect to the revealed will, of course, and not the decretive will of God.¹

This divine will (delight, desire) to save every man is not merely the bare preceptive will of God, but the expression of the heart of God himself—a real and necessary attitude of lovingkindness inherent in the free offer. The gospel is not simply an invitation; it is also an offer that God desires the recipients to enjoy fully.

This divine desire, however, is not desire to salvation apart from the means of repentance and faith. God desires the salvation of the reprobate by their repentance. Thus to say "God desires their salvation" is to say "God desires their repentance."²
_______________
1. Cf. the excellent and concise statement in the booklet by John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Free Offer of the Gospel (1948), especially page 15.
2. Ibid., page 4.

Paul Calvin Zylstra, "The Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel," The Reformed Journal (April 1961): 17.