More From Erroll Hulse on The Great Invitation

Not too long ago, Phil Johnson of TeamPyro wrote:

Erroll Hulse wrote a wonderful book called The Great Invitation: Examining the Use of the Altar Call in Evangelism. In it, he discusses the question of whether it is ever appropriate to tell sinners indiscriminately that God loves them and wants them to repent and be reconciled to Him. It's a marvelously balanced approach to the whole question, from a Calvinist who is defending the doctrines of election, the sovereignty of God, and the inability of sinners to choose Christ unaided by God's grace. I commend it to you.

Soon after he made this comment, I posted two Erroll Hulse quotes on my blog. Here is another quote from that same book:

When we look at the revealed purposes of God, there can be no doubt at all about this matter. God's grace is exercised towards all and is expressed by his offering the gospel to all. 'For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men' (Titus 2:11). In Romans 2:4 Paul makes it plain that the object or exercise of the riches of God's goodness applied over a long period of patience is that men might come to repentance. As we view this text we appreciate the obligation that the expressions of God's love bring to men and women. The text is rich in meaning: 'Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you towards repentance?'

The preaching of the gospel throughout the world is possible because a time of probation has been provided. During this time God shows his love, goodness and sincerity, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Two passages are frequently quoted in support of God's desire that all men everywhere should repent. These are important.

The first is 1 Timothy 2:4: '. . . God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.' An examination of this statement within the context shows that its application to unbelievers in general is clear. It is a general statement referring to unbelievers of all kinds. We should note that it does declare God's determination to punish some sinners, such as the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25).

The second passage is 2 Peter 3:9: 'The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.' Some insist that this text refers to believers, but that view can be challenged. Why should God's longsuffering be directed to his elect people who love and serve him? Surely, as we see in Romans 2:4, the word 'longsuffering' (makrothumia) is used with reference to the impenitent? In the days of Noah, God's longsuffering was directed specifically to the ungodly. He could legitimately have sent them all to a lost eternity, but he provided a time for repentance. Surely it can be argued that since it is repentance that is awaited, it is the unrepentant that are intended in the text.

It is gratifying to read G. C. Berkouwer on this theme. He urges that we should take these texts as 'presented to us in the dynamic and living context of the calling to repentance and to the knowledge of the truth'. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). It is in the context of the universal call that these texts come.

We can call God's love for all people 'benevolent' love, a love which does good to its subjects. This is distinguished from 'complacent' love, which is that love which delights in its objects. The complacent love of God is promised by our Lord to those who keep his commandments (John 14:23, 24). It is the love expressed towards those who have been adopted as sons and daughters of God (1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:32). 'Benevolent' love is expressed towards those who are antagonistic, the unreconciled and the unrepentant. This love provides liberally so that the hearts of men and women are filled with joy (Rom. 2:4; Acts 14:17).

What are we to understand by the love described in John 3:16: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son'? Expressed here is the wonder of God's love. He so loved. Two features make this love to be unique. The first is that so great a gift should be given because of this love. The second is what makes the love and love's sacrifice astonishing. It is the world that God so loved. What is it about this world that makes this love so great? If it was a beautiful worthy object for which God gave his supreme sacrifice, then we would not be surprised, but it is the world, in its sin, rebellion and ugliness, that God loved and sacrificed to redeem.

It is a mistake to take the meaning of 'the world' here as something referring to largeness of numbers. The context is referring to unbelief and to condemnation because men love darkness rather than light. It is the sinfulness and wickedness of the world that we are to think of. In spite of this unrighteousness, God's love prevails. Although the character of God's holiness is in complete contrast to the evil of this fallen world, yet he so loved this world, in spite of its degradation, that he gave his Son for it.

Erroneous, too, is the notion that we can make the word 'world' in John 3:16 mean all God's elect. If that was the meaning, John possessed the vocabulary to say, 'For God so loved the elect that he gave . . .' This he does not do. Nor does John say, 'For God so loved ever single creature . . .' John 3:16 views the world not in terms of elect or non-elect, but as a sphere representing fallen mankind as a whole, estranged from God, far away from him, guilty and deserving just condemnation, wrath and punishment. This is a horrible world full of war, wretchedness and strife. Yet God's image is upon it. It is his handiwork and the sinners who inhabit it are made in his image. Despite its appalling character he so loves it that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Erroll Hulse, The Great Invitation (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1986), 71–73.

