Does God Want Sinners to Comply with His Law and His Gospel?

Posted by deangonzales on June 11, 2009
54 Comments

I recently posted a brief exposition of Deuteronomy 5:29, which depicts God expressing a wish for the good of sinners who in fact never experienced that good (“God Makes a Wish”). The study indirectly supports the doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel. Some Reformed folk, however, don’t think the idea of a well-meant offer is biblical. They agree that God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. But they don’t believe that God desires those whom he obligates (i.e., all men) to comply. In other words, they object to the idea that divine commands or precepts can be understood in any sense as God’s desires or wishes. Below I’d like to provide a string of citations from Reformed and Puritan authors who do in fact construe God’s preceptive will in terms of “desire” or “wish.”

John Calvin (1509-1564):

What I have said of the precepts, abundantly suffices to confound your blasphemies. For though God gives no pretended commands, but seriously declares what he wishes and approves [Latin: vult et probat.]; yet it is in one way, that he wills the obedience of his elect whom he efficaciously bends to compliance; and in another that of the reprobate whom he warns by the external word, but does not see good to draw to himself. Contumacy and depravity are equally natural to all, so that none is ready and willing to assume the yoke (emphasis added). John Calvin, Secret Providence, trans., by James Lillie, Article 7, John Calvin’s reply.

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583):

There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts (emphasis added). Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans.,  G. W. Willard (Phillipsburg NJ: P&R, 1994), 519-520.

Amandus Polandus (1561-1610):

“It is called voluntas signi, because it signifies what is pleasing to God, what belongs to our duty, what He wishes to be done or omitted by us, etc.” These “signa voluntatis, from which it is known what God wills”, are “precept, prohibition, permission, counsel, and the fulfilment of predictions” (emphasis added). Cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 85.

Abrahamus Heidanus (1597-1678):

Strictly speaking there is but a single will of God called beneplaciti, whereby God determines by Himself what He wills to do in and concerning the creature. The second is but the sign and indication by which He shows what He wishes creatures to do. But He does not wish them to make His beneplacitum universal; but only the things which He reveals to them, Dt. 29. 29 (emphasis added). Cited in Heirnich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 87.

François Turretini (1623-1687):

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…. 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. (emphasis added). Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 2:507-509.

John Owen (1616-1683)

It appeareth, then, that the secret and revealed will of God are diverse in sundry respects, but chiefly in regard of their acts and their objects. First, In regard of their acts, the secret will of God is his eternal decree and determination concerning any thing to be done in its appointed time; his revealed will is an act whereby he declareth himself to love or approve any thing, whether ever it be done or no. Secondly, They are diverse in regard of their objects. The object of God’s purpose and decree is that which is good in any kind, with reference to its actual existence, for it must infallibly be performed; but the object of his revealed will is that only which is morally good (I speak of it inasmuch as it approveth or commandeth), agreeing to the law and the gospel, and that considered only inasmuch as it is good; for whether it be ever actually performed or no is accidental to the object of God’s revealed will (emphasis added). John Owen, Display of Arminianism, in The Works of John Owen (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1967), 10:46-47.

Hermann Venema (1697-1787):

God wishes his laws to be obeyed, and therefore wishes also his creatures to be incited in every way to the keeping of them. This purpose is greatly served by the prospect of rewards. But justice loves and demands these rewards. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 172.

William Cunningham (1805-1861):

Many of the events that take place,–such as the sinful actions of men,–are opposed to, or inconsistent with, His will as revealed in His law, which is an undoubted indication of what He wished or desired that men should do. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Banner of Truth, 1994), 2:452.

John L. Dagg (1794–1884):

Closely allied to the last signification, and perhaps included in it, is that use of the term will, in which it denotes command, requirement. When the person, whose desire or pleasure it is that an action should be performed by another, has authority over that other, the desire expressed assumes the character of precept. The expressed will of a suppliant, is petition; the expressed will of a ruler, is command. What we know that it is the pleasure of God we should do, it is our duty to do, and his pleasure made known to us becomes a law (emphasis added). John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 100.

