#6 Unable to Forgive/Legit Offer

Let’s suppose that I offered you $100, but I didn’t actually have $100. Can my offer be said to be sincere? In the same way, the Gospel message is preached to all men offering them forgiveness. But if Christ is not the foundation of salvation for all men, 1) God cannot justly forgive their sins because Christ is not offered as their substitute and 2) the sincerity of the Gospel offer is in serious question, because God cannot fulfill it, does not want to fulfill it and causes it not to be fulfilled.

Many Calvinists are quick to counter that there can be no “run on the bank”, because God does not cause the reprobate to respond to the Gospel. But that’s besides the point. The sincerity of the offer and God’s inability to forgive are actual, rather than hypothetical. We don’t need to suppose a reprobate person to come to these conclusions.

Some Calvinists point out that those that reject want to reject. But this also is besides the point. The issue with regard to sincerity is not the desire of the one getting the offer, but the one giving the offer. We say God’s sincerity is in question, because He offers one thing, but desires another.

Some Calvinists point out that God causes the offer to be accepted. But under deterministic thinking, does He not cause the offer to be rejected? God’s causal determination of people does not alleviate the difficulty, but rather intensifies it.

Comments

TheoJunkie said…
Dan, this is sort of a repeat of your #9.

The sincerity of an offer depends not on whether the "funds" hypothetically exist... but whether everyone who accepts the offer will receive that which was promised.

In your money analogy, the $100 represents "eternal life." Note that the Gospel offer says, everyone who believes on Christ has eternal life (and let's assume that means "everyone who believes on Chris will be given eternal life"). Note the condition.

So, it is not as though God says "I have $100 waiting for you to take." Rather he says, "You will receive $100 if you believe on my Son."

He does not speak a lie if he does not have $100 for every person. On the contrary, he speaks truth, because he does have $100 for every person who believes.
November 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear TJ,

Fair point. God isn't lying.

Where I find the insincerity is in the implication of the offer. I see God offering salvation to people as implying that He wants them to accept. But He doesn't. I suppose you could simply deny the implication, but in any case that's where I see the insincerity. I don't see it in God not saving believers.

God bless,
Dan
November 17, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more