Welcome to this week’s edition of “Theology on Thursday”. . .
I’ve declared from the pulpit and in the press that I am not a follower of John Calvin. I’ve also made a point that I’m not a big fan of the TULIP. I like the Dutch flower and strongly affirm the doctrines of grace, but I believe many mistaken notions regarding “Calvinism” (a poor nickname for the doctrines of grace) come about from terms which lend themselves to misunderstanding. This is especially true in relation to the doctrine of the so-called Limited Atonement. Does ‘Limited Atonement’ mean that the Lord Jesus’ death on the cross had absolutely nothing to do with the world? Does this belief negate the evangelistic imperative? Hardly! Let me state this clearly – the atonement is not limited (but it is particular)!
Lest my Reformed brothers and sisters believe I should have my “Calvinist Card” revoked, here is what a handful of Reformed stalwarts have to say about this particular doctrine. . .
R. B. Kuiper:
“According to the Reformed faith the divine design of the atonement is indeed in an important respect limited. But the Reformed faith also insists that in other important respects it is universal. It can be shown without the slightest difficulty that certain benefits of the atonement, other than the salvation of individuals, are universal. . . . It is the sheerest folly to say that, while God designed to save the elect through the death of His Son, all other results of the atonement are accidental and lie without the pale of the divine purpose. . . . Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died only for the elect must be rated a careless one. To be sure, if by ‘for’ be meant in the place of, the statement is accurate enough, for those in whose stead Christ suffered the penalty of sin will not themselves have to suffer the penalty, and therefore their salvation from that penalty is assured. If, however, by ‘for’ be meant in behalf of, it is inaccurate, to say the least. Certain benefits of the atonement accrue to men generally, including the non-elect. Like all things that are, this is so by divine design. . . . Let it be understood that the Calvinist has no monopoly on the Scriptural teaching of the universal design of the atonement. He does not stand alone in upholding those universal aspects of the atonement. . . . For example, to assert that the Arminian has no interest in the proclamation of the free offer of the gospel. . . would so obviously be to fly in the face of the facts as to deserve to be branded preposterous.”
Charles Hodge:
“…It does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family. . . . It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel. . . . It moreover secures blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;’ sufficiently for all, efficiously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone.”
Herman Bavinck:
“Although it is true that through calling salvation becomes the portion of but a few, as everybody must admit, yet it has great value and significance also for those who reject it. It is for all without distinction proof of God’s infinite love and seals the word that He has no pleasure in the death of the sinner but therein that he live; it declares to all that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for the expiation of all sins, that no one is lost because it is not rich or powerful enough.”
A. A. Hodge:
“1st. There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relations of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would save one would save another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to ‘whomsoever wills’ in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual application. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only those who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians that all dying in infancy are redeemed and saved. 5th. Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it.”
Louis Berkhof:
“The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, since this is admitted by all; (b) whether the saving benefits are actually applied to every man, for the great majority of those who teach a universal atonement do not believe that all are actually saved; (c) whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel, on the condition of repentance and faith, since the Reformed Churches do not call this in question; nor (d) whether any of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non-elect in virtue of their close association with the people of God, since this is explicitly taught by many Reformed scholars. On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.”
The atonement does have reference to the non-elect, as affirmed by these Reformed theologians. It secures for them benefits, namely the sufficiency of the atonement in offering salvation and common grace. The major difference between those who affirm particular redemption and those who do not, as Berkhof rightly points out, has to do with how they view the design of the atonement. John Murray gets to this question as he asks (and answers) questions of his own:
“The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. The real question is something very different. The question is: on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice? On whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did he reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death? Whom did he redeem from the curse of the law, from the guilt and power of sin, from the enthralling power and bondage of Satan? In whose stead and on whose behalf was he obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? . . . What does redemption mean? It does not mean redeemability, that we are placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased and procured redemption. . . . Christ did not come to make sins expiable. He came to expiate sins . . . (Hebrews 1:3).”
In regard to particular redemption and the free offer, Murray declares:
“It is frequently objected that this doctrine is inconsistent with the full and free offer of Christ in the gospel. This is grave misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The truth really is that it is only on the basis of such a doctrine that we can have a free and full offer of Christ to lost men. What is offered to men in the gospel? It is not the possibility of salvation, not simply the opportunity of salvation. What is offered is salvation. To be more specific, it is Christ himself in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work who is offered. And he is offered as the one who made expiation for sin and wrought redemption.”