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921):

The term “expressed or signified will” owes its origin to the fact that this will “expresses” or “signifies” what is pleasing to God and is our duty. It is made known to us by means of the five “signs” or “marks”: “precept, prohibition, counsel, permission, and operation.” (emphasis added). The Doctrine of God, trans. William Hendricksen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), 237.

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)

We certainly have a right to say that the love which God originally bears toward man as created in His image survives in the form of compassion under the reign of sin. This being so, when the sinner comes in contact with the gospel of grace, it is natural for God to desire that he should accept its offer and be saved. We must even assume that over against the sin of rejection of the gospel this love continues to assert itself, in that it evokes from the divine heart sincere sorrow over man’s unbelief. But this universal love should be always so conceived as to leave room for the fact that God, for sovereign reasons, has not chosen to bestow upon its objects that higher love which not merely desires, but purposes and works out the salvation of some. It may be difficult to realize from any analogy in our own consciousness how the former can exist without giving rise to the latter; yet we are clearly led to believe that such is the case in God. A logical impossibility certainly is not involved, and our utter ignorance regarding the motives which determine the election of grace should restrain us from forming the rash judgment that, psychologically speaking, the existence of such a love in God for the sinner and the decree of preterition with reference to that same sinner are mutually exclusive. For, let it be remembered, we are confronted with the undeniable fact that this universal love of God, however defined, does not induce Him to send the gospel of salvation to all who are its objects. If the withholding of the gospel is consistent with its truthfulness, then a fortiori the withholding of efficacious grace must be. That there are good reasons for the former is true: but undoubtedly God has also His wise and holy reasons for the latter. The Scriptures do not assert that election and preterition are arbitrary decrees to the mind of God. All they insist upon is that the motives underlying them are inscrutable to us, and have nothing whatever to do with the worthiness or unworthiness of man (emphasis added). Geerhardus Vos, “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980; 2001), 443–444.

John M. Frame (1939-  ):

The decretive will is sometimes called “the will of God’s good pleasure” (beneplacitum). This is somewhat misleading, because Scripture speaks of God’s “pleasure” in both decretive and preceptive senses: for example, decretive in Psalm 51:18 and Isaiah 46:10, and preceptive in Psalms 5:4 and 103:21. Some have also called the decretive will God’s hidden or secret will, but that too is misleading, since God reveales some of his decrees through his Word.

For that reason, I hestitate also to call the preceptive will the revealed will (signum, “signified will”), though that language has often been used for this concept. Preceptive is also somewhat misleading, for it does not always have to do with literal precepts (God’s laws, commandments). Sometimes God’s preceptive will refers not to precepts, but to states of affairs that God sees as desireable, but which he chooses not to bring about (as in Ezek. 18:23; 2 Peter 3:9). The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 531.

Some of the citations above I pulled from the page  “God Desires Compliance to his Will and Commands as Standard Reformed Doctrine,” on Calvin and Calvinism, which is a helpful historical theology resource. The reader may also want to consult the page “God begging” on Theological Meditations, where numerous citations from Reformed and Puritan writers depicting  God himself pleading with sinners to receive the gospel.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

God Makes a Wish: That Each and Every Sinner Might Be Saved!

Posted by deangonzales on May 30, 2009
55 Comments

When you and I make a wish, we can’t be certain it will come true. But when God makes a wish, he has both the power and prerogative to effect its fulfillment. “Our God is in the heavens,” declares the psalmist, “he does all that he pleases” (Ps. 115:3). Nevertheless, the Sovereign God of all creation has not chosen to fulfill every one of his wishes he has disclosed to us. The Lord expressly desired that Adam and Eve refrain from eating the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:16-17), yet he ordained their Fall (Gen. 3:1-6). He plainly wants all moral creatures on earth to conform to his revealed moral standard, as do the moral creatures in heaven (Matt. 6:10), yet he not only allows men to break his law but also uses their evil deeds to accomplish his plan (Gen. 50:20; Acts 4:27-28). And God sincerely yearns that each and every sinner might turn from his sinful autonomy, embrace his Creator as Lord and Savior, and enjoy God’s saving blessing, even though God has not in fact chosen to bring to fruition the salvation of each and every sinner. In other words, while God fulfills all his decreed wishes, he has chosen not to fulfil every one of his prescriptive or revealed wishes.¹