The Basis of W. G. T. Shedd’s (1820–1894) Universal Gospel Offer

The universal offer of the gospel is consistent with the divine purpose of predestination because (1) Christ’s atonement is a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of all men and (2) God sincerely desires that every man to whom the atonement is offered would trust in it. His sincerity is evinced by the fact that, in addition to his offer, he encourages and assists man to believe by the aids of his providence—such as the written and spoken word, parental teaching and example, favoring social influences, etc.—and by the operation of the common grace of the Holy Spirit. The fact that God does not in the case of the nonelect bestow special grace to overcome the resisting self-will that renders the gifts of providence and common grace ineffectual does not prove that he is insincere in his desire that man would believe under the influence of common grace any more than the fact that a benevolent man declines to double the amount of his gift, after the gift already offered has been spurned, proves that he did not sincerely desire that the person would take the sum first offered.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003), 349.

Also in W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1888), 1:457.

Bio:  
Wiki

What interests me about the above quote are the following points:

1) Shedd connects the sincerity of the universal offer to the sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction made for the sins of all men and to God's desire that every man trust in it. Notice that Shedd does not say that Christ's death COULD HAVE BEEN (Owen's hypothetical way of putting it) sufficient for the sins of all men, but that IT IS sufficient. So, it's not just the case that there is a bare sufficiency because of Christ's infinite intrinsic value, but he really suffered or satisfied for the sins of all men in the death he died (an ordained sufficiency). Moreover, Shedd hasn't gutted the revealed will of God of any sense of desire, a want of compliance, willingness, a propensity, an active principle, velleity, or seeking. He sees the revealed will as a "desire" in God (like Calvin) and connects that to the basis for a sincere offer. Shedd's distinction between the secret and revealed will of God is not a distinction without a difference.

2) Shedd is not so decretally bent in his theology so as to gut common grace of the notion that God grants good things with a view to saving. He argues that the common bounties of providence are given to "encourage" and "assist" men to believe savingly. In other words, he's not merely paying lip service to the classical Calvinistic teaching on common grace.

Some higher Calvinists, due to their overly decretal view of things, have significantly distorted or gutted the classical conceptions of Christ's sufficiency, the revealed will and common grace, unlike Shedd. They can only affirm a hypothetical sufficiency, they don't really think the revealed will is a will (it merely points to a passive constitutional "delight" in God for certain abstract principles like repentance), and they don't think that the common bounties of providence stem from a seeking in God for the ultimate well-being of man.

Two serious theological errors have occurred in church history. There are 1) those who are inclined to think that God may not be able to bring to pass what he has determined to bring to pass (his decretal will), and there are 2) those who are inclined to think that God doesn't really will or want compliance to what he commands (his revealed will). To use an analogy from the Lord of the Rings movie, each position is like a ring of power. If you put on the first ring, the decretal will of God turns invisible. If you put on the second ring, the revealed will goes invisible. These two parties, which represent different halves of a false either/or dilemma (since it's really the case that God will bring to pass what he has determined AND he wants compliance to what he commands), continue to wage war against each other today. Both are in desperate need of the balance of W. G. T. Shedd. Because my blog is primarly concerned with taking the second ring of power to Mount Doom, those associated with the second party are not exactly enthusiastic about what I have to say.

John MacArthur on God’s Love

The fact that God will send to eternal hell all sinners who persist in sin and unbelief proves His hatred toward them. On the other hand, the fact that God promises to forgive and bring into His eternal glory all who trust Christ as Savior—and even pleads with sinners to repent—proves His love toward them.

We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45, NASB). That passage and the verses in the immediate context refute Arthur Pink's claim that Jesus never told sinners God loved them. Here Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.

While we are all eager to ask why a loving God lets bad things happen to His children, surely we should also ask why a holy God lets good things happen to bad people. The answer is that God is merciful even to those who are not His own.

At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone. Limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30) His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, Oh house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.

A parallel in the human realm would be this: I love my neighbors. I am commanded by numerous Scriptures to love them as I love myself (e.g., Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39; Lk. 10:29-37). I also love my wife. That, too, is in accord with Scripture (Eph. 5:25-28; Col. 3:19). But clearly my love for my wife is superior, bot in excellence and in degree, to my love for my neighbor. I willingly brought my wife into my family to live with me for the rest of our lives. There's no reason to conclude that since I do not afford the same privilege to my neighbors, my love for them is not a real and genuine love. Likewise it is with God. He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But that does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real.