God has commanded His Church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people in all places. This fact was not lost on the delegates to the Synod of Dort, who proclaimed in their canons: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. . . . Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel. And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.” The Lord Jesus will return only after this good news has reached the ears of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Mark 13:10; Revelation 5:9).
If those who affirm the doctrines of grace (i.e., “Calvinists” / Reformed) believe both in particular redemption and in the free offer, then what needs to be proclaimed to the lost? That Christ died for the ungodly and that God offers them eternal life if they repent of their sins and embrace Christ by faith. Not only that, but that God invites them sincerely to believe upon Christ because He does not desire their death, but their salvation. Christians with the good news about Christ Jesus must tell their hearers boldly and clearly that He will not cast out anyone who comes to Him. We do not offer our hearers a chance at salvation, but the salvation the Savior has secured Himself.
17 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
James,
I like the way that you phrased this:
“We do not offer our hearers a chance at salvation, but the salvation the Savior has secured Himself.”
Too many messages these days sound more like a carny pitch, “chance to win heaven”.
More emphasis is placed on the chance than the actual free gift.
We do not offer our hearers a chance at salvation, but the salvation the Savior has secured Himself. <- this was a nice summation paragraph. Now I must truly call you Rev., I am without excuse… What slight it is then when some would say that it is chance. What is there left but to bow before the perfection of our salvation? It is Good News indeed.
accidental -
Language is such a trip…
The former ages were much more accurate than we are. They spoke of contingency quite differently than we do. There was a peculiar use of which Edwards applied to God. He used it in the sense that to God, seeing as there are no precursors to the acts of God outside of God, then they are to him truly contingent (accidental). The reversal is obvious. In the creation all things are not contingent by that definition because they all have precursors, and therefore cannot fall out according to some unaccounted for cause. But, God being uncaused is the only true contingency (self existing); being unmoved by any is the mover of all.
Edwards used that to explain how the only true “free-will” is in God. As we might say, every man is a slave to someone, but God is a slave to no one. Now, if we follow his logic, then all things in the creation are not contingencies, falling out because of some unknown data, but are resultants, non-accidents, falling out because of definite cause.
When we take that to the atonement, we must then look at the accidents of common grace as not accidents at all, for they are not contingent, falling out for no cause, but have their ultimate cause in the decree of God. The free offer then is subsumed in Gods giving in such a way that some might (definitely) be saved and that, through the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures. All the benefits fall according to the Mediator’s office as Prophet, Priest, or King. We must then pay attention to what Jesus says and does in accordance with the will that he is prosecuting, and that will is his Father’s.
It is not as if the free-offer is an accident to the world of unbelief, either, but it is the very means by which God brings salvation to it. Rejection and acceptance are inherent in it. God thereby makes provision for all men, earnestly, while at the same time maintaing his postition of the determinate causer of all events such that those who will receive or reject are decided upon in the preaching (prosecuting the decree) and not in the creature. As it has always been, in the beginning was the Word, the cause of all that proceeds.
So, when Jesus says that he has come to send a sword, or a fire to cause divison, he is referring to the Word. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word. This is no accident, no fortuitous event, but the creative action of the Creator, who alone is the one who forms the ear to hear.
Truly it is a difficult teaching and men make it more so through sophistry and humanist rationalizations. Nothing in the atonement is accidental; the things that “fall out” from it are all under the sovereign control of the Creator, even the bread and fishes that filled the bellies of those who later would be made sick by what Jesus said it meant to eat of what they had easten. In the end some will say, “Haven’t we spoken in your name, eaten at your table, healed the sick, and done…?” Yes the benefits of God on the Cross who reconciles all things in himself is a father to his creation in all things, but not all that he calls are chosen, in fact some are devils, or so he said to Judas, who benefitted emensely from the ministry of Christ in these ways, yet all to his condemnation.
Get ready, I think I hear Charles comming
Stephen:
May our Gospel presentations NEVER sound like a carny pitch!
Thomas:
I’m a bit surprised he hasn’t posted yet, but I think I hear footsteps…
It seems to me to be theological cosmetics. What I don’t know is the Calvinist or Arminian getting the makeover. All men appreciate a little outward adornment on any lady. Cosmetics bring out the natural beauty especially of the facial complexion. If it is a matter of the Calvinist wanting to “appear” evangelistic to her admirers then a little “make-over” will help. If by free offer you mean no harm to God nor his Word then brush in some enhancement and add a little blush. If by free offer you mean no change to the constitutional nature of created fallen man then adornment would be welcome.
