Well meant offer?

eternomade

Well-known member
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.

I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?

I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.

An Arminian misrepresents Calvinism!
Shocking!

HyperCalvinists don't believe in sharing the gospel to the unconverted.
Calvinists do.

Night and day.

I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?

The phrase, "well meant offer" is not found in the Bible, and so I see on reason to use it.

Having said that, I firmly believe spreading the gospel to the unconverted is a bonafide ("good faith") proclamation, simply because we don't know who the elect are. Any person we preach the gospel to could potentially be one of the elect. We simply don't know.

I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.

We spread the seeds, knowing that some will fall on rich soil, and some will fall on dry ground. And we depend on God to give growth on the seed that falls on the rich soil.
 
Last edited:
T

TomFL

Guest
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.

I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?

I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.
A denial of a well meant gospel offer is one tenet of Hyper Calvinism
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.

I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?

I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.
I believe in the well-meant offer of the Gospel; go preach the Gospel to every Creature. I know we can argue whether that Verse is legitimate, but so far it's still in my Bible. Not all Israel is Israel, but Isaiah said "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost." So THAT offer was meant for All Israel; even those who weren't Spiritual Israel, though they were National Israel. Sure; without a doubt the Gospel is meant for the Elect, but the Gospel is also freely offered to everyone...
 
Last edited:

eternomade

Well-known member
I believe in the well-meant offer of the Gospel; go preach the Gospel to every Creature. I know we can argue whether that Verse is legitimate, but so far it's still in my Bible. Not all Israel is Israel, but Isaiah said "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost." So THAT offer was meant for All Israel; even those who weren't Spiritual Israel, though they were National Israel. Sure; without a doubt the Gospel is meant for the Elect, but the Gospel is also freely offered to everyone...
I heard someone say "words are never heresy, but the meaning behind those words can be". I think I agree with that. Two people can read the same words but understand what they mean completely different.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Where is this defined?
A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.




 

Carbon

Well-known member
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.
Typical ignorant Arminian.
I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?
Where does scripture teach it’s a well meant offer? No where!
Although many treat it as such.
I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.
Christ commands us to proclaim the gospel.
For, many are called but few are chosen.
 

eternomade

Well-known member
A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.




I haven't heard this definition before, thanks.

1. I believe the call of the gospel is only for the elect. It does not call to the non elect.

2. I do not believe faith is the duty of every sinner, but only the duty of the elect.

3. I do not believe salvation is an offer to anyone. It's not an offer to the elect either.

4. I do not believe that grace is common. Grace is effectual.

5. I do not believe God loves the non elect. If he did, they would be elect.

I do share the gospel to all though. I do not know who the non elect are.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I heard someone say "words are never heresy, but the meaning behind those words can be". I think I agree with that. Two people can read the same words but understand what they mean completely different.
The things of God are Spiritually Understood...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I don't mean to argue, so I'll just compare my views to yours for your consideration.

1. I believe the call of the gospel is only for the elect. It does not call to the non elect.

The term, "call" is used in various ways, sometimes in terms of the internal drawing of the elect, and sometimes to the external proclamation of the gospel to everyone.

On a related note, I believe it was Spurgeon who wrote that if the elect had green stripes down their back, he would only proclaim the gospel to them. I would disagree, as I believe God is glorified even when the gospel is presented to the non-elect who refuses it. I don't believe this is explicitly taught in Scripture, so I'm not dogmatic about it.

2. I do not believe faith is the duty of every sinner, but only the duty of the elect.

I believe repentance is the duty of every sinner.
I'm not sure if faith is the duty of every sinner. I'm leaning towards not.

3. I do not believe salvation is an offer to anyone. It's not an offer to the elect either.

Correct.
It is not an "offer". It is a statement of fact, a proclamation, of what God is going to do for His elect people.

4. I do not believe that grace is common. Grace is effectual.

I believe that grace is common. This is demonstrated every time a sinner is not struck down dead upon committing his first sin. This is demonstrated by how unrepentant sinners are given the riches of wealth, family, children, and overall success.

I believe SAVING grace (distinct from common grace) is effectual.

