By Jimmy Stephens and TheSire

1. Sincerity of the Offer (Deceptive Offer Argument)

Objection: If God sovereignly intends that some people never come to Christ, how can His gospel offer to them be sincere? Isn’t it deceptive to command someone to believe when He has not provided atonement for them? An offer that is well-meant seems to require that the one making it genuinely desires the recipient to accept it.

Calvinist Defense:

1. God’s Sovereignty and Human Agency:
   • In Calvinism, God’s sovereignty encompasses human agency. God, in His sovereignty, determines individuals’ choices in accordance with their desires and intentions. Thus, when He offers the gospel, He respects their agency while also fulfilling His sovereign plan.
   • Unlike humans, God can make a sincere offer of the gospel while knowing and ordaining that some will reject it. This is because His determination of their response includes their own agency and desires. This means the offer is well-meant because it takes into account the genuine agency of the individual, even though God knows the outcome.
2. Different Levels of Will:
   • God’s will can be understood in different senses: His decreed will (what He has ordained to come to pass) and His preceptive will (what He commands humans to do).
   • God’s preceptive will includes His genuine desire for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). His decreed will includes His sovereign plan for election and reprobation (Romans 9:18). The free offer of the gospel aligns with His preceptive will, showing God’s sincere desire for all to repent.
3. God’s Unique Ability to Harmonize Intention and Agency:
   • While humans might make offers to subvert others’ desires, God can make a well-meant offer in virtue of His ability to harmonize His intentions with the individual’s agency. God causes who individuals are, shaping their desires and intentions. Thus, His offer is genuinely extended in line with their agency.

This objection is raised not only by Provisionists but also by Arminians, Hypothetical Universalists, and even some Calvinists who struggle with how divine sincerity can coexist with sovereign reprobation and particular redemption. The assumption often shared across these views is that a sincere offer of the gospel must be undergirded by either a universal intent to save, a universal provision in the atonement, or a libertarian framework of agency.

But this assumption reflects more about creaturely expectations than about divine revelation. The historic Reformed tradition offers a better theological explanation—one that preserves both the sincerity of the gospel call and the sovereignty of divine grace. It does so by making necessary distinctions and by appealing to the character of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.

---

— Divine Sovereignty and Human Agency Are Not in Conflict —
Reformed theology robustly affirms that divine sovereignty and human agency are not mutually exclusive. God ordains all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11), including the free actions of creatures. Human beings are genuine agents, making real decisions according to their character, desires, and inclinations.

When God offers salvation through the gospel, He addresses persons as rational, volitional beings. That offer is sincere not because the outcome is uncertain, but because it is perfectly suited to their moral condition and carried forth by divine truth. The sincerity of the offer does not rest on a libertarian notion of undetermined choice but on God’s sovereign orchestration of history and persons.

God offers with perfect knowledge, perfect intention, and perfect execution. He makes the offer through the faculties of the human person—reason, conscience, desire—and holds them morally accountable. Even the reprobate are addressed as image-bearers, responsible for their rejection of Christ. Their rejection is not only foreseen but foreordained, and yet it arises through their own sinful will.

---

— God’s Two Wills: Decreed and Preceptive —
Reformed theology has long recognized the distinction between God’s decretive will (His eternal purpose and determination of all things) and His preceptive will (His revealed moral commands and invitations).

• The preceptive will expresses God’s command that all should repent and believe (Acts 17:30), reflecting His goodness and justice.
• The decretive will expresses His sovereign election of some to salvation and His passing over others (Rom. 9:11–23).

The gospel call belongs to the preceptive will—it is universal, well-meant, and grounded in God’s truth and authority. The saving response to the gospel belongs to the decretive will—it is sovereignly granted and infallibly secured for the elect.

To insist that the sincerity of the offer requires God to have decreed the salvation of all is to confuse these categories. Whether one is a Provisionist, an Arminian, or a Hypothetical Universalist, the tendency to collapse God’s moral commands into His sovereign intentions undermines the biblical portrayal of God’s multi-dimensional will.