Furthermore, even in the human realm, love for one's spouse and love for one's neighbor still don't exhaust the different varieties of love we share. I also love my children with the utmost fervency; yet again I love them with a different quality of love than my love for my wife. And I love my Christian neighbors in a way that rises above my love for my non-Christian neighbors. Obviously genuine love comes in varying kinds and degrees. Why is it difficult for us to conceive that God Himself loves different people differently and with different effects?

God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Eph. 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.

But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live. He freely offers the water of life to all (Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17). Those truths are not at all incompatible with the truth of divine sovereignty.

Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." Calvin went on to add this:

[In John 3:16 the evangelist] has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

Calvin's comments are both balanced and biblical. He points out that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. But he also recognizes that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

These same truths have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.

We're seeing today an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan era. I'm very encouraged by this in most respects. A return to these historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.

John MacArthur, The Love of God: He Will Do Whatever It Takes to Make Us Holy (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 15–18. Elsewhere MacArthur even taught that Jesus loved Judas: “To the very end Jesus loved Judas, but he [Judas] would have none of what He [Jesus] offered him.” John MacArthur, Matthew 8–15, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 177; “But the Lord’s pain was compounded many times over because He knew ahead of time that He would be betrayed and because the consequences were so serious. Yet He endured the pain, because He loved Judas and knew that His own betrayal was a necessary part of the redemptive plan.” John MacArthur, Drawing Near: Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 30

Update on 11-26-14:

MacArthur said:

God’s universal love is revealed not only in common grace and His great compassion, but also in His admonition to repent. God is constantly warning the reprobate of their impending fate, and pleading with them to turn away from sin. Nothing demonstrates God’s love more than the various warnings throughout the pages of Scripture, urging sinners to flee from the wrath to come.

Anyone who knows anything about Scripture knows it is filled with warnings about the judgment to come, warnings about hell, and warnings about the severity of divine punishment. If God really did not love the reprobate, nothing would compel Him to warn them. He would be perfectly just to punish them for their sin and unbelief with no admonition whatsoever. But He does love and He does care and He does warn.

God evidently loves sinners enough to warn them. Sometimes the warnings of Scripture bear the marks of divine wrath. They sound severe. They reflect God’s hatred of sin. They warn of the irreversible condemnation that will befall sinners. They are unsettling, unpleasant, even terrifying.

But they are admonitions from a loving God who as we have seen weeps over the destruction of the wicked. They are necessary expressions from the heart of a compassionate Creator who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. They are further proof that God is love.

The Gospel Offer

Finally, we see proof that God’s love extends to all in the gospel offer. We saw earlier that the gospel invitation is an offer of divine mercy. Now consider the unlimited breadth of the offer. No one is excluded from the gospel invitation. Salvation in Christ is freely and indiscriminately offered to all.

Jesus told a parable in Matthew 22:2–14 about a king who was having a marriage celebration for his son. He sent his servants to invite the wedding guests. Scripture says simply, “they were unwilling to come” (v. 3). The king sent his servants again, saying, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast” (v. 4). But even after that second invitation, the invited guests remained unwilling to come. In fact, Scripture says, “They paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them” (vv. 5–6). This was outrageous, inexcusable behavior! And the king judged them severely for it.

Then Scripture says he told his servants, “The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast” (v. 9). He opened the invitation to all comers. Jesus closes with this: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (v. 14).

The parable represents God’s dealing with the nation of Israel. They were the invited guests. But they rejected the Messiah. They spurned Him and mistreated Him and crucified Him. They wouldn’t come—as Jesus said to them:

You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. (Jn. 5:39–40)

The gospel invites many to come who are unwilling to come. Many are called who are not chosen. The invitation to come is given indiscriminately to all. Whosoever will may come—the invitation is not issued to the elect alone.

God’s love for mankind does not stop with a warning of the judgment to come. It also invites sinners to partake of divine mercy. It offers forgiveness and mercy. Jesus said, “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” (Matt. 11:28–29). And Jesus said, “The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (Jn. 6:37).

It should be evident from these verses that the gospel is a free offer of Christ and His salvation to all who hear. Those who deny the free offer therefore alter the nature of the gospel itself. And those who deny that God’s love extends to all humanity obscure some of the most blessed truth in all Scripture about God and His lovingkindness.

