A Critique of R. Scott Clark's Duplicitous Doctrine of the Well Meant Offer: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal

Another problem with Dr. Clark’s appeal to the archetypal/ectypal distinction is that his argument works only because he assumes incorrectly that what he is defending is a paradox in the sense of an apparent contradiction rather than a flat contradiction. The charge against the well-meant offer is that it does not teach a paradox but, as Prof. Engelsma writes, it “involves a Calvinist in sheer contradiction. That God is gracious only to some in predestination but gracious to all in the gospel and that God wills only some to be saved in predestination but wills all to be saved by the gospel is flat, irreconcilable contradiction.”46 The point is that the well-meant offer teaches concepts that are not only irreconcilable in the mind of man but are also irreconcilable in the mind of God. Engelsma writes, “I speak reverently: God Himself cannot reconcile these teachings.”  --Rev. Clay Spronk

A Critique of R. Scott Clark's Doctrine of the Well Meant Offer: PRTJ