A snippet from Facebook
Elliott
They also face the problems of explaining why it is coherent to say that God loves everyone…
Hays
Calvinists don't necessarily say God loves everyone.
Elliott
…and that the Gospel is genuinely offered to all people if divine determinism is true and universal salvation is false.
Hays
The offer of the gospel is conditional: if you repent of your sins and have faith in Jesus, you will be saved. It's a genuine offer if it's true. If you get what's offered by compliance with the terms of the offer, that's what makes it a genuine offer.
Unless you're an open theist, how is the Gospel genuinely offered to people whom God foreknows will reject the offer?
Elliott
Your language suggests that you are open to humans having LFW; “compliance with the terms” suggests the ability to accept or reject.
Hays
No, I'm referring to a logical if-then relation.
Elliott
In my view, for a genuine offer to be “true,” as you say, it must be such that those to whom the offer applies have LFW. I.e., one must have the categorical ability to either freely accept or freely decline the offer w/o being determined by prior conditions. The decision must be categorically up to the agent. I don’t believe a genuine offer can be given to one who has compatibilist freedom, since such a person can only choose according to a desire that has been causally determined by prior conditions over which he has no control.
Hays
The truth of a conditional offer doesn't depend on whether everyone can respond, but whether they will get what is offered in they do meet the terms of the offer.
Suppose a mansion is put on the market for $10 million. That's beyond my pay grade. That doesn't mean it's not a genuine offer.
Elliott
ReplyDelete"In my view, for a genuine offer to be “true,” as you say, it must be such that those to whom the offer applies have LFW. I.e., one must have the categorical ability to either freely accept or freely decline the offer w/o being determined by prior conditions. The decision must be categorically up to the agent. I don’t believe a genuine offer can be given to one who has compatibilist freedom, since such a person can only choose according to a desire that has been causally determined by prior conditions over which he has no control."
As far as this goes, suppose Bill Gates offers a drug addict millions of dollars, his very own mansion, and all the latest Microsoft tech he could want (e.g. Xbox) if only the drug addict will stop taking drugs immediately. However, the drug addict can't overcome his drug addiction. Nevertheless that doesn't mean Gates' offer wasn't genuine.
Why isn't it disingenuous to offer someone something on a condition you know they can't fulfill?
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Bill Gates and the drug addict, I don't think Gates necessarily knows the drug addict can't fulfill it. Maybe it's even possible to argue Gates' offer ought to compel the drug addict to reform.
DeleteIn the case of the gospel, from the gospel preacher's perspective, the preacher doesn't know if a sinner will repent and trust in Jesus or not. The preacher doesn't know the sinner won't be able to "fulfill" the terms. Maybe the sinner will repent and trust in Jesus, maybe they won't. The preacher isn't lying or deceiving or being disingenuous by preaching the gospel.
Just based on a quick search, I found some posts that might help:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/what-does-god-want.html
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/12/free-offer-of-gospel.html
Because it's a general, indirect offer. It's not an offer to anyone in particular. Not directed at a particular individual.
DeleteTo take another comparison, consider a vending machine. If you input so much money, you get x food item in return. What if you don't have the money on hand? That doesn't make it a scam.
What if there is no food in the machine? What if Christ did not die for someone?
DeleteGod be with you,
Dan
Progressing, it depends in what way they "can't". The "can't" of refusing to repent and believe is a culpable moral deficiency.
DeleteIf I offer you a million dollars for running a marathon in 10 seconds, I'm positing something beyond human nature as human nature. But an offer of salvation if we'll turn from sin to Christ isn't beyond human nature as such. It's beyond *fallen* human nature. In that case, it's far from obvious that the person making the offer is to be blamed.
Supposing you're offered a million dollars for running a marathon time that you could reach if you followed the given training programme every day, went to bed at the right time and got up at the right time every day, ate the right foods without any snacking every day, but the person offering knows you lack the will power to do that. That offer doesn't seem to be in the same class as the "10 second" offer.