But my opinion is that we are not talking about outward adornment but reconstructive cosmetic surgery. To be evangelistic in the Arminian sense requires a correction of defects. A skilled cosmetic surgeon has to restore structure to a defective face.
I am not a knowledgeable physician but from what I know a surgeon can remove tissue, maybe bone, and graft in compatabible tissue from an inconspicious part of the body, the thigh, and reconstruct the face.
Theologically to reconstruct Adamic features is an impossibility. We have to find a source of compatible tissue that will restore sovereign choice to man so he can respond as a sinner to the call of the gospel. The only place is the inconspicious part of God, his thigh, (from God’s thigh to man’s cheeks) This will give mankind a heads up on free will to act on their own without the loss of esteem due to their impotency. Christ’s death on the cross would not be a necessity. The sinner could save herself!
Will God suffer the loss of a little inconspicious sovereignty? Will holy flesh take to fallen depraved tissue? No, it will defile the good tissue. I do not think that God will share his sovereignty with a sinner inorder to make her “free to choose.”
The only makeover that is acceptable is the Calvinistic salvific expression of regeneration preceeding faith in Christ. Unconditional election, particular/limited atonement and irrestible grace. This presupposes a total makeover from the inside out (new heart) that shines naturally in a pleasant and silent confidence.
Besides that, most Arminians, (Baptist/biblicist) are not evangelistic only the evangelist and some missionaries, and they are “Finney-like” at that.
Why would our ladies want to look like the world anyway?
What is there about fundamentalism’s evangelism to be imitated anyway? Why would a Calvinist have “free offer envy”?
Why would he abandon the term Calvinism for Reformed inorder to appear Arminianly Evangelistic while remaining covertly Calvinist? Why would a Calvinist accept the TULIP with reservations, publicly, and yet secretly accept it wholeheartly. Why would a Calvinist insist that God has two wills inorder to accomodate evangelism? Why can’t Calvinist just sit still and wait on the Holy Spirit to move decreetively according to his good pleasure. “Jesus is comming, everybody look busy!”
The best of the Arminians have dispairaged evangelism. Finney was persuaded to halt the public free offers for a less agressive ministry of teaching “perfectionism” because of the lack of believers’ stamina.
I heard Adrian Rogers at Bellevue dispairage evangelism in his own Church by admitting that a minority of his on congregation was truly saved. (This was embarrassing to me since I had been a pastor myself and would never say such a thing to any congregation I had served.)
Arminians (fundamentalist) emphasize the meager numbers that will make it into heaven. So very few will make it and an innumerable host will burn for ever in a lake of fire. I grew up with that message.
Why can’t Calvinist just be Calvinist? Let God be “God”!
James
I had two professors in college you would really like. R. Hollis Gause and Donald Bowdle are extremely good men who used Calvinistic resources for two classes I had taken. In Bowdle’s class we had to memorize portions of the Shorter Westminister Catechism and were grilled in Westminister theology. In Gauses’ class we had as a textbook Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. This was a Wesleyan School and even more so now. (Lee University, Cleveland, Tennessee) These men are a sorespot for the majority of the preachers in this denomination and are charged with teaching Calvinism which neither will admit.
Bowdle has admitted to me that he is Keswick Reformed. But he knows that Reformed can be attached to any title. He is Wesleyan Reformed as you are Baptist Reformed. There seems to be no difference between your beliefs with the possible exception of eternal security. They both deny Baptist eternal security yet in practice they believe in the same Arminian eternal security, “you can keep it” as the Baptist. Their Wesleyan friends say “you can loose it”. Bowdle’s belief is that it is much harder to loose it than many think.
So for me I am not too impressed with “Reformed”, “Calvinism” impresses me.
If I were a member of a SBC church I would insist on being called a “Calvinist Baptist” maintaining a rich historical Baptist heritage. A Particular Baptist.
Charles JMHO
Well Charles, you said something there…
Charles –
These men aren’t speaking of imitating “fundamentalism’s evangelism.” They viewed and practiced evangelism in line with Augustine, Calvin, the delegates of Dort, etc. There is no “free offer envy.” There is simply the free offer – as seen in Scripture.
Why abandon the term “Calvinism” for “Reformed”? Because it is more in line with the reality of things. The theology is drawn from the whole of the Reformation, not simply from one of its second-generation figures.
Those who embrace the doctrines of grace (i.e., Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, et al) have all been evangelistic. It has nothing to do with wanting to appear “Arminianly evangelistic,” as you put it, but with maintaining a consistent view and practice of Scripture.