God’s love extends to the whole world. It covers all humanity. We see it in common grace. We see it in His compassion. We see it in His admonitions to the lost. And we see it in the free offer of the gospel to all.

God is love, and His mercy is over all His works.

John MacArthur Interview on Election

I wasn't able to recall where I first downloaded this interview, but after I heard it, I knew I had to link to it eventually. I did a google search and sure enough, Keith Plummer stole my idea (unconsciously of course) and linked to the interview before me! ;-)

Here's the link to Keith's blog on it:

Phil Johnson and John MacArthur Talk Election

Update: Direct Link Here

You will hear Dr. MacArthur strongly affirming God's desire to save all mankind (well-meant offer), even as he underlines God's eternal purpose to save the elect alone. If I recall, MacArthur even mentioned God begging or pleading with men through the gospel call.

Alan Clifford on John Owen’s (1616–1683) Triple Choice

Under the influence of Aristotle’s teleology and the commercial theory of the atonement, Owen proposes a ‘dilemma to our universalists’ in a powerful piece of reasoning. After stating that there was a qualitative and quantitative ‘sameness’ in the sufferings of Christ and the eternal punishment threatening those for whom he died, Owen affirms, ‘God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men’. This is Owen’s famous ‘triple choice’ position, which, in his view, conclusively settles the controversy in favour of a limited atonement. The last choice is quickly ruled out: if the atonement fails to deal with all sins, then the sinner has something to answer for. The first choice invites Owen’s question, ‘Why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?’ He therefore concludes that the second choice alone fits the case; the atonement is exclusively related to ‘all the sins of some men’.

Owen anticipates the universalist objection that men are only lost through an unbelieving rejection of the atonement. He asks:

But this unbelief, is it a sin or not: If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?. If he did not, then did he not die for all the sins.

For all its apparent cogency, this compelling argument raises some important problems. It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace. It also makes nonsense of the means of grace, depriving general exhortations to believe of all significance.

A further objection arises from an unexpected quarter. In Owen’s view the sufferings of Christ not only deal with the guilt of the believer’s pre-conversion unbelief, they are causally related to the removal of unbelief. But Owen’s pastoral experience taught him that even true believers – or those who have grounds to regard themselves as elect – continue to be plagued with unbelief. Should this be the case if Christ had died to purchase faith for them, or are they perhaps deceived? Owen certainly denies that lapses of unbelief in the elect are not sinful if Christ has paid the penalty for them. Neither would he question the fact that doubting believers fail to participate fully in the subjective blessings Christ’s death has purchased for them. In other words, his argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers, with interesting consequences. For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.

Basic to Owen’s argument is his theory of the nature of the atonement, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Suffice it to say that making the sufferings of Christ commensurate with the sins of the elect in a quantitative, commercialistic sense explains and reinforces his teleology of the atonement. This was the consideration which led him to modify the sufficiency-efficency distinction. His apparent acceptance of it is really little more than lip-service; his deliberate redefinition of it means that the atonement is only sufficient for those for whom it is efficient. In other words, if the atonement is strictly limited, then the ‘credit facilities’ of the gospel are only available to the elect.

This prevented Owen from seeing that there was an alternative way of dealing with his ‘triple choice’ challenge. For earlier generations of Calvinists the solution was a simple one. Viewing the sufficiency of the atonement in terms of a universal provision of grace, they would embrace the first choice (all the sins of all men) with respect to the atonement’s sufficiency, and the second (all the sins of some men) with respect to its efficiency. As an earlier chapter has demonstrated, the sixteenth-century Reformers taught – both in their writings and in their confessions of the faith – that the atonement was relevant and applicable to all, though it was applied only to the elect. This much is clear: Calvin and his companions believed that the sufferings of Christ were related to the sins of the whole world; men are lost, not for lack of atonement, but for not believing. Unlike Owen, the Reformers had little difficulty in establishing the basis of human guilt. While guilt is undoubtedly defined in terms of transgressing the law, a very significant component of it arises from ungrateful neglect of the gospel remedy. But on Owen’s account, if the atonement relates only to the sins of the elect, then it is doubtful justice to condemn anyone for rejecting what was never applicable to them.

