# Beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just to believe?



## Pergamum

Should we beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just beseech sinners to believe?

Last month I received a mild critique of one of my sermons. Here is it in paraphrase:



> At the end of the sermon when you were appealing to the lost you told them to "pray and ask God for a new heart" or something like that. I know what you mean by saying it, I have said it to people to probably, but Brother T-- has pointed out to our church that this isn't actually found in the scriptures. He actually said that it is a wrong conclusion from God's sovereignty. He said that in the scriptures they never say, ask the Lord to save you, they say to believe immediately.
> 
> Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
> Another example of a call to immediate response it
> 
> Acts 2:37-38
> 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
> 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
> 
> brother T-- was actually teaching us that to tell the sinner to ask God to save them, or something of that nature can give the person an excuse not to come to Christ or can hinder them from it. The sinner supposedly prays for the Lord to save them and then when he doesn't he blames the Lord for not saving them. Or they are made to feel that they have time to repent because they are waiting on the Lord to save them since they've heard it's a sovereign work of God. He was saying that we are to call people to immediate believe as we see in the new testament. To press people with their responsibility to believe immediately.




What do you think? My mind goes immediately to the man in the Gospels that says, "O Lord I believe, but help my unbelief..." Would the correct response have been to have simply said, "Well..then just believe then!" 

Is there anything wrong with imploring sinners in a sermon to pray that the Lord grants them saving faith or should we just tell them then and there to believe savingly?


----------



## MarieP

Pergamum said:


> Should we beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just beseech sinners to believe?



My own pastor says both. Lately, he's been using the latter more. Interestingly enough, I sent him a "mild critique" (well, probably not as mild as that!) 5 years ago or so when I was in the process of being rid of some hyper-Calvinistic tendencies. I didn't like the "ask the Lord for a new heart" because I thought it was misleading. My problem was that I was separating regeneration and faith in a way the Scripture doesn't. To add to your verses, I would add "Son of David, have mercy on me" and "Have mercy on me, the sinner."

Several examples of the verbiage in line with the critique (the first combines the two!): "Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 18:31). "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).


----------



## Alan D. Strange

The gospel in its essence is set forth by Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-4. What is central is the person and work of Christ, particularly His death, burial, and resurrection. 

The exhortation that arises out of the gospel is repentance and faith: this is everywhere in evidence, especially in the apostolic preaching of the cross in Acts. We say "trust in Christ, and in Him alone," "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and the like, as well as "see your sin, hate your sin, turn from your sin" and the like. The reason that we say that and the like is not only because this follows the biblical pattern and points them to Christ, but also because beseeching them to "ask the Lord to enable them to believe" tends to point them to look for an experience and not to look to Christ. We are not asking people to have some religious experience; we are calling them to "come to Christ," meaning that we want them to look to Him and Him alone, not look for a particular religious experience, which what you did has the tendency to do.

The man who cried out "I believe, help my unbelief" was believing, brother, not unbelieving. What needs to be said to such a one? "Yes, we are full of unbelief, are we not? What's the remedy? Come to Him who will in no wise cast you out! Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you!" All this is to say--point him to Christ, not to himself (except insofar as you call him to repentance, which is what we are to do when we see ourselves). 

What we do is preach Christ in all His merits and mediation and call men to trust in Him: we set Him forth in the all-sufficiency of His person and work and freely offer Him to all who hear. We show the warrant of faith from the free gospel offer to all who hear: why should you believe? Because He calls you to believe, because He commands you to believe, and because He does, he enables and empowers you to believe. Thus we set Him forth in all His glory and tell sinners that Christ has done everything for them from first to last and they need to flee to Him, look to Him, lean upon Him and none other. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

So we should simply tell people to repent and believe and not ever tell them to pray that the Lord would enable them to do so?

If they are seeking or doubting, does this still hold true or might we tell them to pray that the Lord opens their eyes and removes their unbelief?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Trevor,
Did you look at a recent thread on the subject of prayers of the unregenerate? It might help w/ your question:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-god-hear-prayers-unbelievers-84836/


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I agree with Scott, Trevor: the answer lies in that thread and also somewhere like WLC 172. If one doubts, one is to be pointed to Christ. If one seeks, one is to be pointed to Christ. Not to seek some experience.

The hymn "Come Ye Sinners, Poor and Needy" well expresses the proper sentiment. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW

As long as the sinner is called upon to believe it is proper to show him the use of prayer as a means of grace as a part of answering the doubts which arise from an inability to believe by nature.


----------



## MW

From William Guthrie, Christian's Great Interest:

"Therefore, for answer to the objection, I entreat thee, in the Lord's name, to lay to heart these his commandments and promises, and meditate on them, and upon that blessed business of the new covenant, and pray unto God, as you can, over them, "for he will be inquired to do these things," and lay thy cold heart to that device of God expressed in the Scripture, and unto Christ Jesus, who is given for a covenant to the people, and look to him for life and quickening. Go and endeavour to be pleased with that salvation in the way God offers it, and to close with, and rest on Christ for it, as if all were in thy power; yet looking to him for the thing, as knowing that it must come from him; and if thou do so, "he who meets those who remember him in his ways," will not be wanting on his part; and thou shalt not have ground to say, that thou movedst towards the thing until thou couldst do no more for want of strength, and so left it at God's door: it shall not fail on his part, if thou have a mind for the business; yea, I may say, if by all thou hast ever heard of that matter, thy heart loves it, and desires to be engaged with it, thou hast it already performed within thee: so that difficulty is past before thou wast aware of it."