---

— God’s Aseity and the Sincerity of the Offer —
A profound aspect of divine sovereignty that undergirds the sincerity of the gospel offer is God’s aseity—His absolute self-existence, independence, and self-sufficiency. Unlike creatures, God is not dependent on anything outside Himself to act, intend, or communicate. This divine self-sufficiency allows God to make sincere and truthful offers even when He does not intend to actualize them for a particular recipient.

This is uniquely possible because God alone has exhaustive control over every aspect of His creation, including the intentions, desires, and responses of moral agents. He not only foreknows but has decreed the inner motivations and outward actions of every person. He is the one who forms the vessel, determines its purpose (Rom. 9:21), and shapes its inclinations. Thus, He can issue a genuine command or invitation that aligns with the truth of the recipient’s moral condition—even if He has also determined that the person will never comply.

God is not deceitful in doing this because He speaks in accordance with His revealed will, not with duplicity. His preceptive will expresses what is morally right and just, rooted in His character. The command to repent and believe is true and authoritative. But the decretive will establishes what He ordains to bring to pass, including the fact that many will never believe. Yet in issuing the call, God is not feigning interest or making a hollow offer. Rather, He is publicly declaring what is right and just, exposing the sinner’s rebellion, and glorifying His justice.

In human terms, it would be disingenuous to offer something one has no intent to give. But God’s aseity means He is not bound by human limitations. He can make an offer in accordance with preceptive righteousness, while decretively determining that it will not be fulfilled for some—and yet be perfectly sincere. Why? Because sincerity is not defined by human analogies of uncertainty or emotional openness. It is defined by divine truthfulness, justice, and alignment with moral reality.

God has the unique right and ability to declare what is good, even to those whom He has ordained will reject it, without becoming insincere or unjust. He can address the reprobate with real moral commands that are not intended to bring about their salvation, but to highlight their guilt and magnify His holiness. As Scripture says, He “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” in order “to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:22–23).

This theological framework means that God does not need to desire or intend universal salvation in order for His offer of salvation to be well-meant. He alone can extend a genuine gospel invitation without intending it to be accepted—and without that offer being deceptive or manipulative.

The mistake of all synergistic frameworks—whether Arminian, Provisionist, or Hypothetical Universalist—is to demand that divine sincerity must conform to human motivational structures and creaturely logic. But that is to collapse Creator and creature into the same category. The aseity of God means that His will, knowledge, and moral communication transcend the conditions of finite agents. He is sincere not because He risks, waits, or hopes, but because He perfectly communicates truth, judges righteously, and upholds His own justice in all His dealings.

To close, we identify three fundamental problems in the reasoning behind the sincerity objection—problems that persist regardless of whether it’s raised by Provisionists, Arminians, Hypothetical Universalists, or even uneasy Calvinists.

1. The Premise about Sincerity Is Unjustified
The sincerity objection begins by asserting that a sincere offer must include a genuine intent to provide the offered good. But this is neither required logically nor found in Scripture. The objector must establish this as a necessary condition for divine sincerity, and they cannot.

Biblically, God’s sincerity is tied not to His intent to save every individual, but to His holiness and truthfulness. He is sincere in commanding what is right, in offering what is good, and in judging what is evil. His offer is sincere because it flows from His moral character and expresses His preceptive will, even if He has no decretive intent to bring it about in a specific case.

This misunderstanding stems from projecting human limitations onto God. Humans can only sincerely offer what they genuinely desire to provide because we lack foreknowledge and control. But God, in His aseity and omniscience, is not subject to those constraints. He can offer what He never intended to apply to a particular person and still be fully sincere because His sincerity is not rooted in desire for outcome, but in perfect moral rectitude. His offer is righteous because it declares what should be done, not because it ensures what will be done.

2. The Objection Backfires under Libertarian Freedom
Many who raise this objection do so from within a libertarian framework of free will. But this is where the objection turns inward and collapses. On libertarianism, God cannot determine the outcome of His own offer. He can only hope that someone will freely accept it, but He cannot ensure that anyone actually will.

This means that the very sincerity of the offer becomes a gamble. God is portrayed as offering forgiveness He may not have the ability to deliver—because its efficacy depends entirely on the undetermined, spontaneous will of the sinner. This renders the offer probabilistic, not actual. In fact, it makes the offer less sincere than in the Reformed view, because under libertarianism, God is offering what He does not have the power to bring about.