Owen’s acceptance of common grace is surely in conflict with his view of the atonement’s sufficiency, for it implies a broader view than his narrower theory will allow. As a corollary, his acceptance of the ‘free offer’ of the gospel is embarrassed by his strict commercialist position. He does indeed assert that the gospel is to be preached to ‘every creature’ because ‘the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in’. But how can this be if the atonement is really only sufficient for the elect? Calvin and his colleagues had no difficulty in speaking like this, but Owen cannot consistently do so. Not surprisingly, Gill and his fellow hypercalvinists employed the very kind of commercialism espoused by Owen, but did so to deny the validity of universal offers of grace.

Alan C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 111–113.

For more on this subject with extensive quotes from Reformed/Calvinistic men, see my post on Double Jeopardy?

Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629) on God’s Revealed Will

Just as the edicts of a magistrate are called his will, so the designation of will may be given to precepts, prohibitions, promises, and even deeds and events. Thus the divine will is also called that which God wants done [voluntas signi], because it signifies what is acceptable to God; what he wants done by us. It is called “consequent” because it follows that eternal antecedent; “conditional” because the commandments, prohibitions, warnings, and promises of God all have a condition of obedience or disobedience attached to them. Finally, it is called “revealed,” because it is always explained in the word of God. It must be observed that this sort of distinction does not postulate either really diverse, or contradictory, wills in God.

Johannes Wollebius, "Compendium Theologiae Christianae [Lib. 1, c. 3., §2]," in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 48. See also Joanne Wollebio, Compendium Theologiae Christianae […] (Amsterlodami: Apud Ægidium Janssonium Valckenier, 1655), 25.

Bio:
Wiki

David Ponter quoted Beardslee, saying:

Ernst Bizer, who has reprinted the original in our generation, would now warn against overestimating its importance, here agreeing with several nineteenth-century historians, but it cannot be denied that its extensive use during the seventeenth century, its brevity, clarity, and faithful positive expression of what Reformed theologians were saying in the decade of the Synod of Dort and would keep on saying, entitle it to consideration as an avenue to an over-all picture of the accepted "orthodox" understanding of the Reformed faith—the "teaching commonly accepted in our churches" on which Voetius, Turretin, and others set such store.

Reformed Dogmatics, 11.

Ponter then noted:

On page 10, Beardslee says he chose Wollebius because it was the best summary of Reformed Dogmatics from this period, i.e., the first quarter of the 17th C (ibid., 10).

The will of sign was a sub-category of the revealed will. It dates back to the medieval scholastics.

Given Beardslee's remarks, is the denial of the will of sign as expressive of what God wants us to do a departure from the received orthodoxy (at this point)?

Me now:

With the documentation on my blog, we're seeing in mainstream Reformed theologians that the revealed will is what God "wants" (Wollebius), "wishes" (Turretin), "desires" (Turretin), and even "ardently desires" (Calvin, Murray, Kuiper, etc.). It's an "active principle" (Dabney), and "propension" (Howe, Manton, Dabney) that "seeks" (Perkins, Durham, Edwards, Bavinck) creaturely compliance. There are some today, unfortunately, who want to vacate God's revealed will of any notion of want, wish, or desire. They share that in common with John Gill, and not with the consensus of the Reformed community.

Various Confessions and Gospel Offer Terminology

Some think that important Reformed confessions do not make much (or even nothing at all) of a desire or will in God for the salvation of all. Since an offer by God is by definition sincere or "serious," then the confessions that speak of God's indiscriminate offer of salvation are by implication addressing a wish or desire in God for the salvation of all. Moreover, how could "grace" be "offered" by God and it not be well-meant? I simply cannot see how some can think there is a serious offer of grace to any whom God does not desire the salvation thereof, etc. It seems to me that a denial of a wish or desire in God for the salvation of all is virtually the same as denying God's well-meant offer of grace, which is an aspect of hyper-Calvinism. However, let it be known that I reserve the label "hyper-Calvinism" for those who explicitly deny a well-meant gospel offer by God in the external call. It just seems to be the case that some want to deny a desire in God for the salvation of all in the gospel offer, and yet maintain that they are not denying the well-meant gospel offer. They wish to be reckoned within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. Frankly, if I denied that God desired the salvation of any non-elect person, I would see the obvious implications of that and deny that there are well-meant gospel offers made to them. Note well: A command by God implies or presupposes a desire or wish for compliance, and He's commanding all men everywhere to repent.