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

Your OP dealt quite specifically with the question of preaching and to what we are to exhort people in preaching. You said "Should we beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just beseech sinners to believe?" You put the question quite pointedly as an either/or. We are to call sinners to believe, I responded. I stand by that.

You responded by continuing to pose this as a dichotomy. I responded by noting that we call men to trust in Christ. Not to look to something else. Do I tell men, as part of what it means to come to Christ, to trust in Christ, to use the means of grace? Of course, I do; the means of grace are key in this: when I receive the preaching of the Word in faith, I draw near and come to Christ; similarly for the Supper and for prayer. Coming to the Table and praying in faith both involve trusting Christ. So, of course, I tell hearers to use the means of grace (in response to what MW is saying). 

I urge hearers to pray for faith, to pray to pray when they can't pray, and so forth. I urge those coming to the Table to bewail their lack of faith and to come in faith. But none of this quite amounts to "asking God for a new heart." *It all presupposes a new heart.* So does seeing and lamenting one's doubt. So does seeking the Lord (otherwise, there are none who seek Him, Romans 3).

I stand resolutely by what I've said here and beseech all readers to see and think about the difference between saying to those to whom I am preaching, "Come to Christ, poor needy sinners" and "pray and ask God to give you a new heart." One is the gospel invitation and bears the warrant of the gospel. The other points you to ponder "Do I have a new heart?" That is not the pattern of apostolic preaching. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Dr Strange,

Thanks for your comments. I consider myself evangelistic and I would hate to think I am appealing to people in a way that puts up hindrances to the seeker or the hearer. 

I do believe it is the duty of all men to pray, even unbelievers. The debate over whether God hears the prayers of unbelievers or not is a secondary issue for me since it seems clear that prayer is demanded from all.

I also believe that we are to urge unbelievers to pray for salvation, i.e., to pray for true faith and true repentance. This does not mean that I also do not urge them to exercise true faith and true repentance. In the past I have stated that "You must truly believe and truly repent" and I have sometimes added that if they think that they cannot presently do those two things, that they ought to pray that the Lord enable them to do so. I have also sometimes explained that there is nothing that keeps them from salvation except their own will and desire not to come. 

Do you find anything objectionable in those statements?


You wrote:



> I urge hearers to pray for faith, to pray to pray when they can't pray, and so forth. I urge those coming to the Table to bewail their lack of faith and to come in faith.



How is urging hearers to pray for faith any different than urging hearers to pray for a new heart? Why is it okay to pray for one and not the other, since to urge hearers to pray for one seems the same as to pray for the other? It sounds like my practice is very close to yours.

Also,
How are we to take Jeremiah 31:18, where Jeremiah represents penitent Ephraim as beseeching God so to prepare him that he may indeed "turn."



> turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.



How are we to understand David's prayer in Psalm 51:



> Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.



Would it not have been better for Jeremiah to represent Ephraim merely saying, "I'm gonna turn" or David saying, "Seeing that the desire in me for You to renew a right spirit within me is already evidence of your present working, I'm gonna get better..."


----------



## Don Kistler

The Puritan Thomas Goodwin, and various others, said, "If you can't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one."


----------



## Pergamum

Don Kistler said:


> The Puritan Thomas Goodwin, and various others, said, "If you can't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one."



I really like that. Do you have a citation? I have also read Gerstner a lot where he explains how Jonathan Edwards appealed to sinners. 

I agree that there is an immediacy required for people to repent and believe and take no excuse for delays. I am wondering if my current practice is consistent with that immediacy or if I need to refine how I appeal to hearers.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

I've always appreciated your humble servant's heart. I also appreciate your response here. 

Perhaps I can answer what you've asked by tagging on to Dr. Kistler's excellent Goodwin quote, with which I fully agree: "If you can 't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one." 

I would always urge one to come to the Lord for everything, which is precisely what Goodwin is doing. He's urging us to come to Him. And if we do, He will never cast us out--only those who are His come to Him for a right heart. Similarly only those who are His can cry "make me yours, Lord." If to seek Him in this needy and helpless way is not coming to Him, I don't know what coming to Him is. One can't pray "give me a new heart" without having a heart to do so. We do believe in total inability. The one who cries out to God, comes to God. He may be full of doubt and every sort of thing, but there's no proper asking God for anything without doing so in faith.

MW often quotes Boston and if there's anyone who knew that you ought not "to let conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream" and "the only fitness He requireth is to feel your need of Him," and "if you tarry til your better, you will never come at all" it was Boston. Yes, come and seek Him for everything needed but in so doing you manifest that you are His and have all that you need in Him. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Alan D. Strange said:


> Yes, come and seek Him for everything needed but in so doing you manifest that you are His and have all that you need in Him.


 <--- this, indeed.


