Talk:Free offer of the gospel

message: This article is not neutral as written, particularly in its assertions and phrasing. AFAICT, only a few micro-Reformed denoms deny the "free offer", so there may be issues with undue weight. Also the Murray quote is too long and wordy. It needs to be trimmed and/or summarized, or else removed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to do a lot more work to fix it up. Flex was being very nice not to delete your additions immediately. You've introduced unreferenced material, contradicted the Hyper-Calvinism article, and made it sound like Calvinists are equally divided on this matter. If you want this material to stay, you need to demonstrate that the strain of thought you refer to is notable within Calvinism. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and you'll need to demonstrate a difference between general call and free offer. That is, referenced with a quotation from Hoeksema, or someone. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notes, I haven't done much on wiki before. Where specifically did I contradict the Hyper-Calvinism article so I can correct my mistake? Is the quote from Engelsma sufficient, or does it not clearly delineate enough? Thanks. Brandonadams (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The phrase "Free Offer of the Gospel" was definitely NOT introduced by John Murray!  A search of Google Books will show you the exact same phrase used in Thomas Boston's "Human Nature in Its Fourfold State" (first published in 1720) and is related to the phrase in the answer to Question 31 of the Shorter Catechism "Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel." --PeterR (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction Peter. Do you approve of the changes I made? (accidently made them before I was logged in) --Brandonadams (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: John Murray

message: Just a couple things to help the guys working on this and related articles. First, to the guy saying what is being said needs to be notable within Calvinism, notable historically or notable contemporarily? Because these articles deal with what is historical, not just present. 
Second, there seems to be a huge misunderstanding (or just something unknown) about the term "offer": when Calvinists initially used "offer" they did so in (and from) its Latin sense, a good example being the way it is used in the [Calvinist] Westminster Confession. Just as if you're reading the KJV it's handy to know Latin and how divines used the terms in English, so it is with the old use of "offer"; the old sense, that these men used, is merely a 'presentation', that is, to lay something before, or to exhibit something before, men; it is not to offer it as a gift: I might show you guys my nifty new purchase, that doesn't mean I'm offering it to you. Get it? Here's a latin dictionary, http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/frivs/latin/latin-dict-full.html, navigate down to this item, "offero". And when you want to write on Calvinism...get-out your Wheelock's Latin books and Grammars! (Okay, maybe not...that's more classical than medievil, but it's a start!).tooMuchData 23:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Offer'''''t'''''