Nothing in my hands I bring

"Perhaps it will be thought needful, that I should define, with greater precision than I have hitherto done, what I mean by the popular doctrine; especially as I have considered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other; and particularly as I have ranked amongst them Mr. Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent reproachers of that God, whose character is drawn by the apostles, that this island has produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself.
Throughout these letters, I consider all those as teachers of the popular doctrine, who seek to have credit and influence among the people, by resting our acceptance with God, not simply on what Christ hath done, but more or less on the use we make him, the advance we make toward him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh to do so; or on something we feel or do concerning him, by the assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on something we employ him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In sum, all who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, and grace, special or common, or about anything else. For I am disposed rather to reconcile than widen the various difference among them.
But my resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the same time deceitfully clogs them with the opposite falsehoods. This I would compare to a chain having one link of gold and another of brass alternately: or, I would call it a two-fold cord, wherein one thread of truth and another of falsehood are all along entwisted together. If we think of its practical address to, and influence on the minds of the people, as contrasted with its formally avowed tenets, it resembles a whited sepulcher, inwardly full of rottenness." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Only in and by Christ alone

"Here the gospel differs from all the devices of human wisdom. It shows us the living and true God coming down the whole of the infinite distance himself, not to meet returning man, but to overtake and prevent him, when hastening to utter ruin; to seek and to save them that were lost. It shows us God come down to men, Immanuel, God with us. The great truth for which we are indebted to the gospel is, that God was made manifest in the flesh. In the person of Jesus Christ, the distance betwixt God and man is entirely removed. There appeared man in his lowest misery that he can either feel or fear. There appeared the just god in his highest majesty of character: The fullness of the Divine good pleasure rests on him, who became exceeding sorrowful even unto death. There we see Divine vengeance executed against sin to the utmost, yet the eternal God became the refuge of the guilty. There God appears, not working deliverance by halves, not co-operating with sinful man, not restoring his depraved, faculties, and assisting him less or more to deliver himself; but working complete deliverance for man without his concurrence in the least." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Not due to being murderers, or adulterers but where do we pride ourselves?

When we hear Jesus saying, 'The world hateth me, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil; shall we say, that he was sent from heaven to tell the world, that murder, adultery, theft, &c., were evil actions? or rather, would not any man speaking publicly in its favour, run the risk of being stoned or torn to pieces even by the most vicious of the mob? The truth is, Jesus witnessed against the world as evil, in that respect wherein they approved and valued themselves most: and accordingly the zealous Jews understood him. Would they not judge, then, thst they had good ground to count him an enemy to all that they called virtuous or pious? - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Not left to mystery as to why

Even though Dekker did not give free will as the answer to the question, how is it that not all men are saved? the answer that he did give was a step in the wrong direction.

Let us . . . [leave] the unexplainable where it belongs - in the infinite mystery of the heart of Him who is himself love. On the side of divine sovereignty, then, there is mystery. On the side of human responsibility, however, there is no mystery at all. The answer is plainly a matter of unbelief.

It is true that, concerning man's responsibility, the reason many perish is their own unbelief. The fault is man's own. But it is not true, regarding God's sovereignty, that one can refer only to the mystery. The scriptures teach that the explanation why not all men are saved is that God has eternally reprobated some men, eternally decreeing that they perish in their sins, and that God, according to his decree does not bestow faith upon them but hardens them in sin. In Romans 9, in explanation of the fact that some in Israel were saved and others were not (vv. 6-8), Paul plainly teaches that God loved and chose some but hated and reprobated others (vv. 11-13). According to this double predestination, God has mercy on some but hardens the others (v. 18). The reason there are 'vessels of mercy . . . afore prepared unto glory' (v. 23) is that 'the potter [has] power over the clay . . . to make one vessel unto honour' (v. 21). The reason there are 'vessels of wrath fitted to destruction' (v. 22) is that 'the potter' has power also 'to make . . . another [vessel] unto dishonour' (v. 21). - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

Those who ultimately hold to Well-Meant Offer also hold to Universal Atonement

The well-meant offer necessarily implies universal atonement. Where the offer is taught and practiced, confession of universal atonement inevitably follows, if not at once in the official decisions of the church assemblies then in the preaching of the ministers and in the thinking of the members. - David J. Engelsma, The Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

Which came first Original Guilt or Original Sin?