This mysterious and paradoxical reality²  is underscored in a text like Deuteronomy 5:29. As the Israelites prepare to enter the Promised Land, Moses recounts for them the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21), which God had given to their fathers and reminds them how their parents had responded when they heard the Yahweh’s thundering voice from Mount Sinai. They were frightened and awestruck (5:22-26). They pleaded with Moses to mediate between them and God. “Go near and hear all that the LORD our God will say,” they entreat Moses, “and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it” (5:27). And God approved of their response according to Moses. “The LORD heard your words when you spoke to me,” Moses told them. “And the LORD said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken.’” Literally, “they have done well in all that they have said.”

God’s generous assessment of their response is amazing given the fact that this is the same bunch of Israelites who would make the golden calf. This is the same bunch of Israelites who would grumble against the Lord in the wilderness. This is the same bunch of Israelites who would never enter Canaan because of unbelief. “With most of them,” the apostle Paul remarks, “God was not pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (1 Cor. 10:5). So most of these people were reprobates and are probably now suffering in hell. Whatever devotion and commitment they expressed at the foot of Mount Sinai was superficial and short-lived.

Of course, their shallow response didn’t pull the wool over God’s eyes. God knew their professed devotion was only skin-deep. Accordingly, God immediately qualifies his commendation of their initial response with a striking expression that highlights both the spurious quality of their devotion and also God’s wish that it were otherwise:

Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!

This passage teaches us that God passionately wishes³ the good of those who never experience that good.  And I don’t believe Matthew Henry is wrong to take the meaning of this text a step further. Commenting on this verse, he writes,

The God of heaven is truly and earnestly desirous of the welfare and salvation of poor sinners. He has given abundant proof that he is so: he gives us time and space to repent, by his mercies invites us to repentance, and waits to be gracious; he has sent his Son to redeem us, published a general offer of pardon and life, promised his Spirit to those that pray for him, and has said and sworn that he has no pleasure in the ruin of sinners.⁴

So it is that God genuinely and earnestly desires the salvation of all men (cf. John 3:16)⁵ though he only decrees the salvation of some.⁶ This is what Jesus taught when he declared, “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). These two truths may at first glance seem inconsistent to us. But there they are, side-by-side. Mystery indeed! But sacred mystery with which we must not tamper! What practical lessons can we draw from this biblical paradox?

Let us beware that we don’t deny one biblical truth in order to accommodate another.

Heterodoxy often results when men overemphasize one truth to the neglect or denial of another. We fear that some of our Calvinist friends suppress the clear teachings of certain texts that don’t seem to fit with their understanding of biblical doctrines like God’s sovereignty, transcendence, and immutability. In defense of rejecting the clear meaning of a text in favor of an implausible reading, they will appeal to “the analogy of Scripture.” But as Sam Waldron aptly cautions,

There is but one step between the responsible interpretation of the Bible which believing in its theological unity, refuses to so interpret any text as to transgress that unity; and on the other hand, the dogmatic interpretation of the Bible which assuming its system to be biblical, refuses to allow the Bible to speak. This latter method gags the Bible under the pretense of the analogy of faith (emphasis his).⁷

Our duty is to believe and preach whatever God reveals in His inspired Word whether or not our puny mind can trace out all the connections. Hence, a Calvinist may ex animo adhere to and teach both God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation and also God’s free and well-meant offer of the gospel to all men indiscriminately because both doctrines are taught in Scripture.⁸

(2) Let us desire the salvation of all men in imitation of our heavenly Father and our precious Savior.