Just as the confessions address "duty-faith" implicitly, so they address the "well-meant gospel offer" or (the desire or wish of God for the salvation of all) by implication.

Dort: 3–4: 9

It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

3–4:14

Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.

French Confession:

Art: XIII. We believe that all that is necessary for our salvation was offered and communicated to us in Jesus Christ. He is given to us for our salvation, and 'is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:' so that if we refuse him, we renounce the mercy of the Father, in which alone we can find a refuge.

Westminster:

10:2: This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

Shorter Catechism:

Q31: What is effectual calling?
A31: Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

Shorter Catechism:

Q86: What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A86: Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

Larger Catechism:

Q68: Are the elect only effectually called?
A68: All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

LBC London Baptist 10:2

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all forseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.

Savoy, 10:2

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

Second Helvetic:

Chapt 17: What Is the Church? The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and Holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ.

39 Articles, Art 7:

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

LC 67:

Q67: What is effectual calling?
A67: Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.

Berne Theses (Published and revised later by Zwingli, written by Berthold Haller and Francis Kolb):

Article 3:
Christ is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and satisfaction for the the sins of the whole world.

Translated in P. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, p. 365.

If Christ is the redemption of the whole world or suffered for the sins of the whole human race, then it certainly stems from the fact that God in the revealed sense wills/wants/wishes/desires their salvation. The same can be argued from the following confession.

Heidelberg Catechism, Question #37:

Q. What does it mean that He suffered?
A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, in order that by His passion, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

Update on 7-27-19:

Offer language is scattered throughout the Reformed confessions. See “The Tetrapolitan Confession (1530),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4 vols., ed. J. T. Dennison (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:143; “Calvin’s Catechism (1537),” 1:367, 378, 419, 421; “Waldensian Confession of Mérindol (1543),” 1:456, 459–60; “Calvin’s Catechism (1545),” 1:484, 511; “Valdés’s Catechism (1549),” 1:528; “Consensus Tigurinus (1549),” 1:541, 543; “Consensus Genevensis (1552),” 1:726, 751, 804, 805; “Articles of the Church of England (1552/53),” 2:3; “The French Confession (1559),” 2:147, 153; “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” 2:273, 274–75, 286, 288, 290, 291, 294–95, 297, 350; “Theodore Beza’s Confession at Poissy (1561),” 2:418; “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” 2:471, 509–10, 536, 580; “Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” 2:668, 693, 694, 696, 708, 713, 714, 715, 719–20, 731; “The Thirty-Nine Articles (1562/63),” 2:757; “The Synod of Enyedi (1564),” 2:802, 803, 808; “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” 2:844, 863; “The Antwerp Confession (1566),” 2:884; “The Netherlands Confession (1566),” 2:891; “Sandomierz Consensus (1570),” 3:233, 234, 237, 242, 243, 269, 271, 273, 274; “Confession of the Synod of Csenger (1570),” 3:298; “The Bohemian Confession (1573),” 3:339, 369, 386; “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” 3:420; “The Nassau Confession (1578),” 3:474, 476; “Craig’s Catechism (1581),” 3:550, 578, 589, 590; “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” 3:726; “The Stafforts Book (1599),” 3:767, 769, 780, 784; “The Evangelical Church in Germany (1614),” 4:64; “The Irish Articles (1615),” 4:104, 106; “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” 4:134, 137; “Leipzig Colloquy (1631),” 4:176; “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” 4:213, 214, 222, 223; “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” 4:247, 267; “Westminster Larger Catechism (1647),” 4:311, 312; “Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647),” 4:357, 365; “The Geneva Theses (1649),” 4:420; “Waldensian Confession (1655),” 4:439; “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” 4:469, 486; “The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675),” 4:527; “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” 4:541, 545; “The Baptist Catechism (1693),” 4:577, 585. This listing of “offers” in this 4-volume work is exhaustive and in chronological order.

Francis Turretin (1623–1687) on the Will of God

The following quotes from Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a high Calvinist Italian Reformer who followed Calvin and Beza in Geneva, are important because 1) he connects God's command with his preceptive "will" 2) he connects God's preceptive will with a serious "wish" and "desire."

We may build the case from the following Turretin quotes the following view of God's preceptive or approving will:

1) What God commands he seriously wills by will of precept.

2) What God wills by precept is a serious "wish" and "desire."

3) When God calls a man to salvation by will of precept, he seriously wills, i.e., he wishes and desires it.