The federal headship of Adam may not seem germane to a descriptive psychology of human nature. As an office or function it does not even describe Adam's nature. But without it there is no understanding of the later generations - Cain, Lamech, Paul, and Alexander the coppersmith. Much of this material has already been touched upon, so that a reminder, some implications, and a small addition will be sufficient here. The small addition will be a defense of the consistency of immediate imputation with the philosophy of Realism, a consistency which Hodge denies.
In the discussion on traducianism it was necessary to anticipate the doctrine of immediate imputation. The essential point was there made clear: Depravity is a part of the penalty for sin, therefore the guilt logically precedes. The question is, on what ground does God hold us, Adam's posterity, guilty? The Biblical doctrine is that God imputes Adam's guilt to us immediately; that is, without an intermediary step. The word immediately here does not refer to time. One might say that God imputed Adam's guilt to us the very moment that Adam sinned. This could well be true, though it is more accurate to say that God imputed this guilt from all eternity. Clearly the doctrine of immediate imputation does not focus on time, as the contemporary usage of the word might suggest: The question is as stated above: Does God impute guilt because of our inherited depravity, or does he impute it without this as a means? The Biblical reason for the doctrine of immediate imputation is that depravity is a part of the penalty the guilt entails. We are not guilty because we are depraved; we are depraved because we are guilty.
Of course we are also guilty of our own voluntary transgressions here and now. This, however, is irrelevant to the present matter. The present matter is our relation to Adam's first sin.
The Westminster Confession uses a very carefully phrased paragraph to distinguish between inherited depravity and imputed guilt. It is so carefully yet so naturally worded that most readers probably fail to see the implications. The confessional statement is: 'They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to al their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation' (VI, 3). Note: the guilt was imputed; the corruption was conveyed. - Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man

This is an issue that the Neo-Orthodox leaders have

"We may now proceed to take notice of the capital absurdity of the popular doctrine. It leads us to read the New Testament backwards. It sets before us the several effects or fruits of faith, or rather certain operations of its own, under the sacred names of these effects; and then prompts us to work our way to faith, by first attaining or feeling these effects. Hence it is, that we have so many treatises describing to us the previous steps necessary to be taken in order to conversion. Long and dreary indeed is the path which they prescribe to us. So that, while men continue obsequious hearers of this doctrine, they may indeed be ever learning, but they shall never be able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - The writers of these treatises do, in one respect, often resemble the writers of romances. The latter, when, after various difficulties, they have at length got the hero and his damsel married; have generally little more entertainment to give us. The former exhaust their genius in leading the serious soul to the wished for period of what they call conversion, and after that they give us little more than insipid repetition.
The matter stood quite otherwise with the apostles and their converts. The apostles, in their first addresses to men, declared the saving truth. Some believed, others contradicted and blasphemed." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Those who God foreknew, He predestinated

On Romans 8:28-30 Gordon H. Clark says, "The verse now gives a general explanation of God's design. Whom God foreknew, he predestinated. In the discussion of Isaiah 46:10 it was pointed out that foreknowledge is not a matter of looking into the future and discovering what is there. God knows the future because he has determined it. Furthermore, foreknowledge, in its Biblical usage, refers more to good events than to evil events. This is not to deny God's omniscience nor even his universal control. It refers merely to literary usage. Psalm 1:6 makes the contrast that God knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish. Then, too, there is Amos 3:2, 'you only have I known of all the families of the Earth.' here the verb to know means to choose or to select. Obviously it is not a denial of omniscience.
Therefore, those people whom God foreknew, chose, or selected are precisely the individuals whom he predestinated. The Greek verb can equally well be translated predestinate or predetermine. The direct purpose of this predestination is now mentioned. God chose these people to be conformed to the image of his Son. This was of course for their good but it was also a part of Christ's glory, for it made him the firstborn among many brethren." - Predestination

What is the difference?

That is objectionable in the free offer of the gospel, or well-meant gospel offer, is not the teaching that the church must preach the gospel to everyone and must call all hearers to faith in Jesus Christ. But the error of the doctrine of the offer, and the reason a Reformed man must repudiate it, is its teaching that the grace of God in Jesus Christ, grace that is saving in character, is directed to all men in the preaching of the gospel. Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, an expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner. - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the call of the Gospel

What is hyper-calvinism?

"Contrary to the thinking of some, holding to the doctrine of supralapsarianism does not make one a hyper-Calvinist. There has always been room in the Reformed faith for supralapsarianism. Although the Reformed confessions are infralapsarian, the Canons of Dordt deliberately so over against the strong plea of Gomarus for supralapsarianism, they do not condemn supralapsarianism as unreformed or hyper-Calvinistic.
Nor is one a hyper-Calvinist because he holds the doctrine of eternal justification and immediate regeneration. Sound Reformed theologians have both denied and affirmed these teachings.
Neither is it the case that hyper-Calvinism is a matter of a strong emphasis on God's eternal counsel and God's sovereignty in salvation. No true Calvinist ever lacked this strong emphasis.
But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel, 'repent and believe on Christ crucified,' only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation." -David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