It’s a wonderful thing to be convinced of the truth of God’s sovereignty in salvation. The doctrine of election is a glorious truth, and we all ought to be zealous for it! But brothers, should we not be equally zealous for this other truth? Should we not sincerely desire to see every sinner we meet come to Christ? Shouldn’t the very thought of them rejecting the gospel and incurring God’s judgment break our heart? Should we not hunger and thirst to see sinners turn from their sin and live? It was said of the Scottish pastor Robert Murray M’Cheyne that he was dying to have his parishioners converted.⁹ Are you dying to have your wife saved? Your husband? Your children? Your friend? Your parents? Your workmates? May God help us all to earnestly desire the salvation of all men!

(3) Let’s take comfort that a Sovereign God sincerely and earnestly wants all of us to come to Christ by faith and to enjoy eternal life.

“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). And if you do not repent of your sins and believe the gospel, then you will perish and go to hell. God is a holy God, and He cannot turn a blind eye to sin. He is a just God, and He will not be mocked. Those who reject God’s Son God himself will reject (John 3:36).

But know that God earnestly and sincerely wants you to be saved. The Bible doesn’t present God as some narrow-hearted scrooge who’s trying to keep everyone out of heaven. Instead, the Bible pictures God as pleading with sinners to be saved. Listen to this description of God in Isaiah 65:2: God says, “All day long I have stretched out my hands to a rebellious people.” I fear there are some who interpret this passage as if God were a cosmic fullback stiff-arming the sinner or a cosmic boxer keeping sinners at length with a left jab. But that’s not the imagery at all. God is standing with His arms wide open. He’s ready to receive! He’s like the Father of the Prodigal Son–He’s ready and willing to fall on your neck and heap upon you kisses of mercy. His heart is overflowing with compassion. Yes, God must be just. But He may also be the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. And that’s what God prefers to do. That’s his wish!

