1. Jeff Smith

    Thank you for taking this up. This is a critical subject and you have very accurately identified what the real issue is.

    • admin

      You’re welcome, brother. I’d like to see you republish your studies on 18th century Particular Baptists.

  2. Kevin Jones

    Great subject and an area in which all reformed Christians need to get a true conviction. I am looking forward to seeing what you have to say.

  3. Robert Jay Rubio

    So glad to see our teachers address this VERY important doctrine.
    I look forward to the rest of your study!
    Peace in and through Christ Jesus, alone.

    • admin


      To answer your questions …

      First, it depends on what you mean by “the two wills of God discussion.” Neither side posits the idea that God has two distinct volitional faculties. Both agree that he has only one will. Yet Reformed theologians have commonly distinguished God’s “decretive will” from this “preceptive will.” If that’s what you’re referring to, then you’re correct to say that such a distinction is relevant to the debate.

      Second, once again it depends on what you mean by the question “how can God will to happen what he has prescribed in the Bible is against his will?” Am I correct to interpret the first reference to God’s will in this question as God’s “decretive will” or “will of power” by which he brings his decreed design to pass? And am I correct to understand your reference to what God has “prescribed in the Bible” as “against His will” as a reference to God’s “preceptive” or “revealed will”? In that case, the question might look something like this: how can God decree, say, the sin of Adam (or anyone else for that matter) when the Bible teaches that God vis-a-vis his “revealed will” disapproves of sin? If this is what you’re asking, I’m not certain whether such a question is part of the point in dispute. Both sides affirm that God for reasons known to himself may for his own glory decree to occur (via his decretive will) what he otherwise disapproves of (via his preceptive will). The debate is whether God’s preceptive will can properly denote what is “desirable” to God even if God hasn’t decreed such states of affairs.

      Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood your questions.

  4. I think that there’s one more point worth considering. Any bona fide “offer” of salvation would reasonably carry the backing of a fully effective atonement, otherwise it would be an empty gesture. For instance, telling someone to repent carries the implication that there is a good reason why to repent, namely, because God’s mercy awaits, but the alleged non-elect have no hope of mercy, because they have no Savior who died for them. So this is why some C’s argue that there is no such thing as an “offer” of the Gospel, but only a “command,” which command, only the C-elect will irresistibly receive. So that’s another angle to consider.

    • admin

      Good point, Richard. The relation of the atonement (nature, extent, etc.) is a point worth considering in relationship to the well-meant offer. I think a number of those who’ve left comments below agree. Thanks for visiting the site.

  5. doug del bosco

    The observations of the perspective Mr. Spurgeon and the Apostle Paul on the subject of the human perspective towards the unsaved cannot be under-appreciated–yet it seems to be the case with a significant portion of the body of Christ (professing body at least) else their would manifest more prayers for the unsaved, more and a greater desire to be equipped by an evangelist, and more of us feeling under obligation to preach the Gospel.

    While the technical issue the good Dr has asked is thorny meaty to some degree these other issues are of greater importance and as my good brother in Christ J Vernon would say ” this is where the rubber meets the road” for us as slaves to and for Christ.

    • admin

      Doug, if I understand your point correctly, you’re underscoring the need not only for a right theology of gospel preaching but also for a healthy and consistent practice. That is, we mustn’t just be hearers of the Word but we should also be doers. Is that right?

  6. I have to disagree with the fundamental premise of this post, That the Holy Spirit’s words through Paul can be merely seen as “rhetorical hyperbole” in place of a genuine desire for the salvation of the Jewish people (in Rom. 9:1-3 for instance). For when God speaks there exists nought but pure, undefiled truth which reflects his character: “When God speaks there are no ploys, no gimmicks. Only life-defining truth” (Ravi Zacharias: from the back-cover blurb of “Cries of the Heart” (2002)). Indeed, given that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that all men would be saved and thus come unto a knowledge of the truth, this is no surprise why the Holy Spirit said what He did in Rom. 9:1-3. Indeed, Paul said it. But, on a higher plane, GOD said it! Rom. 9:1-3 is God-breathed, after all. This is becasue God jealously loves the Jews, and desires that they would come into relationship with Him again. Indeed, although they have rejected the Messiah and are seeking salvation by works and not by faith (and thus broken faith with God), God still longs after them, to reach them and to graft them in again, because He loves them. This, actually, is what I think Rom. 9, 10 and 11 are all about: God’s relationship to the JEWISH people, not the election of the Calvinist brand. In this light, God no longer becomes secret and mysterious in the unconditional elective sense, but rather His love and goodness are clearly displayed. It gives me joy to praise Him in this light.

    • admin

      Brendan, I’m not arguing that Paul is feigning a passionate desire for the salvation of the Jews. Quite the contrary, I think Paul’s grasping for the strongest possible language to affirm his earnest desire for their salvation.

      I do agree with Adam Clarke, however, when he remarks,

      Every person saw the perfect absurdity of understanding it in a literal sense, as no man in his right mind could wish himself eternally damned in order to save another, or to save even the whole world. And the supposition that such an effect could be produced by such a sacrifice, was equally absurd and monstrous.