4) Turretin interprets the meaning of the Synod of Dort as saying these things by implication.

VIII. (3) The question is not whether there is in God a will commanding and approving faith and the salvation of men; nor whether God in the gospel commands men to believe and repent if they wish to be saved; nor whether it pleases him for men to believe and be saved. For no one denies that God is pleased with the conversion and life of the sinner rather than with his death. We willingly subscribe to the Synod of Dort, which determines that "God sincerely and most truly shows in his word, what is pleasing to him; namely, that they who are called should come to him" (Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1620], Pt. I, p. 266). But the question is whether from such a will approving and commanding what men must do in order to obtain salvation, can be gathered any will or purpose of God by which he intended the salvation of all and everyone under the condition of faith and decreed to send Christ into the world for them. Hence it appears that they wander from the true order of the question who maintain that we treat here only of the will of approbation (euarestias), but not of the will of good pleasure (eudokias). It is evident that we treat not of that which God wishes to be done by us, but what he wills to do for the salvation of men and of the decree of sending Christ for them (which everyone sees belongs to the will of good pleasure [eudokias] and not to that of approbation [euarestias]).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. G. M. Giger, ed. J. T. Dennison, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994), 1:397.

XLI. God wills those to be saved (whom he wills to repent and believe) in the same manner in which he wills them to believe. If he wills them to believe decretively and effectively (as with respect to the elect), he also wills them to be saved in this respect and so they are really saved. If he wills only preceptively and approvingly (as with respect to the reprobate upon whom he enjoins faith and repentance), in the same manner also he wills them to be saved (i.e., that he approves of and is pleased with their salvation), but not immediately that he destines it to them or intends it either absolutely or conditionally (because the method of the decretive will differs from that of the preceptive and approving). God indeed ought necessarily to will what he commands, but in the manner in which he commands (i.e., as he wills its being enjoined, but not always as to the execution and issue). Nor immediately does he intend what is commanded, since many things are commanded which are by no means intended. Thus God commanded Pharaoh to let the people go and yet he cannot be said to have actually intended (either absolutely or conditionally) their dismission since he intended on the contrary the hardening of Pharaoh and the retention of the people. He ordered Abraham to offer up his son and yet did not intend his immolation. He commands all to obey the law which yet he does not intend. As therefore from the command to fulfill the law you would erroneously gather that God intends the perfect sanctification of men and their justification and life from it, so from the command to believe and repent, you would notwithstanding falsely infer that God by that very thing intended the faith and repentance and so the salvation of all those to whom such an external command is promulgated. But although the end of the command in the signified act and on the part of the thing may be said to be that they should believe and repent, yet it cannot be determined that this is the end intended on the part of God and in the exercised act (for if he had intended this, he would have procured and effected the necessary means by which it would be brought about). Therefore the precept signifies that God really wills to enjoin that upon us, but not that he really wills or intends that what is commanded should take place. Nor does the example of legislators (who will and intend, as much as they can, those things which they enjoin upon their citizens) pertain to this because in them cannot be distinguished (as in God) the will of thing, could they immediately give effect to it as God can).

Ibid., 1:413–414.

XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously make known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.

Ibid., 2:507–508.

XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said "all things are ready" (Lk. 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.

Ibid., 2:509.

The Formula Consensus Helvetica (in which Turretin assisted) also says:

Canon XIX. Likewise the external call itself, which is made  by the preaching of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who calls, earnest and sincere. For in His Word He unfolds earnestly and most truly, not indeed, His secret intention respecting the salvation or destruction of each individual, but what belongs to our duty, and what remains for us if we do or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they who are called come to Him and not neglect so great salvation, and so He promises eternal life also in good earnest, to those who come to Him by faith;...

Translated in A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 661.

Klauber's translation:

Canon XIX: Likewise the external call itself, which is made by the preaching of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who earnestly and sincerely calls. For in his Word he most earnestly and truly reveals, not, indeed, his secret will respecting the salvation or destruction of each individual, but our responsibility, and what will happen to us if we do or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they who are called come to him and not neglect so great a salvation, and so he earnestly promises eternal life to those who come to him by faith;

Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11.1 (Spring 1990): 120.

See also Donald J. MacLean, James Durham (1622–1658) and the Gospel Offer in its Seventeenth-Century Context (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 34–35, for an explication of Turretin’s view on the free offer.

Bio:
Wiki