“What if there is no food in the machine? What if Christ did not die for someone?“
DeleteInterestingly, the hyper Calvinist as well as the Arminian might agree with your point!
The preacher doesn’t offer the gospel based on foreknowledge of who’s elect and who’s not elect. Only God knows that. Rather the preacher offers the gospel based on who’s a sinner and in need of salvation. Pretty sure that’s just about everyone.
In fact, if God wasn’t sovereign, if all depends on libertarian free will, then what confidence would the preacher have in the free offer of the gospel?
Dan,
DeleteIn Calvinism, Christ died for all and only those who accept the offer of salvation. It's not like someone accepts the offer, then finds out–sorry, we're out of stock because Jesus didn't die for you.
In Calvinism, election, redemption, regeneration, faith ,&c. are all coordinated. No one falls through the gaps.
Steve,
DeleteI understand. But you argued above "If you get what's offered by compliance with the terms of the offer, that's what makes it a genuine offer."
How can that be true?
I grant that on Calvinism, the senario is impossible, but the problem remains. If, per the impossible, a reprobate accepted the offer, they would not be saved, because Christ did not die for them. So the hypothetical that if they believed they would be saved cannot make the offer genuine, because it's not true.
God be with you,
Dan
"If, per the impossible, a reprobate accepted the offer, they would not be saved, because Christ did not die for them. So the hypothetical that if they believed they would be saved cannot make the offer genuine, because it's not true."
DeleteThe conditions of the offer aren't merely if they "believed they would be saved" but if they repent and trust Jesus. A person doesn't fulfill the conditions of the offer if they merely "believe" Jesus died for them; rather, they must trust Jesus himself.
The hypothetical is not that if the reprobate accepted the offer, they'd be saved. So your objection fails.
DeleteEOD, yes, true faith involves trusting Christ. Of course, in most verses like John 3:16, that's implied.
DeleteSteve,
the vending machine is stocked for the elect but for the reprobate, it's empty. If the reprobate did in fact believe "Christ loved me and gave Himself for me", they would be beleving a falsehood, because Christ didn't die for their sins.
God be with you,
Dan
"EOD, yes, true faith involves trusting Christ. Of course, in most verses like John 3:16, that's implied."
DeleteWell, yes, I'm aware of this, but I mentioned it in lieu of your hypothetical. In particular: "they believed they would be saved". It doesn't fulfill the offer for a person to simply "believe they would be saved". Of course, you grant they're reprobate, but if we take that tack, then by definition the reprobate wouldn't have repented and trusted Christ. I'm afraid I'm not sure where the inconsistency is supposed to lie?
"If the reprobate did in fact believe 'Christ loved me and gave Himself for me", they would be beleving a falsehood, because Christ didn't die for their sins."
I agree if someone who has not truly repented of their sins and trusted Christ nevertheless believes "Christ loved me and gave Himself for me", then they would be believing what's not true. Presumably they would have a false assurance. However, again, I don't see how this is supposed to be inconsistent with the free offer of the gospel, given Calvinism?
Dan,
DeleteAnd if (per impossibile), Jesus switched teams, accepting Satan's offer...
And if (per impossibile), God annihilated himself...
“the vending machine is stocked for the elect but for the reprobate, it's empty.
ReplyDeleteThe vending machine is stocked. Whoever has money and pushes C6 gets the bottle of water. Some aren’t thirsty.
“If the reprobate did in fact believe ‘Christ loved me and gave Himself for me’, they would be beleving a falsehood, because Christ didn't die for their sins.”
No, if the “reprobate did in fact believe...” he wouldn’t be reprobate.
“I grant that on Calvinism, the senario is impossible, but the problem remains. If, per the impossible, a reprobate accepted”
If it’s “impossible” for Jones to believe, then it’s non-sensical to argue for Calvinism’s inconsistency based upon Jones believing.