5. I do not believe God loves the non elect. If he did, they would be elect.

I believe there are different types of love. I believe love is an action, more than an emotion or feeling. I believe God shows love to the non-elect whenever He blesses them (with common grace). I believe saving love is limited to the elect.

I do share the gospel to all though. I do not know who the non elect are.

Amen!
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I haven't heard this definition before, thanks.

1. I believe the call of the gospel is only for the elect. It does not call to the non elect.

2. I do not believe faith is the duty of every sinner, but only the duty of the elect.

3. I do not believe salvation is an offer to anyone. It's not an offer to the elect either.

4. I do not believe that grace is common. Grace is effectual.

5. I do not believe God loves the non elect. If he did, they would be elect.

I do share the gospel to all though. I do not know who the non elect are.
2. Andrew Fuller believed it's the Duty of All to have Faith in Christ; Conflating our Duty to believe in Jesus, with the First Commandment. 'Thou shall have no other gods besides Me', means thou Shalt have Me as thy God. Not believing in Christ, breaks the First Commandment...

Breaking a Commandment of God means you've shirked your Duty...
 
Last edited:

eternomade

Well-known member
I don't mean to argue, so I'll just compare my views to yours for your consideration.



The term, "call" is used in various ways, sometimes in terms of the internal drawing of the elect, and sometimes to the external proclamation of the gospel to everyone.

On a related note, I believe it was Spurgeon who wrote that if the elect had green stripes down their back, he would only proclaim the gospel to them. I would disagree, as I believe God is glorified even when the gospel is presented to the non-elect who refuses it. I don't believe this is explicitly taught in Scripture, so I'm not dogmatic about it.



I believe repentance is the duty of every sinner.
I'm not sure if faith is the duty of every sinner. I'm leaning towards not.



Correct.
It is not an "offer". It is a statement of fact, a proclamation, of what God is going to do for His elect people.



I believe that grace is common. This is demonstrated every time a sinner is not struck down dead upon committing his first sin. This is demonstrated by how unrepentant sinners are given the riches of wealth, family, children, and overall success.

I believe SAVING grace (distinct from common grace) is effectual.



I believe there are different types of love. I believe love is an action, more than an emotion or feeling. I believe God shows love to the non-elect whenever He blesses them (with common grace). I believe saving love is limited to the elect.



Amen!
I agree with all that. That's why words matter.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
I would like to hear responses from Calvinists on this. I recently read a blog from an Arminian that said Calvinism logically leads to hyper Calvinism.

I do not believe in the well meant offer. If we, as Calvinists know that God has determined those who He will save and those who He will not, how is that offer, meant well to the reprobate?

I also know that we are to share this Gospel promiscuously, knowing that God's elect will believe grace through faith. We are still to obey these commands in scripture.
He WILL save His people from their sins.[Matthew 1:21] He doesn’t try, He doesn’t hope, but He DOES save His sheep. There is not a well meant offer in the gospel.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I haven't heard this definition before, thanks.

You are welcome
1. I believe the call of the gospel is only for the elect. It does not call to the non elect.
There is no such thing as unconditionally elect to salvation

2. I do not believe faith is the duty of every sinner, but only the duty of the elect.

That is another hyper Calvinist position
3. I do not believe salvation is an offer to anyone. It's not an offer to the elect either.
2 Corinthians 5:20 (ESV)
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

sound like an appeal to me

Revelation 22:17 (KJV)
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

an invitation

John 7:37 (KJV)
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.



4. I do not believe that grace is common. Grace is effectual.

The bible does not teach irresistible grace
5. I do not believe God loves the non elect. If he did, they would be elect.
John 3:16 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I do share the gospel to all though. I do not know who the non elect are.
God

A consistent hyper Calvinist would not do this
 
T

TomFL

Guest
2. Andrew Fuller believed it's the Duty of All to have Faith in Christ; Conflating our Duty to believe in Jesus, with the First Commandment. 'Thou shall have no other gods besides Me', means thou Shalt have Me as thy God. Not believing in Christ, breaks the First Commandment...

Breaking a Commandment of God means you've shirked your Duty...
Good for you

Keep rejecting those hyper Calvinist tenets
 

eternomade

Well-known member
Good for you

Keep rejecting those hyper Calvinist tenets
I'm not a hyper Calvinist based upon the definition I use.

 
Top