The classic analogy sharpens this point: if I purchase a car and offer it to you, the offer is sincere because I possess what I offer. But if I merely purchase a lottery ticket for a car and offer you the car, I’m offering something I don’t have. This is precisely the kind of offer libertarian theology must affirm—an offer contingent on chance, not divine possession.

Moreover, libertarianism undercuts the very idea of persuasion. For persuasion to work, it must causally affect the will. But libertarian freedom is supposed to be causally unconditioned. If nothing—including God—can move the will toward the good, then the gospel can’t be persuasive in any real sense. Offers in libertarianism are not just random—they are motivationally impotent. Therefore, the sincerity objection undermines itself by appealing to a freedom that voids the power of the gospel to convert.

3. The Objection Smuggles in Compatibilism and Refutes Itself
The final flaw is that those who raise the sincerity objection often help themselves to assumptions that only make sense on a compatibilist model. Specifically, they rely on notions of moral responsibility that presuppose the validity of agent-based explanation—while simultaneously rejecting the Reformed view of divine sovereignty.

Objectors often argue that God cannot be sincere if forgiveness isn’t truly possible. Yet when pressed on why sinners are condemned, they respond, “Because they rejected it.” But this assumes that rejecting the offer is morally significant—something that reflects the sinner’s character and thus justifies judgment. That is precisely the compatibilist’s point: that rejection is blameworthy when it reflects the agent’s internal desires and nature.

The objector ends up affirming that sinners are responsible for their rejection because it comes from them—and yet also wants to say that God cannot sincerely offer salvation unless He wills a possible acceptance. This incoherence rests on a bait-and-switch: the objector borrows the Reformed explanation of moral responsibility while denying the Reformed foundation that makes it coherent.

Even more revealing is the claim that “forgiveness is not even possible” for the reprobate. The objector assumes this makes the offer insincere. But forgiveness is not possible for the damned in hell either. The reason isn’t because forgiveness was never genuinely offered, but because it was rejected. The impossibility arises not from divine dishonesty but from the agent’s morally culpable refusal—exactly as Calvinism teaches.

And when the libertarian tries to push further—saying, “But God forecloses the possibility of belief if He predetermines rejection”—he again exposes the contradiction. The only way that would be unjust is if God’s foreknowledge were speculative, not perfect. But if God knows—and even more, ordains—the agent’s rejection, then He is not being deceptive by making the offer. He is exposing their nature, pronouncing judgment, and magnifying His justice.

This is the point of the Reformed distinction between God’s two wills. God can command what He does not decree. He can prohibit what He permits. He can genuinely offer what He never intended to effect. None of this is insincere—it is the outworking of His multifaceted wisdom.

In fact, this is the only model that avoids collapsing into incoherence: either God has decreed all things—including the moral responses of His creatures—and so is not gambling with grace, or God is subject to the whims of undetermined libertarian agents and cannot secure or even coherently offer what He proclaims.

In sum:

• God can offer salvation without intending it for all, because He is not dependent on the agent’s response.
• God can issue commands that He has determined will not be obeyed, and yet the command remains good, just, and sincere.
• God shapes the moral agency of the person, ensuring that their rejection is both their own and part of His sovereign plan.
• God’s aseity and sovereignty uphold the integrity of the offer, even when the provision is not made for the one rejecting it.

This is the God of Scripture—not a passive observer or hopeful persuader, but a sovereign Lord who speaks light into darkness, gives life to the dead, and offers righteousness even to those He has not purposed to redeem.

---

2. Question of Ability (Moral Relevance of Ability)

Objection: If people aren’t able to freely accept the gospel, in what sense is it a sincere offer?

