Bert Mulder schreef: No, Mr. David Ponter, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of the PRCA here, and making a caricature out of it. You know better!

To use your analogy: the Doctor indeed calls everyone that is sick to come to him, and be healed, and that for free. But the issue is that only those that know they are sick come to him. Most people think they are healthy, and do not need the Doctor. And thus they scorn the Doctor, and instead of loving Him for His generosity, they hate Him.

David says: "huh"

Bert, do you by chance think I am Polemicus? Why do you quote a piece from Polemicus and then address me?

The offer goes goes out to all. The doctor says to all, "I offer you this cure, you must come and take it...." He promises them all, that all who come will be healed. Not all will come. Yet it is still a conditional offer and a conditional promise.

That is Calvin's point. Do you believe in a conditional promise and conditional offer to all who in the gopsel message?

David

Bert Mulder schreef: No, Mr. David Ponter, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of the PRCA here, and making a caricature out of it. You know better!

To use your analogy: the Doctor indeed calls everyone that is sick to come to him, and be healed, and that for free. But the issue is that only those that know they are sick come to him. Most people think they are healthy, and do not need the Doctor. And thus they scorn the Doctor, and instead of loving Him for His generosity, they hate Him.

Hey Bert,

Apart from what looks like some confusion as to who I am, we perhaps can solve some of the theological claims here. Can you affirm that God is willing that all men should be saved? If so, in what sense?

Thanks
David

Flynn schreef:

Bert Mulder schreef: No, Mr. David Ponter, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of the PRCA here, and making a caricature out of it. You know better!

To use your analogy: the Doctor indeed calls everyone that is sick to come to him, and be healed, and that for free. But the issue is that only those that know they are sick come to him. Most people think they are healthy, and do not need the Doctor. And thus they scorn the Doctor, and instead of loving Him for His generosity, they hate Him.

David says: "huh"

Bert, do you by chance think I am Polemicus? Why do you quote a piece from Polemicus and then address me?

The offer goes goes out to all. The doctor says to all, "I offer you this cure, you must come and take it...." He promises them all, that all who come will be healed. Not all will come. Yet it is still a conditional offer and a conditional promise.

That is Calvin's point. Do you believe in a conditional promise and conditional offer to all who in the gopsel message?

David

Oops, was not fully awake I guess.
Error corrected.

If that is how you want to term it, fine. The Gospel comes effectually only to the elect.

Flynn schreef:

Bert Mulder schreef: No, Mr. David Ponter, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of the PRCA here, and making a caricature out of it. You know better!

To use your analogy: the Doctor indeed calls everyone that is sick to come to him, and be healed, and that for free. But the issue is that only those that know they are sick come to him. Most people think they are healthy, and do not need the Doctor. And thus they scorn the Doctor, and instead of loving Him for His generosity, they hate Him.

Hey Bert,

Apart from what looks like some confusion as to who I am, we perhaps can solve some of the theological claims here. Can you affirm that God is willing that all men should be saved? If so, in what sense?

Thanks
David

The command of God (revealed will) comes to all to repent and believe. However, according to the hidden will of God, he only wills the elect to be saved.

I had asked:.

That is Calvin's point. Do you believe in a conditional promise and conditional offer to all who in the gopsel message?

Bert answers:

If that is how you want to term it, fine. The Gospel comes effectually only to the elect.

I am not sure how that answers me. I am would really like to know if you can say God conditionally promises to all who hear the gospel?

And from the other post, Bert says:

The command of God (will of decree, or revealed will) comes to all to repent and believe. However, according to the will of precept, or hidden will of God, he only wills the elect to be saved.

[underlining and italics mine.]

I am losing you, 'will of decree' normally refers to the absolute and efficacious will, it is also known as hidden will.

The will of precept refers to the will revealed, of which the 'will of command' is a sub-category.

So you have just affirmed something and then denied it. You have said that by will revealed comes to all to repent and believe, and yet the same will only goes to the elect to repent and believe.

In Reformed Dogmatics:

Will revealed contains the precept, which addresses all.

Will decreed is the secret will, unconditioned and absolute.

Thanks,
David

Flynn schreef:I had asked:.

That is Calvin's point. Do you believe in a conditional promise and conditional offer to all who in the gopsel message?

Bert answers:

If that is how you want to term it, fine. The Gospel comes effectually only to the elect.

I am not sure how that answers me. I am would really like to know if you can say God conditionally promises to all who hear the gospel?

And from the other post, Bert says:

The command of God (will of decree, or revealed will) comes to all to repent and believe. However, according to the will of precept, or hidden will of God, he only wills the elect to be saved.

[underlining and italics mine.]

I am losing you, 'will of decree' normally refers to the absolute and efficacious will, it is also known as hidden will.

The will of precept refers to the will revealed, of which the 'will of command' is a sub-category.

So you have just affirmed something and then denied it. You have said that by will revealed comes to all to repent and believe, and yet the same will only goes to the elect to repent and believe.

In Reformed Dogmatics:

Will revealed contains the precept, which addresses all.

Will decreed is the secret will, unconditioned and absolute.

Thanks,
David

Guess is just wasn't my morning. Corrections made. Hope it is clear now.

So Bert, in the topic on the well-meant offer of grace (in Dutch) you say a. that the gospel does not come to anyone effectually (mind that word!) and b. that there are no conditions to the gospel. And you then point to John 3:16, highlight the words ‘that everyone that believes’ and conclude: so, we see also here again, that the promise only comes to the believers (mind that the word: effectually lacks here). And you say in this topic: thus not a promise of grace to everyone, but to everyone that believes. So again, you confirm that in no way there comes a promise of grace to everyone, so also not in a non-effectual way.