----------



## Pergamum

Alan D. Strange said:


> Trevor:
> 
> I've always appreciated your humble servant's heart. I also appreciate your response here.
> 
> Perhaps I can answer what you've asked by tagging on to Dr. Kistler's excellent Goodwin quote, with which I fully agree: "If you can 't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one."
> 
> I would always urge one to come to the Lord for everything, which is precisely what Goodwin is doing. He's urging us to come to Him. And if we do, He will never cast us out--only those who are His come to Him for a right heart. Similarly only those who are His can cry "make me yours, Lord." If to seek Him in this needy and helpless way is not coming to Him, I don't know what coming to Him is. One can't pray "give me a new heart" without having a heart to do so. We do believe in total inability. The one who cries out to God, comes to God. He may be full of doubt and every sort of thing, but there's no proper asking God for anything without doing so in faith.
> 
> MW often quotes Boston and if there's anyone who knew that you ought not "to let conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream" and "the only fitness He requireth is to feel your need of Him," and "if you tarry til your better, you will never come at all" it was Boston. Yes, come and seek Him for everything needed but in so doing you manifest that you are His and have all that you need in Him.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thanks for your guidance.

You wrote that you agree fully with the quote below:



> "If you can 't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one."



This quote seems to imply to me that we are doing nothing wrong if we pray to God for a new heart or we point others to do the same in our preaching. Am I missing something here?

I do not believe that all those uttering prayers such as, "Lord, help me believe" or "Lord, give me a new heart" already, in fact, have a new heart. 

Many say these things with mixed motives or in a time of great need, thus praying out of a love for self rather than a love for God (i.e., the sailor at sea who seems to pray fervently and repent, only to return to his misdeeds once good weather returns). Or some pray these things with true sincerity but have a false view of Christ as not fully God and fully man, etc. Many Arians in the past were profoundly sincere, yet most consider them to err to greatly to be saved until they repair their view of the person of Christ.

The prayer, "Lord help me to truly believe and truly repent, and help me to have true sincerity and understanding as I ask these things" seems like appropriate prayer, does it not?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

Anyone praying "God give me a new heart" or the like _in faith _ is, *by such*, coming to Christ and evidencing that he has a new heart. Of course, one may not only pray "Lord, help me believe" but also "Lord, I hereby come to you" and not do so in faith. Whatever one does in faith, one does as a gift of God. Whatever one does that is not in faith, and that includes teaching and/or preaching in a confessional seminary or church, is not truly coming to Christ. 

Any true calling on God is efficacious. But what we don't want to do is to ask people to look for a certain experience rather than to look to Christ. "Mixed motives"--really? Do you think that any of us have pure motives? The best of us are always mixed, as we have remaining sin. I grant you that we bewail our mixed motives, as we do all of our sin, but I preach "come to Christ" not some version of "come to Christ if you are the elect," which always leaves the honest person looking to himself not Christ. 

Whenever we look at ourselves--we should repent; whenever we look at Christ--we should believe. Tell people all you want to cry out to God for this--any such crying out with a believing heart involves coming to Christ. Do you believe that the one who cried out--"I believe; help my unbelief?" was believing or unbelieving. Clearly, he was believing. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Dr Strange:

I agree that "Anyone praying "God give me a new heart" or the like IN FAITH is, by such, coming to Christ and evidencing that he has a new heart." However, the phrase "in faith" is sometimes a hard diagnosis to make. 

There are people who pray this prayer as unsaved people and still yet remain unsaved afterwards. This is due to lack of pure motives, praying outwardly but not totally believing it inwardly, possessing only a partial and temporary resolve, lack of knowing the basics of the Gospel or who Jesus is, entertaining grossly errant view of God or Jesus, etc. They do not pray this prayer "in faith" and yet believe that they have. People may even deceive themselves. They may feel moved or under conviction and pray and yet emerge out the other side of this time period to prove themselves to be apostate. These apostates may truly believe themselves to have been truly saved and may have believed themselves to have been praying in all correctness and sincerity with pure motives. Because of such, I do not yet believe that all those who pray for the new birth actually have it and I believe that it is impossible to diagnose whether such a prayer was ever prayed "in faith" or not until we come to the Final Judgment.

I agree that we ought not to do anything to point the person to a past experience, yet even the question, "Have you yet truly believed?" may do this, for it forces the hearer to consider himself and to consider whether he has ever truly, in fact, believed and repented. The new birth does, indeed, happen at a moment in time and it seems useful to make the hearer ponder as to whether such a thing has ever yet truly happened to them. Although, it is the believer's present belief that is important, not some past act. How do I fit these two things together? There are so many people who believe they are okay and yet are living under the power of sin and have never truly been converted. How do we wake them up?

I still believe it is appropriate for all those interested in the Gospel (whether such an interest is born out of a converted heart or not) to pray, "Lord, save me" or "Lord, grant me saving faith" or "Lord, help me to believe." I am having trouble understanding how such a prayer could be deficient in any way, except that it might remove the immediacy required...and yet, I recognize that some people who hear the Gospel are not yet ready/willing to believe but are curious. I even believe that some hearers may like and want to believe the Gospel and are enamored by it, and yet are not yet saved ("That is a beautiful story....it is moving...I just wish it were true....I wish I could believe in it. if it is true, Lord, I want to believe it!"). Do you acknowledge that such scenarios might exist? 

