The following is the third in a series of posts attempting to elucidate, for the sake of my High Calvinist brethren, the inevitable and insurmountable problem that arises when they affirm both limited expiation and a universal, well-meant gospel offer. Over the years I have tried to think how to best present the predicament. How to present it clearly and convincingly. This is yet another attempt to do just that. You can find the first two here and here.
We begin:
1) Where there is no sacrifice for sins by Christ, there is no way of salvation made available for sinners.
2) Christ only paid an objective price for the sins of the elect.
3) Conversely, the sins of the non-elect have not been paid for by Christ. They are the non-died-fors.
4) Therefore, there is no way of salvation made available for the non-died-fors.
5) The way of salvation is intimately bound up with the gospel. The two are inseparable.
6) Therefore, in the case of those whose sins have not been paid for, there is no gospel.
7) Since the non-elect’s sins have not been paid for, there is no gospel for the non-elect.
—-
A) God offers a way of salvation to all men who hear the gospel.
B) Some of the non-elect comprise “all men who hear the gospel.”
C) Therefore, some of the non-elect are offered a way of salvation through the gospel by God.
—
(4, 6, 7) contradicts (C).
I believe that limited expiation cannot ground the universal, well-meant gospel offer. In the same way that the gospel cannot be genuinely offered to demons, because they fall into the category of the non-died-fors, the gospel cannot be genuinely offered to the non-elect, because they fall into the category of the non-died-fors. Whatever else we say, this is the fact of the matter.
Thus, the only avenue left to advocates of limited expiation, when it comes to offering a way of salvation to sinful humanity, is to appeal to the fact that they do not know who is elect and who isn’t, and since God has commanded them to preach the gospel to all indiscriminately, they obey those instructions.
But note two things:
- This is to confuse the ignorance of the preacher with what the nature of the universal, well-meant offer demands to be true for it to be a universal, well-meant offer. The ignorance of the preacher has no bearing on the logical problem. The logical problem emerges as soon as one maintains both sets of truths outlined above. Thus, what we know about the people in front of us has no bearing on this problem.
- Unless one is willing to maintain with Hyper-Calvinists that God does not offer the gospel to the non-elect, then the appeal to ignorance falls apart with respect to God. So if it is true that God Himself offers the gospel to the non-elect, as is maintained by all who uphold the well-meant offer, then one is still confronted with the logical problem. In the case of the non-elect, given limited expiation, God offers them something that does not exist. There is no Savior that can be pointed to for them. No gospel that can be extended or offered to them. There is nothing there for them to receive or reject, in point of fact.
[Note that this runs contrary to a host of data: John 5:33-36, 37-40; 6:27, 28-29, 32-36; 40+64, John 8. And 2 Thess 2:9-12; Acts 13:46; Romans 2:4-5; John 3:18; Acts 28:27-28; 2 Thess 1:8; Gen 4:5; Isaiah 30:15; Hebrews 3:19-4:2; 6:6; 10:26-30; John 5:33-36, 37-40; 6:27-29, Acts 3:26; Acts 7:51; Acts 13:38-41, 17:30, 18:6; Isaiah 1:19, 5:4, 30:15-16, 46:1-13, Matthew 22:-1-14, etc.] God will hold the non-elect who hear the gospel accountable for rejecting His amazing display of love shown through His Son who made a way of escape for them, if they would but believe and so be saved.]
————————————————————
Here is a similar argument but one constructed in a slightly different manner (this one is based on David Ponter’s devising):
The Argument
Assumptions:
a) Let “forgivable” mean something like “able to have forgiveness conferred.”
b) Without a legal basis no sin can be forgiven.
The Syllogism:
- Only those sins imputed to Christ are forgivable.
- Only the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ.
- Therefore only the sins of the elect are forgivable.
(1) has to follow unless one wants to deny substitutionary atonement and claim that God can forgive sins for which Christ did not bear and suffer.
(2) has to follow for the proponent of limited expiation.
And so (3) is undeniable.
However, God offers forgiveness of sins to all mankind, or at least, to all whom the Gospel comes.
Now for the next stage of the argument.
Assumptions:
c) To offer forgiveness of sins necessarily implies or presupposes that sins of the offeree are forgivable.
d) One must be able to confer what one offers.
The following syllogism can be constructed:
4) All offers of forgiveness of sins necessarily entails that sins are forgivable.
5) God offers forgiveness of sins to all.
6) Therefore the sins of all are forgivable.
(4) has to be true because one must have the ability to confer what one offers. One cannot offer what one does not have the ability to confer.
(5) has to be true for any free-offer Calvinist.
(6) therefore has to follow as High and Moderate Calvinists rightly maintain.
However,
(1) “Therefore only those sins imputed to Christ are forgivable (the elect’s sins).”
directly contradicts
(6) “Therefore the sins of all are forgivable.”
in the same sense and meaning.
The Sound of Doctrine 