The dangers of the Free Offer of the Gospel

I had the incomparable privilege of being a student of professors Murray and Stonehouse. With tears in my heart, I nevertheless confidently assert that they erred profoundly in THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL and died before they seem to have realized their error, which because of their justifiably high reputations for Reformed excellence generally, still does incalculable damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of his gospel. - John H. Gerstner, foreword for Hypercalvinist and the Call of the Gospel

The issue between those who hold to the sincere offer and those who do not

The complainants put it this way:

In the course of Dr. Clark's examination by presbytery it became abundantly clear that his rationalism keeps him from doing justice to the precious teaching of Scripture that in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect, and that he has no pleasure in any one's rejecting this offer but, contrariwise, would have all who hear accept it and be saved.

Let us try to define the difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark as sharply as we can.
The difference is not that the complainants insist that the Gospel must be preached to all men promiscuously, while Dr. Clark claims that it must be preached only to the elect. This would be quite impossible, seeing that no preacher is able to single out the elect and separate them from the reprobate in this world. They are agreed that the Gospel must be preached to all men.
Nor is the difference that the complainants openly deny the doctrine of reprobation, while Dr. Clark professes to believe this truth. We read in the Complaint: 'He believes - as do we all - the doctrine of reprobation'.
Again, the difference does not consist in that the complainants characterize the Gospel as an 'offer' of Christ or as salvation, while Dr. Clark objects to that term. If the term 'offer' is understood in the sense in which it occurs in the confessions, and in which also Calvin uses it (offere, from obfero, meaning to present), there can be no objection to that term, though, to prevent misunderstanding, it would be better to employ the words to present, and presentation.
Again, even though Dr. Clark objects to the word 'sincere' in the sense in which the complainants use that term, afraid to leave the impression that he preaches Arminianism, even this does not touch the real point of difference between them. That God is sincere in the preaching of the Gospel no one would dare to deny. As the complainants rightly ask: 'Would it not be blasphemy to deny this?'
 But the difference between them does concern the contents of the Gospel that must be preached promiscuously to all men.
It is really not a question to whom one must preach, or how he must preach, but what he must preach.
According to the complainants, the preacher is called to proclaim to all his hearers that God sincerely seeks the salvation of them all. If this is not their meaning when they write: 'in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect,' their words have no meaning at all.
According to Dr. Clark, however, the preacher proclaims to all his hearers promiscuously that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all the elect. The elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are always the elect.
We may define the issue still more sharply, and limit it to God's intention and attitude in the preaching of the Gospel with regard to the reprobate. - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy

External actions depend on our thinking

Righteousness also requires right thinking about God. This point is more clearly seen when we consider man's estate after the fall. His duties, in addition to public worship, now include ministering to the sick and unfortunate, restraining sin and crime, and to this end establishing civil government. But none of these external actions is righteous or pleases God, unless motivated by righteous thinking. It is intellectual activity that makes the external action pleasing to God. - Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark volume 7

Without knowledge there would be no sin

"Therefore, the contention is that knowledge and rationality are the basic constituents of God's image in man. This stress on the logical nature of the divine image is not a denial of original righteousness. In this connection the point is that there could be no righteousness at all - nor even sin - without rationality." - Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark volume 7

"The most important part of creation was the creation of man. The heavens and the earth, grand as they are, are, as it were, nothing but the stage setting for the actors in the Divine Comedy. The reason is that while nature displays the manifold wisdom of God, man bears God's image. Dogs don't. I still love dogs, dachschunds and St. Bernards. But God gave man a reasonable or rational soul. Man can learn mathematics. Dogs can't. And I still love dogs, Doberman pinschers and Toy Manchesters.
Further, dogs, not to speak of trees and stones, cannot be righteous or holy. To them the Ten Commandments and the Biblical requirements for worship do not apply. But man was created with the law of God written in his heart." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?, Pg. 59 - 60

What Christ accomplished on the Cross was for the Elect alone

In speaking of the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, we had need to keep clear of all human systems, and hold close by the Scriptures. Jesus Christ, by the price of redemption, which he paid, delivers his people from the wrath to come, and he entitles them to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away: all the pains from which he delivers are eternal, and so are all the blessings he procures; every thing which takes place, by virtue of his redemption, is eternal; as he redeems not by corruptible things, when he redeems by laying down his own precious life, so nothing restored by his redemption can ever be subject to corruption. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Is your gospel conditioned upon something in man?