I believe I was saved at 18, yet for several months prior to that point of true conversion, I began to understand the Gospel and wished that it was true even when I doubted whether it was or not. "This is a wonderful story...if only I could believe that it were true!" was often my sentiment.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> Dr Strange:
> 
> I agree that "Anyone praying "God give me a new heart" or the like IN FAITH is, by such, coming to Christ and evidencing that he has a new heart." However, the phrase "in faith" is sometimes a hard diagnosis to make.
> 
> There are people who pray this prayer as unsaved people and still yet remain unsaved afterwards. This is due to lack of pure motives, praying outwardly but not totally believing it inwardly, possessing only a partial and temporary resolve, lack of knowing the basics of the Gospel or who Jesus is, entertaining grossly errant view of God or Jesus, etc. They do not pray this prayer "in faith" and yet believe that they have. People may even deceive themselves. They may feel moved or under conviction and pray and yet emerge out the other side of this time period to prove themselves to be apostate. These apostates may truly believe themselves to have been truly saved and may have believed themselves to have been praying in all correctness and sincerity with pure motives. Because of such, I do not yet believe that all those who pray for the new birth actually have it and I believe that it is impossible to diagnose whether such a prayer was ever prayed "in faith" or not until we come to the Final Judgment.
> 
> I agree that we ought not to do anything to point the person to a past experience, yet even the question, "Have you yet truly believed?" may do this, for it forces the hearer to consider himself and to consider whether he has ever truly, in fact, believed and repented. The new birth does, indeed, happen at a moment in time and it seems useful to make the hearer ponder as to whether such a thing has ever yet truly happened to them. Although, it is the believer's present belief that is important, not some past act. How do I fit these two things together? There are so many people who believe they are okay and yet are living under the power of sin and have never truly been converted. How do we wake them up?
> 
> I still believe it is appropriate for all those interested in the Gospel (whether such an interest is born out of a converted heart or not) to pray, "Lord, save me" or "Lord, grant me saving faith" or "Lord, help me to believe." I am having trouble understanding how such a prayer could be deficient in any way, except that it might remove the immediacy required...and yet, I recognize that some people who hear the Gospel are not yet ready/willing to believe but are curious. I even believe that some hearers may like and want to believe the Gospel and are enamored by it, and yet are not yet saved ("That is a beautiful story....it is moving...I just wish it were true....I wish I could believe in it. if it is true, Lord, I want to believe it!"). Do you acknowledge that such scenarios might exist?
> 
> I believe I was saved at 18, yet for several months prior to that point of true conversion, I began to understand the Gospel and wished that it was true even when I doubted whether it was or not. "This is a wonderful story...if only I could believe that it were true!" was often my sentiment.





> I began to understand the Gospel



Is it possible that you were regenerated at this point, but not converted? A man cannot *understand* things of the kingdom outside of regeneration.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott,

I believe that the Spirit often does some "ploughing work" before that seed is planted. The Spirit draws people, and some conversions are the result of many years of such slow drawing. Many folks begin to apprehend some of the things of God prior to conversion. I believe that a man can, indeed, understand some of the things of the kingdom outside of regeneration.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Pergamum said:


> I believe I was saved at 18, yet for several months prior to that point of true conversion, I began to understand the Gospel and wished that it was true even when I doubted whether it was or not. "This is a wonderful story...if only I could believe that it were true!" was often my sentiment.



That is quite similar to my story, Trevor. What I've since come to see is that I have no clear way of knowing precisely when I believed in that time period. I do know when I first came to an assurance that Christ died for me. But that's not to say that I was not already in the exercise of faith. We can be in the exercise of faith and not know that we are in the excercise of faith. That's just what our Confession says: it does not identify believing with believing that I believe. 

Yes, in some sense, as the continental Reformed say, true faith involves a confidence in Christ, which is part of trust; yet such does not necessarily involve my self-awareness of faith. I would challenge you as to your certain knowledge of when your "true conversion" occurred. You came to trust in Christ somewhere in there, though your coming to see that you were believing was not necessarily co-terminous with that. 

You note that that whether someone is truly in the exercise of faith is sometimes a "hard diagnosis." Right, this is why we engage in what's called "the judgment of charity." If someone professes to trust in the person and work of Christ, and evidences the understanding requisite for active faith in Christ as well as a life that seeks to serve the Lord, we do not try to diagnose that too closely but accept such, recognizing, as you say, that we rest all this in His hands until the Judgment Day. We even preach the evidences of true saving faith so that persons can be challenged to make sure that they truly trust in Christ, while being careful not to break bruised reeds or quench smoking flax. 

Edwards was renown for not looking for a certain narrative of grace (he admitted that he did not have the kind of conversion that many in "Old and New England did") but for teaching that "Charity and Its Fruits" was the chief evidence of saving grace.What this means is that "love to God and to neighbor" is the chief evidence of saving faith. This cuts us all to the quick, doesn't it, because the best of us (whoever that is) little evidence such. Plenty claim all sorts of conversion experiences and the like but the thing is love of God and neighbor (as far as evidences are concerned). You might find this article on Edwards interesting with regards to that: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/14-strange.pdf. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> Scott,
> 
> I believe that the Spirit often does some "ploughing work" before that seed is planted. The Spirit draws people, and some conversions are the result of many years of such slow drawing. Many folks begin to apprehend some of the things of God prior to conversion. I believe that a man can, indeed, understand some of the things of the kingdom outside of regeneration.



Trevor,
Christ said that unless a man be born from above, he cannot 'see' the kingdom of God'. I have no references biblically where I can support a 'ploughing' that you describe; as mentioned, if there is 'ploughing', it is secondary to regeneration only. God does not plow ground He will not ultimately use, hence all of the regenerate will be converted.