I’m no “covert Calvinist.” Just ask my friends. For that matter, just read many of my past posts.
I don’t accept the doctrines of grace with reservations. I embrace them fully. The issue is with the phraseology in the TULIP. You should know that by now.
I don’t insist God has two wills…I insist He has three. Do I do this in order to accommodate evangelism? No, I do it because Scripture speaks of God’s will in a trio of ways.
Why can’t a “Calvinist just sit still and wait on the Holy Spirit to move”? Because God has told us to move, not sit still. The Holy Spirit will move when and where He pleases (and being pleased to use the proclamation of His Word by His people).
It isn’t fair to say Finney disparaged evangelism, but it is fair to say he was a heretic. He denied justification by faith alone and went so far as to say that glorified saints could fall from grace. For those of you thinking I’m pouncing on Finney unfairly, go read his systematic theology before you comment. Then we’ll interact.
You say, “Let God be ‘God’!” Charles, God’s going to be God whether he has our permission or not. I’m not going to “let” him do anything (nor are you or anybody else). God is God!
I’ve not heard of Gause or Bowdle, but it sounds like we’d enjoy chatting over a cup of coffee. Interesting that these men taught at Lee. Bowdle is correct, Reformed may mean much more than “Calvinistic.” Schuller, for example, belongs to a “Reformed” denomination (RhINO – Reformed in Name Only). I must confess I’m a bit confused on the “Wesleyan Reformed” title. I wonder, do they deny “eternal security” (i.e., Antinomianism) yet believe in “perseverance and preservation of the saints”? If so, we are in full agreement
“Wesleyan Reformed” I used that term loosley. Bowdle is Keswick Reformed and taught in a Wesleyan school so I just threw together Wesleyan Reformed. To my knowledge there is not such a thing. The school denies eternal security, teaching backsliding!!! (Backsliding Basics 101 – required for freshmen)
Great collection of quotes, brother.
There’s often a great deal of talk about an “offer” of salvation and even a “free” offer at that.
But, at the end of the day if salvation is by faith alone, I’m thinking evangelism is to present before them someone in whom to believe. They must understand their need for such a salvation, of course, and they must understand what they must do, as well as what God will do when they do what they must do.
But, at the end of the day, we share Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God. (HT to Campus Crusade for Christ)
I can tell any human being that if he/she believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, he/she will be saved.
Regardless of one’s degree of Reformedness, the if/then statement holds true.
Particular redemption seems to eliminate giving an unknown person the verbiage “Jesus paid for your sins on the cross and you must accept His free gift to go to heaven,” but I don’t see that approach in Scripture anyway.
James
You ask: “I wonder, do they deny “eternal security” (i.e., Antinomianism) yet believe in “perseverance and preservation of the saints”?”
In the denomination they are in it would be like pulling “hen’s teeth” to get them to admit it but they probally do. I am almost sure Bowdle does and I know them well enough that you would indeed enjoy a cup of coffee with them even if they didn’t agree with you.
“Eternal security” may be the key to understanding the mystery of these Arminians who hold secret personal views
of Calvinism.
“Perversions of Calvinism have existed for centuries. In 1634, just 15 years after the Synod of Dort, a professing Calvinist named Moise Amyraut (Amyraldus) wrote his Treatise on Predestination in which he stated that The sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered was equally for all; and the salvation which He received from His Father, in the sanctification of the spirit and the glorification of the body, was destined equally for all-provided the necessary disposition for receiving it were equal.(Moise Amyraut, Treatise on Predestination, in George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles (1870; Hendrickson, 1988), 541.)
His treatise systematized what he had been taught at the Theological School at Saumer, France; he was particularly influenced by a professor by the name of John Cameron, who, according to George Smeaton, propounded the theory of hypothetic universalism; that is, that God wills the salvation of all men, on condition of faith, and that Christs death was for all men, on condition of faith.(George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles (1870; Hendrickson, 1988), 540.)
Smeaton goes on to describe what has come to be known as Amyraldianism: Its advocates speak of a universal decree in which God was supposed to have given Christ as a Mediator for the whole human race; and of a special decree, in which God, foreseeing that no one would believe in his unaided strength, was supposed to have elected some to receive the gift of faith.5 Further, according to B. B. Warfield, this theory said that God gave His Son to die for all men, alike and equally; and at the same time . . . declare[d] that when He gave His son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men alike and equally.( Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Eerdmans, 1942), 94.)