"I was, then, and still am, very loath to charge Aspasio with maintaining, that Christ died for any but those who shall be eternally saved by him: for if he died for them who perish, then the happiness of them who are saved, must be owing to something else besides his death." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Either you believe the truth or you do not

"Many popular preachers have considered themselves as a kind of factors, or rather ambassadors for God, commissioned and empowered by him to make offers of Christ and all his benefits unto men, upon certain terms, and to assure them of the benefits on their complying with the terms. Accordingly, they have not been negligent in setting forth the dignity of their character in this view, and they have plumed themselves not a little upon the offer they had to make, making frequent repetition of this their offer with great parade. But any one who reads the New Testament with tolerable attention, may see that there is as little foundation for any such offer, as there is for bestowing the title of God's ambassador on any man since the days of the apostles. The apostles were witnesses for God concerning Jesus of Nazareth; they land before men the infallible proofs, arising from their own knowledge, and from the prophecies of the Old Testament, showing that Jesus is the Christ. The effect of this was, that some believed and comforted with the apostles; and some disbelieved, and opposed them. The apostles then proclaimed a truth openly in the hearing of all men. And if it be still pled that they made offers we shall very willingly say, that they offered evidence for all that they testified; yea, that they not only offered, but freely produced it, let men make what use of it they would. They were witnesses for God to men, but they never bargained for God with men, however much some scriptural metaphors have been strained to that purpose. They never taught men to put forth any act, or to make one step of advance towards God, on the prospect that God would condescend and come down the rest of the infinite distance to meet them. This was neither suitable to their office, nor to the honour of that God whose character they drew. As to ordinary teachers, or ministers of the gospel, it is well if they be able to declare the simple truth, as contained in the writings of the apostles, and maintain it in opposition to every lie that men would endeavor to mix with it, in order to undermine it. This will procure honour enough to them in the minds of those who love that truth; and such teachers will be far from assuming an air of importance over others, as if they had anything to offer to them more than the meanest lover of the truth has, who will be ready, as occasion requires, to offer any man an account of the evidence by which he himself is convinced of the truth." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Popular Preachers itch the ears of those who do not love the truth

"If I should say, that our modern demagogues have done more hurt to the souls of men, than all those stigmatized with the name of infidel writers have done together, the reflection would be thought odious. I would be referred to many passages in their treatises, asserting almost every branch of the Christian doctrine, in words not easily to be contradicted; and though I might fairly show a complete system of self-dependence to be contained in these same treatises, yea, to be the leading scope and design of them, yet it is easy to see that such a discovery, or any attempt toward it, behooved to meet with the greatest opposition from all who feed on this compound doctrine, especially from those have the largest share of religious pride. For men do not choose to be scared away by arguments from the food which they love best.
If you should throw some handfuls of barley among ever so great a quantity of pearls, the poultry will indeed resort to the pearls; but it is their natural food that draws them: they sometimes do gravel, for the better digestion of their food; for it is the barley that fattens them. And well do the pastors, I speak of, know how to season and mix up the Christian truth with proper ingredients to suit the taste of the people, or, to express myself in more obsolete style, 'They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.' That I may not seem to have disjointed this ancient saying from its context, I would have it noticed, that the chief thing aimed at there is, to make us cautious of hearkening to every spirit or doctrine, by which men pretend to assure themselves of the favour of God, or that Christ abideth in them. The sacred writer, after showing us by what spirit he and his fellows were assured of this, adds, 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God.' Then giving us several rules to judge by, he sums them up in these words,'We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.' Keeping then this rule in our view, let us return to the examining of Aspasio." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Who was the he in Hebrews 10:29?

"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" - Hebrews 10:29

Secondly, the defector has 'counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing'. This second error, says Kistemaker, is 'even more significant because it relates to the meaning and purpose of the new covenant'. In effect, those who offend in this respect reject the new covenant, for the blood of Christ provides both the essence and effectiveness of that covenant. In treating this blood as 'common' they deny the uniqueness of Christ's death and equate it to the death of animals under the old covenant. Such people 'draw back' (or timidly withdraw) from the new covenant and revert to the old. And that, avows the Writer, leads to perdition (10:29). Most commentators discuss the problem of interpretation attaching to the statement, 'he was sanctified'. Some conclude that the apostate can be said to have been 'sanctified' in the outward sense of being ritually purified by profession or baptism. We must remember that apostasy, by scriptural defintion, occurs only in those who remain unregenerate, despite their claim to be Christians (see, e.g. 1 John 2:19). Owen also argues, however, that the sanctification in question may well be that of Christ who, by analogy with the Aaronic priests, was consecrated to his saving office with his own blood (cf. Lev. 8:30). Brown concludes that the one sanctified is neither Christ nor the apostate person. Rather, he suggests, the verse should be understood impersonally as 'the blood by which there is sanctification'. - Edgar Andrews, A Glorious High Throne

I do agree with Owen and will say that it is Christ who is sanctified.