Spiritual things cannot be perceived by the unspiritual. Until a man be regenerated, it is mental gymnastics alone. As far as drawing goes, I believe the word used in John 6:44 and Acts 16:19 and James 2:6 use the same greek word. If I am not mistaken, in classical greek renderings it is used to describe the tugging of water from a deep well, which is not without a great effort.

Food for thought...


----------



## Pergamum

"Puritan Evangelism" by Dr. J. I. Packer



> "The Puritans taught that, as a general rule, conviction of sin, induced by, the preaching of the Law, must precede faith, since no man will or can come to Christ to be saved from sin till he knows what sins he needs saving from. It is a distinctive feature of the Puritan doctrine of conversion that this point, the need for “preparation” for faith, is so stressed. Man’s first step toward conversion must be some knowledge, of God, of himself, of his duty and of his sin. The second step is conviction, both of sinfulness and of particular sins; and the wise minister, dealing with enquirers at this stage, will try to deepen conviction and make it specific, since true and sound conviction of sin is always to a greater or less degree particularised. This leads to contrition (sorrow for and hatred of sin), which begins to burn the love of sinning out of the heart and leads to real, though as yet ineffective, attempts to break off the practice of sin in the life. Meanwhile, the wise minister, seeing that the fallow ground is now ploughed up, urges the sinner to turn to Christ. This is the right advice to give to a man who has shown that with all his heart he desires to be saved from sin; for when a man wants to be saved from sin, then it is possible for him genuinely and sincerely to receive the One who presents Himself to man as the Saviour from sin. But it is not possible otherwise; and therefore the Puritans over and over again beg ministers not to short-circuit the essential preparatory process. They must not give false encouragement to those in whom the Law has not yet done its work. It is the worst advice possible to tell a man to stop worrying about his sins and trust Christ at once if he does not yet know his sins and does not yet desire to leave them. That is the way to encourage false peace and false hopes, and to produce “gospel- hypocrites.” Throughout the whole process of preparation, from the first awakening of concern to the ultimate dawning of faith, however, the sovereignty of God must be recognised. God converts no adult without preparing him; but “God breaketh not all men’s hearts alike” (Baxter). Some conversions, as Goodwin said, are sudden; the preparation is done in a moment. Some are long-drawn-out affairs; years may pass before the seeker finds Christ and peace, as in Bunyan’s case. Sometimes great sinners experience “great meltings” (Giles Firmin) at the outset of the work of grace, while upright persons spend long periods in agonies of guilt and terror. No rule can be given as to how long, or how intensely, God will flay each sinner with the lash of conviction. Thus the work of effectual calling proceeds as fast, or as slow, as God wills; and the minister’s part is that of the midwife, whose task it is to see what is happening and give appropriate help at each stage, but who cannot foretell, let alone fix, how rapid the process of birth will be.
> 
> From these principles the Puritans deduced their characteristic conception of the practice of evangelism. Since God enlightens, convicts, humbles and converts through the the Word, the task of His messengers is to communicate that word, preaching and applying law and gospel. Preachers are to declare God’s mind as set forth in the texts they expound, to show the way of salvation, to exhort the unconverted to learn the law, to meditate on the Word, to humble themselves, to pray that God will show them their sins, and enable them to come to Christ. They are to hold Christ forth as a perfect Saviour from sin to all who Heartily desire to be saved from sin, and to invite such (the weary and burdened souls whom Christ Himself invites, Mt. 11:28) to come to the Saviour who waits to receive them.
> 
> The Puritans did not use “conversion” and “regeneration” as technical terms, and so there are slight variations in usage. Perhaps the majority treated the words as synonyms, each denoting the whole process whereby God brings the sinner to his first act of faith. Their technical term for the process was effectual calling; calling being the Scriptural word used to describe the process in Rom. 8:30, 2 Th. 2:14, 2 Tim. 1:9, etc., and the adjective effectual being added to distinguish it from the ineffectual, external calling mentioned in Mt. 20:16, 22:14."



Also, here is a link to Gerstner's book on Jonathan Edwards the evangelist:

Jonathan Edwards, Evangelist (John Gerstner (1914-1996)): John H. Gerstner, John H. Grestner: 9781573580069: Amazon.com: Books



> This book was originally published by Westminster Press in 1960 under the title Steps to Salvation: The Evangelistic Message of Jonathan Edwards. Dr. Gerstner said that it is the most extensive treatment anywhere on the Puritan doctrine on seeking, or preparation for salvation, as it explores Jonathan Edwards' evangelistic method.



It seems that "awakening" or conviction of sin often occurs prior (and sometimes for a protracted period) prior to the conversion of some people. As such, it is appropriate to speak of some people as "awakened sinners" or "inquirers" that the Lord may be dealing with and drawing them to salvation. It is not necessary to assume that all of these must be considered already born again to gain such an interest or curiosity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> It is not necessary to assume that all of these must be considered already born again to gain such an interest or curiosity.


How do you reconcile this with the plain teachings of Scripture, in that the lost...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).