Smeaton wrote that Amyraldianism was a revolt from the position maintained at the Synod of Dort, under the guise of an explanation. . . . [I]t laboured under the defect of supposing a double and a conflicting decree; that is, a general decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of all, and a special decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of the elect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. to satisfy for all men, and to satisfy merely for the elect. As a reconciling system, and an incoherent one, it aimed to harmonize the passages of Scripture, which at one time seem to extend Christs merits to the world, and at another to limit them to the church; not to mention that God is supposed to be disappointed in His purpose. (Smeaton, 540-541.)
Warfield stated that it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which he himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God, and this can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them, and Christianity is wounded at its very heart. . . . A conditional substitution being an absurdity, because the condition is no condition to God, if you grant him even so much as the poor attribute of foreknowledge, they necessarily turn away from a substitutive atonement altogether.
He concludes that Amyraldianism is not . . . an acceptable form of Calvinism, or even a tenable form of Calvinism. For one thing, it is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism. Warfield
As we will see, Hypo-Calvinism revels in its logical inconsistency and calls anyone who would seek to find logical consistency a rationalist or a Hyper-Calvinist. -Warfield
-History of Hypo-Calvinism Marc Carpenter
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=161
James, does this seem to be relevant to what is going on today in the struggle to understand Calvinism’s identity?
I posted a two-part series on the issue of grace and the atonement here.
There I try to demonstrate that the atonement is not required in the extension of common grace (contra Kuiper and the Hodges), since common grace would not impugn the justice of God without an atonement.
A well written and thoughtful post as usual my brother. You also displayed your usual sensitivity and maturity in addressing the comments above – a model to me. God bless.
Jay – I’ll check that out.
Warren – thank you, my friend. It’s always a pleasure when you drop by 2WC.
The Bible teaches that God wills all to be saved. So his intent in Atonement is the same. He desires all to be saved. If I bake a scrumptious German chocolate cake for everyone at work, with the full intention that everyone has a piece, only those who take a piece get the cake. Tulip Calvinists will argue that I baked the cake only for the elect, and not for the non-elect. They will point out that only the elect took a piece. Yet I am the one who baked the cake and I know certainly that my intention was that every single co-worker take a piece. Everyone has a sovereign will and though my intention was for everyone to enjoy the cake, not everyone did. Clearly this is God’s intention too in atonement. 1 Timothy 2:4, “…God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” I have listened to Calvinists and Armenians argue this issue forever. It occurred to me that both sides used scriptures that were in the Bible. So I agree that election is by grace, but I also agree that God desires all to be saved. These truths co-exist. One does not negate the other. Freedom of choice is our side of it. Election is God’s side of it. Atonement is limited to those who receive Jesus Christ, but the intention of the Atonement is for everyone to be saved. John 3:16 has no asterisk and footnote for the word Whosoever. John 3:16 is a legitimate promise to everyone. No matter how strongly some argue against this, they cannot go around, bury or ignore that God wills all to be saved. That is the bottom line. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. If God tells us to choose life, then we have the capacity to choose life, or to choose against life. H.A. Ironside said it best. We come to this Portal and see, “Whosoever will may enter”. So we enter in and look behind us at the Portal from the other side and see,
“Chosen from the foundation of the World.” This is truly beyond our ken. But know this, God wants us to walk with Him. Jesus says, “Walk thou with Me.”
Don:
Thanks for dropping by 2WC. Just some thoughts…
When Scripture speaks of God’s will, it may address different aspects of His will. It doesn’t always mean the exact same thing. There is God’s decretive will (His purpose), moral will (commandments), and will of disposition (desire). As far as what you state about “Tulip Calvinists,” I suggest you re-read the above quotes carefully. Calvinists, in general, affirm election is by grace and God desires all to be saved without negating each other. However, we disagree that “we” have a “side” to salvation (i.e., “freedom of choice is our side of it”). We have nothing to contribute to our salvation except our wretched sinfulness. In regard to the atonement, the phrase, “Sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect” was born out of the Synod of Dordt.
No Calvinist would disagree with you that the promise of salvation is given to “whosoever believes,” and that all people in all places at all times are commanded to repent of their sins and to trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
Another matter, though quite related, is the issue of depravity. Although we are commanded to choose life, etc., will we (apart from God’s electing grace)? You state, “We have the capacity to choose life, or to choose against life.” From Scripture we see a problem, namely, we will always choose against life, unless God intervenes.
Just a question… if “everyone has a sovereign will,” then please explain (especially in light of the term ’sovereign’) the lives of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and Job.