So I concluded, that the doctor doesn’t promise anything to them, that don’t believe. Like rev. Miersma said: Gods promises in the gospel are only for the elect and certainly will be fulfilled. And I said that this is turning the order upside down. Because faith doesn’t make the doctor willing to cure, but faith gives access to the cure.

In the topic on the well-meant offer of grace you add to your comment on John 3:16 that God loves the whole creature, in whole. So you mean, that the heavenly Doctor loves all the sick people and is prepared to cure them? But if that’s true, you should explain me why you asked me before: “So you want to say that God brings a well-meant offer to those, whom He from all eternity has reprobated? That God is eager to save someone, whom He in His eternal counsel has reprobated? So God speaks against Himself?” And also, that you said on Christ tears over Jerusalem, Matth. 23:13, that He didn’t really wanted to save whole Jerusalem, but more like a earthly judge, who has no pleasure in his righteous judgement over a murderer. For these former remarks, are inconsistent with the latter.

Are you going to tell us, that the general claim (to repent and believe) and the general love of God to His creature has nothing to do with Christ’s death nor with grace, as there is no grace without repentance and faith? As if to say, that the willingness of the doctor to cure all and his command to come to him, has nothing to do with the cure!? But then Bert, why is it said that God loved so much His creation, that He gave His only Son, the Saviour? And then Bert, why was it this Saviour, Who wept over Jerusalem and wanted to gather it?

Polemicus, seems to me:

1. You know my stated doctrinal position

2. You are deliberately twisting my words, and such making a caricature of my stated doctrinal position, and that of the PRCA.

3. As such, you are making fun of Scripture,

4. As such, this discussion is not edifying. I will not contribute to this travesty.

Amended at request of Mr. Ponter

Bert Mulder schreef:
4. As such, this discussion is not edifying. I will not contribute to this and ask the moderators to end this travesty.

Hey Bert,

Dont ask the moderators to close down my thread. I can understand them closing down your thread--even tho it appeared to me to be public.

I still cant see how you can reconcile the statements from Ursinus and Calvin on the conditional offer and conditional promise with what you have asserted and with PRC doctrine, as I understand it.

Thanks,
David

Flynn schreef:

Bert Mulder schreef:
4. As such, this discussion is not edifying. I will not contribute to this and ask the moderators to end this travesty.

Hey Bert,

Dont ask the moderators to close down my thread. I can understand them closing down your thread--even tho it appeared to me to be public.

I still cant see how you can reconcile the statements from Ursinus and Calvin on the conditional offer and conditional promise with what you have asserted and with PRC doctrine, as I understand it.

Thanks,
David

Point taken, this is your thread....

(and this is my last post on this thread) I do not see how you can reconcile Ursinus and Calvin with the WMO.

Polemicus schreef: But if that’s true, you should explain me why you asked me before: “So you want to say that God brings a well-meant offer to those, whom He from all eternity has reprobated? That God is eager to save someone, whom He in His eternal counsel has reprobated? So God speaks against Himself?” And also, that you said on Christ tears over Jerusalem, Matth. 23:13, that He didn’t really wanted to save whole Jerusalem, but more like a earthly judge, who has no pleasure in his righteous judgement over a murderer. For these former remarks, are inconsistent with the latter.

G'day Polemicus,

Thanks again for the information. It helps. What I have always understood from the PRC is that the promises of the gospel are only for the elect and regenerate, not for all, and not conditionally proffered to all. It has been years since I had any serious interaction with a PRC man, about 11 years in fact: may be they have changed on this.

Regarding Matthew 23:37, Christ weeping over Jerusalem, the classic opinion was that here Christ speaks of God and expresses himself wishing salvation and life for all. If you are interested, I have posted some Calvin on this verse at the C&C blog.
See here.

Thanks,
David

Bert Mulder schreef:
(and this is my last post on this thread) I do not see how you can reconcile Ursinus and Calvin with the WMO.

G'day Bert,

Thanks for this, I appreciate it.

Your question tho, can be taken in two ways at least. Do I consider Calvin and Ursinus's position contradictory to the WMO?

Or: Did Calvin and Ursinus consider the WMO contradictory to such doctrines of election and reprobation.

Turretin says that the willing the salvation of all does not entail a contradiction because it is a willing and nilling in different senses.

To the first, I can say no, because the willing and disiring that all men be saved corresponds to the revealed will, while the nilling to actually give and impart life to all corresponds to the decretive will. See Turretin, 1:224 and 1:415. (On conditional promise and offer see 1: 387,394, 415; and 2: 184, 481, 463, 506, for examples.)

God elects and reprobates by will decreed, but wills salvation of all and offers to all salvation by will revealed. And the offer and promises are conditionally offered to all.

To the second question, I can say no, too, because clearly Calvin and Ursinus did not consider that the desire of God that all men be saved, as expressive of his revealed will, did not contradict election and reprobation. I have already posted Ursinus on this, and Turretin. You can scope out Calvin's exegesis of 2 Pet 3:9, here

and you see his comments on Matthew 23:37 and Ps 81:13 at the C&C blog. So Calvin did not see a contradiction. And recall Ursinus:

Merciful. God's mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. p 127.

and

God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation. p 292.

Remember those Ursinus comments I have already posted?

And there were all those from Calvin on John 12:27 and the lost sheep comments.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks,
David