----------



## Pergamum

This link also contains many quotes on a sinner's preconversion experience of conviction:

Quotes about Conviction | Puritan Paperbacks & Reformed Quotes



> This bruising is required before conversion that so the Spirit may make way for himself into the heart by leveling all proud, high thoughts, and that we may understand ourselves to be what indeed we are by nature. We love to wander from ourselves and to be strangers at home, till God bruises us by one cross or other, and then we `begin to think’, and come home to ourselves with the prodigal (Luke 15:17). It is a very hard thing to bring a dull and an evasive heart to cry with feeling for mercy. Our hearts, like criminals, until they be beaten from all evasions, never cry for the mercy of the judge.
> Again, this bruising makes us set a high price upon Christ. Then the gospel becomes the gospel indeed; then the fig leaves of morality will do us no good. And it makes us more thankful, and, from thankfulness, more fruitful in our lives; for what makes many so cold and barren, but that bruising for sin never endeared God’s grace to them?
> Likewise this dealing of God establishes us the more in his ways, having had knocks and bruisings in our own ways. This is often the cause of relapses and apostasy, because men never smarted for sin at the first; they were not long enough under the lash of the law. Hence this inferior work of the Spirit in bringing down high thoughts (2 Cor. 10:5) is necessary before conversion. And, for the most part, the Holy Spirit, to further the work of conviction, joins with it some affliction, which, when sanctified, has a healing and purging power. ~ The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes





Also of interest is this article by Dr. William Young entitled "Conversion" (Fall 1993, PRC Magazine)



> Preparation for Conversion
> 
> By Dr. William Young
> 
> 
> "The confessional declaration that the natural man is not able, by his own strength, to prepare himself for conversion has been taken by some to exclude any preparation for conversion. A careful reading of the Confession, however, will show that this inference is unwarranted. That a man cannot prepare himself for conversion certainly does not imply that God, with whom all things are possible, cannot by his common grace prepare an elect person for conversion while that person is yet in a state of nature. It does not even mean that an unconverted person may not perform duties, with the help of God, which may, in the course of providence be preparatory to his conversion. A failure to recognize this may be due to a one-sided preoccupation with the important truth of the radical difference in the state of a sinner before and after the great change.
> 
> One contributing factor in this mistake is a confusion of conversion with regeneration. A person is either spiritually dead or alive. There is no intermediate state here, but only an instantaneous change. Conversion, however, may be a process with distinguishable stages, and in a sense may admit of repetition, which is not the case with regeneration. The Apostle Peter was no doubt a converted person when the Lord said to him, “When thou art converted strengthen the brethren.” Luke 22:32. Among Reformed theologians, Maccovius (1588-1644) in his controversy with Amesius (1576-1633)[26] denied preparations to regeneration as being inconsistent with total depravity. More commonly, Calvinistic writers, and especially the Presbyterians and Puritans, have agreed with Amesius. Frequently today one hears loud repudiation of what is called “preparationism” by poorly informed Evangelicals who often fail to make the most elementary distinctions in connection with the subject. Among writers that have recognized the fact of preparations, there have been diverse views expressed, while there is basic agreement in doctrine and practice.
> 
> Samuel Rutherford has discussed the question in minute detail (see pp. 275-301 of Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, 1803 edition). Negatively, preparations are not the improvement of our natural abilities with a certain issue in conversion: even if “wrought in us by the common and restraining grace of God” they cannot produce our conversion. All such humiliation and displeasure with sin cannot please God and “can be no formal parts of conversion.” They are not moral preparation with any promise of Christ annexed to them. These antecedents to conversion do not detract from the omnipotency of free grace. One may be not far from the kingdom of God, (Mark 12:34), and yet not enter in. Protestant divines do not “make true repentance a work of the law going before faith in Christ.” Rutherford is especially concerned to defend preparations against Antinomian objections, particularly those of the Saltmarsh. Several pages of controversy are followed by a more positive exposition in which a number of interesting observations are made. First, a distinction is made as to whether one’s reason for believing is that one is a needy sinner or because one is fitted for mercy and humbled. The way of humiliation is sweetly subordinate to free pardon. Examples are given from Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, from Paul’s conversion and the argument in Romans 3. Rutherford summarizes in characteristic fashion: “Preparations are penal, to subdue; not moral to deserve a merit; nor conditional to engage Christ to convert, but to facilitate conversion.” (p. 297)
> 
> Rutherford grants that in regard of time sinners cannot come too soon to Christ, but adds “in regard of order many come too soon, and unprepared.”
> 
> A distinctive representation of preparation to conversion is found in the works of the 17th century New England Puritans. The sermons of Thomas Shepard and Thomas Hooker abound in minute descriptions of the stages of the experience of the awakened sinner prior to conversion. Detailed directions are given to those who are burdened with a sense of sin, including warning against “catching at Christ” prematurely and resting in the carnal security of the evangelical hypocrite.
> 
> The most important account of conversion in colonial New England theology is that of Jonathan Edwards, whose extensive experience of conversion in the Great Awakening is reflected in his balanced treatment of the subject. In his masterpiece on The Religious Affections, Part 2, Sec. 8, he argues for the necessity of preparation, while cautioning against misconceptions. After an exhaustive consideration of Scripture instances, he concludes: “If it be indeed God’s manner, (and I think the foregoing considerations show that it undoubtedly is) before he grants men the comfort of deliverance from their sin and misery, to give them a considerable sense of the greatness and dreadfulness of those evils, and their extreme wretchedness by reason of them; surely it is not unreasonable to suppose, that persons, at least oftentimes, while under these views, should have great distress and terrible apprehensions of mind.”
> 
> On the other hand, in agreement with Thomas Shepard, Edwards states: “It is no evidence that comforts and joys are right, because they succeed great terrors, and amazing fears of hell.” In a footnote he observes: “Mr, Stoddard, who had much experience of things of this nature, long ago observed that converted and unconverted men cannot be certainly distinguished by the account they give of their experience; the same relation of experiences being common to both.” Edwards, like Norton, also points out, “nothing proves it to be necessary, that all those things which are implied or presupposed in an act of faith in Christ, must be plainly and distinctly wrought in the soul, in so many successive and distinct works of the Spirit, that shall be each one manifest, in all who are truly converted.” Although Shepard is repeatedly cited with approval, yet Edwards appears to propose a correction to prevalent views, when he writes: “Nor does the Spirit of God proceed discernable in the steps of a particular established scheme, one half so often as is imagined.” Edward’s concluding remark is worthy of serious consideration:
> 
> “Many greatly err in their notions of a clear work of conversion; calling that a clear work, where the successive steps of influence and method of experience is clear; whereas that indeed is the clearest work, (not where the order of doing is clearest, but) where the spiritual and divine nature of the work done, and effect wrought, is most clear.” The study of Edward’s writings on the Great Awakening will prove rewarding, but especially the careful discrimination between the saving work of God’s spirit and all else, so admirably set forth in the Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In similar fashion, Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State describes minutely twelve stages in the breaking off of a branch from its natural stock. Yet he observes that he does not desire to rack or distress tender-consciences, of whom he found but few in his day. He explains: “But this I assert as a certain truth, that all who are in Christ have been broken off from these several confidences; and that those who were never broken off from them, are yet in their natural stock. Nevertheless, if the house be pulled down, and the old foundation razed, it is much the same, whether it was taken down stone by stone, or whether it was undermined, and all fell down together.” (Part 3, Head 2., p. 190 Sovereign Grace Book Club ed.)[28].
> 
> Common to the doctrine of these and many other Reformed writers is the recognition of the fact that God’s ordinary method is to prepare his elect for conversion, employing the law and the gospel to produce conviction of sin and an enlightenment of the mind to see the way of salvation in Christ. This preparatory work is common to those who are eventually converted and others who are not. It neither merits salvation not guarantees conversion, but is ordinarily an antecedent to it. God’s sovereignty in the methods he uses in performing this work is acknowledged, while due emphasis is placed upon the work performed. To overlook or minimize the importance of preparation for conversion is to encourage superficial views and practices with respect to the translation of a sinner from darkness to God’s marvelous light. A solid foundation in conviction is indispensable to a sound and lasting conversion."