Calvinist Defense:

1. Counterfactual Ability:
   • Calvinism does not rely on libertarian free will but on counterfactual ability. This means individuals could have acted differently if they had different desires or circumstances.
   • The gospel offer is sincere because people have the natural faculties required to understand and accept the gospel, but their moral inability (due to sin) means they will not choose to accept it without divine intervention.
2. Natural Ability vs. Moral Ability:
   • Calvinists distinguish between natural ability (the faculties and opportunities to respond) and moral ability (the inclination or willingness to respond). Humans have the natural ability to accept the gospel but lack the moral ability because of their sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-3).
   • The gospel offer remains sincere because it is a real offer that individuals have the natural capacity to respond to, even though they require God’s grace to overcome their moral inability.
3. Divine Grace and Human Inability:
   • The free offer of the gospel serves to highlight the depth of human depravity and the necessity of God’s sovereign grace (John 6:44). It shows that apart from God’s intervention, no one can come to Christ.
   • This demonstrates the magnanimity of God’s grace: He offers salvation to all but effectively applies it to the elect, ensuring that the elect come to faith (John 6:37).
4. Purpose of the Gospel Call:
   • The universal call of the gospel serves multiple purposes: it is a means by which God calls His elect to salvation, it renders people without excuse for their unbelief (Romans 1:20), and it manifests God’s justice and mercy.
   • By offering the gospel to all, God demonstrates His kindness and justice. The rejection of the gospel by the non-elect is a testament to human sinfulness and the righteousness of God’s judgment.

Conclusion

In Calvinism, the free offer of the gospel is both sincere and meaningful, addressing both objections. The sincerity is grounded in God’s character and His preceptive will, while the meaning of the offer is understood in light of human moral inability and the necessity of divine grace. God’s unique ability to harmonize His sovereign will with human agency ensures that His offer is genuinely well-meant, even when it is known that some will reject it. This framework upholds the integrity of God’s offer and the accountability of human responses, demonstrating the harmony between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

Here’s how Chris Matthew answers the question regarding the relationship between the offer of the gospel and Calvinism, particularly in light of limited atonement:

Question

If limited atonement is true, we find ourselves with a bit of a problem. Christ commands people to believe the gospel that haven’t had their sins forgiven. In fact, it isn’t possible for them to have their sins forgiven and it is false that their sins are forgiven. So, that would entail that God commands them to believe something that is false.

Answer

The apparent problem is easily resolved if we clarify the propositions involved in Gospel acceptance. Perhaps it’s something like:

(G) Christ died for your sins. If you believe, your sins are forgiven.

Nowhere in the Scriptures are we taught that the sins of the elect have been forgiven from eternity. The elect are justified and sanctified in time. Thus, Christ commands all people (elect or not) to believe the Gospel. If so, there is no difficulty here. Limited atonement states that G will only be accepted by the elect ─ such that the elect’s acceptance is a contextual fact, not a proposition inherent in the Gospel message itself. Nothing here is “false.”

Explanation

Clarifying Propositions:

• Gospel Message (G): “Christ died for your sins. If you believe, your sins are forgiven.”
• This proposition does not imply that the sins of the hearers are already forgiven. It states that belief in Christ leads to forgiveness. The command to believe the gospel applies universally, but the effect (forgiveness) is contingent on belief, which only the elect will have due to God’s sovereign grace.

Temporal Aspects of Justification:

• Scripturally, the elect are not forgiven from eternity but are justified and sanctified in time (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16). Thus, the command to believe the gospel is not a command to believe a falsehood but a genuine call to faith that aligns with God’s redemptive plan unfolding in history.

Universal Call and Limited Atonement:

• Christ’s command to believe is directed to all people, and the gospel offer is universal. However, limited atonement means that the atoning work of Christ is effective only for the elect.
• The offer itself is sincere and true, as it genuinely calls all to repentance and faith. The acceptance of this offer, and thus the realization of its benefits, is limited to those whom God has elected and granted faith.

No Falsehood in the Gospel Offer:

• The gospel proposition is conditional: “If you believe, your sins are forgiven.” The truth of this proposition is not contingent on the hearer’s current state but on their response to the gospel.
• God’s command to believe the gospel is a genuine and sincere offer, as it accurately presents the means of salvation through faith in Christ. It is not deceptive, as it does not assert that the hearers’ sins are already forgiven but that they will be forgiven upon belief.

For further reading, you can explore these discussions on the free offer of the gospel:

• Triablogue on the Free Offer of the Gospel
• Triablogue on the Well-Meant Offer​ (Triablogue)​​ (Triablogue)​​ (Triablogue)​.

For an opposing view on the free offer of the gospel, particularly in the context of Calvinism and limited atonement, you can refer to the Reformed Apologist blog post.