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. For the common distinction between God’s decretive will and his perceptive will, see John Frame, The Doctrine of God (P&R, 2002), 531-33; or John Piper’s “Are There Two Wills in God: Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to be Saved” [↩]
2. I’m using the adjective “mysterious” in the sense of “that which is not easily comprehended or explained” and “paradoxical” in the sense of “that which seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a truth.” Lest anyone should misunderstand my position, I do not affirm that every dimension of truth transcends full comprehension on the part of humans. Nor do I believe that every true proposition or set of propositions is paradoxical. There are, however, dimensions or facets of biblical revelation that transcend the human mind’s ability to fully comprehend. And there are, I believe, certain biblical propositions that, when viewed side-by-side, seem contradictory but are not truly contradictory. For more on the nature of mystery and paradox in relation to biblical revelation, see Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 3rd edition (P&R, 1967), 41-46; John Frame, “The Problem of Theological Paradox,” Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective, ed. Gary North (Ross House Books, 1979), 295-330; James Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status (Paternoster, 2007). For a helpful Internet resource, see Derek Ashton’s “THEOparadox.” [↩]
3. The opening Hebrew phrase mi-yitten (literally, “who will give?” but idiomatically, “Oh, that it were given!”) signals the optative mood, which is defined as follows: “designating a statement using a verb in the subjunctive mood to indicate a wish or desire.” See Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto University Press, 1976), sec. 547; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), sec. 163d; Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction of Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990), sec. 40.2.2d. For other examples of this desiderative construction, see Exod. 16:3; Deut. 28:67; 2 Sam. 19:1; 2 Sam. 23:15; Job 6:8; 14:13; 23:3; Ps. 55:7; Jer. 9:1. The ESV, like nearly all other English versions, appropriately renders the expression with the words “Oh that …” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT). A few translations employ the conditional “if only” (NRSV, NET, CSB). But even the “conditional” expression, in this case, carries optative force. [↩]
4. Commentary on the Whole Bible (reprint, Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), 749. Expositors like John Gill seem to reject Henry’s application of this text to salvation of sinners. Writes Gill, “These words do not express God’s desire of [the Israelites'] eternal salvation, but only of their temporal good and welfare, and that of their posterity; for their eternal salvation was not to be obtained by works of righteousness done by them, but their fear or worship of God, or by their constant universal obedience to his commands. They were saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, even as we. Their fear of God, and obedience to his will issued indeed in their temporal prosperity …” (For the Cause of God and Truth (reprint, Sovereign Grace Book Club, n.d.), sec. III, 4 [p. 5]. I agree with Gill that all men are saved by grace apart from works, I also agree that the blessing in view in the text had more immediate reference to their temporal prosperity in the Land of Canaan. Nevertheless, I also hold that God intended the people of the Old Covenant to look beyond its types and shadows of the Old Covenant to the eternal realities represented by such. Hence, their was both a temporal rest and an eternal rest (Heb. 4:1-10) envisioned in the blessing. In this way, the Mosaic covenant was not merely an administration of law but a “covenant of the promise” (Eph. 2:12). Moreover, “the fear” God desired from the Israelites in the text is nothing less than a “circumcised heart,” that is, regeneration and conversion. This God commanded of them (Deut. 10:16). But ultimately, it was an inward work only God’s grace could produce (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 32:39-40; Ezek. 36:26). Accordingly, since what God desires from the Israelites is ultimately regeneration and conversion and since such a heart-change is both the evidence of justifying faith and also a condition for eternal life (John 3:3, 5, 7; Heb. 12:14), I see no reason to confine the purview of this text to mere outward obedience and temporal prosperity. Strangely, in another place where Gill comments on this text, he seems to acknowledge that the “fear of God” in view is regeneration and conversion, and he locates the scope of the text within the scope of the covenant of grace: “that they would fear me; which is not naturally in the heart of man, is a gift of God, a part of the covenant of grace, is implanted in regeneration, and is no inconsiderable branch of it” (emphasis added).An Exposition of the Old Testament (William Hill Collingridge, 1852), 718. And though John Calvin, like Gill, interprets God’s wish anthropopathically (see below), he, nevertheless, did not limit the purview of the passage to the Israelites’ temporal blessing but applies the passage to his congregants as follows: “And so it is a very profitable warning for us when we see in this text how God wills that we should do the things that he commands us to the intent it might go well with us. Whereby we see that if we receive the doctrine with humility and desire to obey it, the end thereof cannot bee but happy so as we shall be sure of our salvation…. On the other side, let us rejoice inasmuch as we see how he procures our salvation and intends the furtherance thereof, as oft as his word is preached unto us” (emphasis added). Sermons on Deuteronomy (facsimile edition), trans. Arthur Golding (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1987), 261. [Note: Since I'm citing from a facsimile edition translated in 1583, I took liberty to update the spelling and punctuation for the modern reader.] [↩]