Here is John Owen, in his third volume of Works (the section, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration"). 



> Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them.



John Owen, Works, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Banner, repr. 1966), p. 229


----------



## Pergamum

http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> This link also contains many quotes on a sinner's preconversion experience of conviction:
> 
> Quotes about Conviction | Puritan Paperbacks & Reformed Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This bruising is required before conversion that so the Spirit may make way for himself into the heart by leveling all proud, high thoughts, and that we may understand ourselves to be what indeed we are by nature. We love to wander from ourselves and to be strangers at home, till God bruises us by one cross or other, and then we `begin to think’, and come home to ourselves with the prodigal (Luke 15:17). It is a very hard thing to bring a dull and an evasive heart to cry with feeling for mercy. Our hearts, like criminals, until they be beaten from all evasions, never cry for the mercy of the judge.
> Again, this bruising makes us set a high price upon Christ. Then the gospel becomes the gospel indeed; then the fig leaves of morality will do us no good. And it makes us more thankful, and, from thankfulness, more fruitful in our lives; for what makes many so cold and barren, but that bruising for sin never endeared God’s grace to them?
> Likewise this dealing of God establishes us the more in his ways, having had knocks and bruisings in our own ways. This is often the cause of relapses and apostasy, because men never smarted for sin at the first; they were not long enough under the lash of the law. Hence this inferior work of the Spirit in bringing down high thoughts (2 Cor. 10:5) is necessary before conversion. And, for the most part, the Holy Spirit, to further the work of conviction, joins with it some affliction, which, when sanctified, has a healing and purging power. ~ The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also of interest is this article by Dr. William Young entitled "Conversion" (Fall 1993, PRC Magazine)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preparation for Conversion
> 
> By Dr. William Young
> 
> 
> "The confessional declaration that the natural man is not able, by his own strength, to prepare himself for conversion has been taken by some to exclude any preparation for conversion. A careful reading of the Confession, however, will show that this inference is unwarranted. That a man cannot prepare himself for conversion certainly does not imply that God, with whom all things are possible, cannot by his common grace prepare an elect person for conversion while that person is yet in a state of nature. It does not even mean that an unconverted person may not perform duties, with the help of God, which may, in the course of providence be preparatory to his conversion. A failure to recognize this may be due to a one-sided preoccupation with the important truth of the radical difference in the state of a sinner before and after the great change.
> 
> One contributing factor in this mistake is a confusion of conversion with regeneration. A person is either spiritually dead or alive. There is no intermediate state here, but only an instantaneous change. Conversion, however, may be a process with distinguishable stages, and in a sense may admit of repetition, which is not the case with regeneration. The Apostle Peter was no doubt a converted person when the Lord said to him, “When thou art converted strengthen the brethren.” Luke 22:32. Among Reformed theologians, Maccovius (1588-1644) in his controversy with Amesius (1576-1633)[26] denied preparations to regeneration as being inconsistent with total depravity. More commonly, Calvinistic writers, and especially the Presbyterians and Puritans, have agreed with Amesius. Frequently today one hears loud repudiation of what is called “preparationism” by poorly informed Evangelicals who often fail to make the most elementary distinctions in connection with the subject. Among writers that have recognized the fact of preparations, there have been diverse views expressed, while there is basic agreement in doctrine and practice.
> 
> Samuel Rutherford has discussed the question in minute detail (see pp. 275-301 of Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, 1803 edition). Negatively, preparations are not the improvement of our natural abilities with a certain issue in conversion: even if “wrought in us by the common and restraining grace of God” they cannot produce our conversion. All such humiliation and displeasure with sin cannot please God and “can be no formal parts of conversion.” They are not moral preparation with any promise of Christ annexed to them. These antecedents to conversion do not detract from the omnipotency of free grace. One may be not far from the kingdom of God, (Mark 12:34), and yet not enter in. Protestant divines do not “make true repentance a work of the law going before faith in Christ.” Rutherford is especially concerned to defend preparations against Antinomian objections, particularly those of the Saltmarsh. Several pages of controversy are followed by a more positive exposition in which a number of interesting observations are made. First, a distinction is made as to whether one’s reason for believing is that one is a needy sinner or because one is fitted for mercy and humbled. The way of humiliation is sweetly subordinate to free pardon. Examples are given from Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, from Paul’s conversion and the argument in Romans 3. Rutherford summarizes in characteristic fashion: “Preparations are penal, to subdue; not moral to deserve a merit; nor conditional to engage Christ to convert, but to facilitate conversion.” (p. 297)