      So though I see an element of rhetorical overstatement in Paul’s language, I don’t deny his point is to underscore a sincere desire and longing for the salvation of the Jews. And I certain affirm that his words are “God-breathed” inspired revelation.

      Finally, while Romans 9-11 may be contemplating the corporate election of the Jewish nation, its teaching is not irrelevant to the question of God’s election or non-election of individuals to make up the people of God – a teaching clearly affirmed elsewhere (e.g., John 6:37, 44; Acts 13:48; Rom 8:29).

      Thanks for visiting the site.

  7. I agree Richard. I think it begins with the atonement. The high Calvinist sees a limited expiation and reasons from there. To be logically consistent they must deny the free offer to all because what lies behind such an offer to all is nothing less than the atonement itself.

    If they can be shown that the expiation is unlimited then it clears the way for the free offer and all else, in my opinion.

    • You’re echoing the good Mr. Polhill, Jim 🙂 This excellent Calvinistic puritan wrote:

      “But if Christ no way died for all men, how came the minister’s commission to be so large. They command men to repent that their sins may be blotted out for whom Christ was not made sin? They beseech men to be reconciled to God, but how shall they be reconciled for whom Christ paid no price at all? They call and cry out to men to come to Christ that they may have life, but how can they have life, for whom Christ was no surety in his death? If then Christ died for all men, the ministry is a true ministry as to all; but if Christ died only for the elect, what is the ministry as to the rest? Those exhortations, which as to the elect are real undissembled offers of grace, as to the rest seem to be but golden dreams and shadows. Those calls, which as to the elect are right ministerial acts, as to the rest appear as extra-ministerial blots and erratas. Those invitations to the gospel feast, which as the elect are the cordial wooings and beseechings of God himself, as to the rest look like the words of mere men speaking at random, and without commission; for alas! why should they come to that feast for whom nothing is prepared? How should they eat and drink for whom the Lamb was never slain? Wherefore, I conclude that Christ died for all men, so far as to found the truth of the ministry towards them.” Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 165.

      Again, observe his excellent observations here regarding the connection between God’s revealed will and the death of Christ:

      “1. I argue from the will of God. God’s will of salvation as the fontal cause thereof, and Christ’s death, as the meritorious cause thereof, and are of equal latitude. God’s will of salvation doth not extend beyond Christ’s death, for then he should intend to save some extra Christum. Neither doth Christ’s death extend beyond God’s will of salvation, for then he should die for some whom God would upon no terms save; but these two are exactly co-extensive. Hence it is observable, that when the apostle speaks of Christ’s love to the church, he speaks also of the giving himself for it, (Eph. v. 25), and when he saith God will have all men to be saved, (1 Tim. ii. 4), he saith withal, Christ gave himself a ransom for all, (v. 6). Therefore, there cannot be a truer measure of the extent of Christ’s death, than God’s will of salvation, out of which the same did issue; so far forth as that will of salvation extends to all men, so far forth the death of Christ doth extend to all men. Now then, how far doth God will the salvation of all? Surely thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved. No divine can deny it, especially seeing Christ himself hath laid it down so positively, “This is the will of him that sent me, saith he, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life,” (John vi. 40). Wherefore, if God will the salvation of all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved; then Christ died for all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved. But you will say, that promise, Whosoever believes shall be saved, is but voluntas signi, and not voluntas beneplacitii, which is the adequate measure of Christ’s death. Unto which I answer; If that promise be voluntas signi, what doth it signify? What but God’s will? What will but that good pleasure of his, that whosoever believes shall be saved? How else is the sign of the true God a true sign? Whence is that universal connexion betwixt faith and salvation? is it not a plain efflux or product from the decree of God? Doth not that evidently import a decree, that whosoever believes shall be saved? Surely it cannot be a false sign; wherefore, so far God’s will of salvation extends to all men, and consequently so far Christ’s death extends to them.” Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 163-164.

      His remarks here (click) are also worth reading.

      We have Dr. Curt Daniel making this interesting historical observation:

      “We call attention to Calvin’s warning that if one limits the ‘all’ of the atonement, then one limits the revealed salvific will of God, which necessarily infringes on the preaching of the gospel and diminishes the “hope of salvation” of those to whom the Gospel is preached. Both High and Hyper-Calvinists fell prey to Calvin’s warning. The former limited the atonement and opened the door to limiting the revealed will that all be saved. Hyper-Calvinists went through that door and logically diminished the Gospel ministry and content.” Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 603.

    • admin

      Jim and Tony, you both make an interesting point, namely, that the well-meant offer is rooted (at least in part) in the nature and extent of the atonement. My current position is that the atonement is both limited (in one sense) but unlimited (in another sense). Yet I don’t know that I’ve reflected sufficiently on the precise distinctions. I have a copy of Daniel’s dissertation and will try to read the relevant sections.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for the citations from Polhill.

  8. Brendan the evangelical Arminian:
    You reject the whole framework and approach of Dr. Bob’s post.
    This series is not going to be profitable not for you, and such comments will just side track us. This is an argument for moderate calvinists against high calvinists.

    • admin

      Philip, thanks for dropping in. You apparently know Brendan better than I do. I don’t mind if he shares his thoughts as long as the discussion remains civil and doesn’t stray from the main point.


Leave a Reply