5. I agree with those Calvinist interpreters who see John 3:16 as indicative of God’s salvific stance towards the entire fallen race of humanity. See John Calvin, The Gospel According to John 1-10, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. 4 of Calvin’s NT Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1993), 73-76; D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway, 2000), 17, 79-80; idem, The Gospel According ot John (Eerdmans, 1991), 203-07; John Piper, God So Loved the World, Part 2 [↩]
6. Some Calvinists resist this conclusion and suggest that the reader interpret the optative predicated of God figuratively, as an anthropopathic expression. At best, the text identifies the kind of heart disposition of which God approves and in consequence of which he rewards, and it indicts the Israelites for failing to manifest such a disposition. The text cannot, according to these interpreters, denote a fervent longing for the salvation of the non-elect since (1) genuine emotions cannot be predicated of God, and (2) unfulfilled desires are logically inconsistent with God’s sovereignty and perfect blessedness. See Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout (Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), 1:117; John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 717-18; Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1962), 1:349; Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), 692, n. 25; Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer of the Gospel: A Review”; accessed May 30, 2009 on the Internet: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm. It must be admitted that Calvin himself avoided the force of such passages and suggested a figurative reading though he affirmed, “[God] invites all promiscuously to (eternal) life.” Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, trans. Charles W. Bingham (reprint, Baker Book House, 2003), 1:337; idem, Sermons on Deuteronomy , 259-61. Such an interpretation, however, is exegetically implausible and unwarranted by the analogy of Scripture. First, according to the plain meaning of the text (which the detractors above concede), God is not said merely to approve of human devotion and consequent felicity in the abstract. Rather, he is said to desire a concrete objective ardently, and that concrete objective is nothing less than that those identified in the text, i.e., the Exodus generation and their descendants, should both fear him truly and enjoy his blessings eternally. Second, a proper understanding of God’s transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability does not preclude the attribution of genuine emotions to God (see my “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”?). Third, the analogy of Scripture does not require the reader to relate every divine desire to God’s decretive will. Those who attempt to do so often point to texts like Psalm 115:3, which reads, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (cf. Ps. 135:6). The syntax of this passage does not demand that every desire experienced by the subject must of necessity be realized. It only demands that every desire that the subject chooses to bring to fruition be realized (compare 1 Kings 9:1). Accordingly, I agree with those commentators and theologians whose interpretation does justice to the exegetical data of the text without violating the Scripture’s clear testimony of God’s absolute sovereignty and transcendent felicity. See Thomas J. Crawford, The Mysteries of Christianity (William Blackward & Sons, 1874), 351-352; Frame, 534; Arthur W. Kuschke, Jr., John Murray, and Ned B. Stonehouse, “The Free Offer of the Gospel”; the majority report submitted to the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1948) taken from the Minutes, Appendix, pp. 51-72; K. W. Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered (Covenanter Press, 1978), 43-47; Samuel E. Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Evangelical Press, 1989), 122. [↩]
7. From Waldron’s unpublished lecture notes on “Hermeneutics.” C. H. Spurgeon also warns against this danger when he writes, “My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.  I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.  I would sooner a hundred times be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God…. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it.” [↩]
8. Most Calvinists who affirm the “free” and “well-meant” offer of the gospel do so because of their allegiance to Scripture and not from a cowardly desire to please men. For this reason, I was disappointed to read James White’s caricature of such Calvinists like myself (and those referenced above) in a post entitled “Of Squeamish Calvinists and Hyper-Arminians” (March 18, 2009); accessed May 30, 2009 at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3197; Internet. Ironically, White is reacting to Calvinists who view his rejection of God’s well-meant offer of the gospel as “hyper-Calvinist,” which he views as a kind of ad hominen argument. But exchanging ad hominen for ad hominen is not normally Dr. White’s debate methodology. For another specimen of ad hominem argumentation, see Sean Gerety’s “The Sincere Insanity of the Well-Meant Offer.” For a defense of the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, I would direct the reader to the following resources: R. Scott Clark, “Janus: the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple, ed. David VanDrunen (P&R, 2004), 149-79; Robert Lewis Dabney, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1967), 1:307f; idem, Systematic Theology (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1985), 555-59; Frame, 534-37; John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Banner of Truth, 2002); Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Banner of Truth, 1995); Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered; Waldron, Modern Exposition, 121-122. For helpful Internet resources, see Robert Lewis Dabney’s “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy”: Phil Johnson’s A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism; John Piper’s “Are There Two Wills in God: Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to be Saved”; the historical resources on David Ponter’s Calvin and Calvinism and Theology Online, as well as and Tony Byrne’s “Theological Meditations.” [↩]
9. This is taken from Andrew Bonar, Diary and Life (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1984). Bonar recounts, concerning M’Cheyne, “A servant-girl, in a house where he stayed, described him as “‘deein’ to hae folk converted” (397). [↩]