When it is a conversation about how the thing offered is received.

The following reply from me to Steve Hays is a friendly attempt to move the conversation along. I have been working on this for a few days now. I have taken the time to put this together because it appears that certain details are causing confusion. While there is a lot Thrust Bearing  I agree with what Steve says below, I just cannot help thinking it all misses the point. We clearly have different concepts of what “offer” is, and what it means to make an offer of something.

What is more, I really think that the attempt to fixate on parsing the word “offer,” to find any and every possible exception really misses the point.

Some introductory thoughts and points:

1) There are two issues. The first issue is basic: Does God make an offer? Does God make a sincere offer? Does God’s offer even need to be sincere? Does God make a well-meaning offer. Does God’s offer even need to be well-meant? When the conversation turns on these sorts of questions, the conversation has gone awry already. It is already turning on Hypercalvinist versus evangelical Calvinist axis points.

The second issue is, on the terms of evangelical Calvinism, can God’s offer of forgiveness to those whom he cannot confer forgiveness be sincere?

Right now, we are bogged down in the first issue. However, I believe that for most folk the issue is pretty straight-forward. That is, it has been our experience that for the most part those who want to challenge the very meaning of constitutes a Needle Roller Bearing sincere offer are generally those who have already made a pre-commitment to Hypercalvinist categories, either tentatively or fully. You can tell these people by the way they get all bent out of shape so quickly. :-)

2) For many, the debate will ultimately come down to these pre-commitments:

If one has affirmed already that God does not by revealed will desire the salvation of all men, then one is already in the Hypercalvinist tradition. This has to be so, because one cannot, on the one hand, deny that God by revealed will desires the salvation of all men and then, on the other hand, meaningfully affirm a well-meant offer.

How does that follow? We know that in terms of the secret will, God desires not to save the non-elect. According to evangelical Calvinism, we also know that in terms of the revealed will God desires to save the non-elect.

So, if we deny that by revealed will that God desires to save the non-elect, and this includes the entailment that the Gospel offer does not express God’s desire to save the non-elect hearers, this means that the criteria which sustains a well-meant offer has now been voided. In the Gospel offer, it would then follow that God only desires to not save the non-elect. Thus, when God makes an appearance of seeking someone’s salvation, he is being insincere. Denial of a well-meant offer is the hallmark of Special Bearing hypercalvinism, if anything is.

For my limited understanding of things, either the gospel offer is well-meant or ill-meant. Non-meant? I don’t think so.

So, a well-meant or a sincere offer cannot be sustained on terms which denies that by revealed will God desires the salvation of the non-elect. A person may speak as if they are positing a well-meant offer, but in actuality, they are not. Therefore, any talk about what constitutes a sincere divine offer of the gospel but yet denies a well-meant offer of the gospel just rings hollow and is antithetical to true Calvinism . For example, no one in the John Calvin, John Murray, John Piper tradition of Calvinism should disagree with this.

So keep in mind, our discussion is properly with non-Hypercalvinist evangelical Calvinists. I know that most of what I say will probably fail to convince anyone already committed to Hypercalvinist assumptions.

3) Regarding the meaning of offer, all one Pressed Bearing needs to do is look up a good dictionary. The OED is one of my favorites.