> 
> Rutherford grants that in regard of time sinners cannot come too soon to Christ, but adds “in regard of order many come too soon, and unprepared.”
> 
> A distinctive representation of preparation to conversion is found in the works of the 17th century New England Puritans. The sermons of Thomas Shepard and Thomas Hooker abound in minute descriptions of the stages of the experience of the awakened sinner prior to conversion. Detailed directions are given to those who are burdened with a sense of sin, including warning against “catching at Christ” prematurely and resting in the carnal security of the evangelical hypocrite.
> 
> The most important account of conversion in colonial New England theology is that of Jonathan Edwards, whose extensive experience of conversion in the Great Awakening is reflected in his balanced treatment of the subject. In his masterpiece on The Religious Affections, Part 2, Sec. 8, he argues for the necessity of preparation, while cautioning against misconceptions. After an exhaustive consideration of Scripture instances, he concludes: “If it be indeed God’s manner, (and I think the foregoing considerations show that it undoubtedly is) before he grants men the comfort of deliverance from their sin and misery, to give them a considerable sense of the greatness and dreadfulness of those evils, and their extreme wretchedness by reason of them; surely it is not unreasonable to suppose, that persons, at least oftentimes, while under these views, should have great distress and terrible apprehensions of mind.”
> 
> On the other hand, in agreement with Thomas Shepard, Edwards states: “It is no evidence that comforts and joys are right, because they succeed great terrors, and amazing fears of hell.” In a footnote he observes: “Mr, Stoddard, who had much experience of things of this nature, long ago observed that converted and unconverted men cannot be certainly distinguished by the account they give of their experience; the same relation of experiences being common to both.” Edwards, like Norton, also points out, “nothing proves it to be necessary, that all those things which are implied or presupposed in an act of faith in Christ, must be plainly and distinctly wrought in the soul, in so many successive and distinct works of the Spirit, that shall be each one manifest, in all who are truly converted.” Although Shepard is repeatedly cited with approval, yet Edwards appears to propose a correction to prevalent views, when he writes: “Nor does the Spirit of God proceed discernable in the steps of a particular established scheme, one half so often as is imagined.” Edward’s concluding remark is worthy of serious consideration:
> 
> “Many greatly err in their notions of a clear work of conversion; calling that a clear work, where the successive steps of influence and method of experience is clear; whereas that indeed is the clearest work, (not where the order of doing is clearest, but) where the spiritual and divine nature of the work done, and effect wrought, is most clear.” The study of Edward’s writings on the Great Awakening will prove rewarding, but especially the careful discrimination between the saving work of God’s spirit and all else, so admirably set forth in the Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In similar fashion, Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State describes minutely twelve stages in the breaking off of a branch from its natural stock. Yet he observes that he does not desire to rack or distress tender-consciences, of whom he found but few in his day. He explains: “But this I assert as a certain truth, that all who are in Christ have been broken off from these several confidences; and that those who were never broken off from them, are yet in their natural stock. Nevertheless, if the house be pulled down, and the old foundation razed, it is much the same, whether it was taken down stone by stone, or whether it was undermined, and all fell down together.” (Part 3, Head 2., p. 190 Sovereign Grace Book Club ed.)[28].
> 
> Common to the doctrine of these and many other Reformed writers is the recognition of the fact that God’s ordinary method is to prepare his elect for conversion, employing the law and the gospel to produce conviction of sin and an enlightenment of the mind to see the way of salvation in Christ. This preparatory work is common to those who are eventually converted and others who are not. It neither merits salvation not guarantees conversion, but is ordinarily an antecedent to it. God’s sovereignty in the methods he uses in performing this work is acknowledged, while due emphasis is placed upon the work performed. To overlook or minimize the importance of preparation for conversion is to encourage superficial views and practices with respect to the translation of a sinner from darkness to God’s marvelous light. A solid foundation in conviction is indispensable to a sound and lasting conversion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is John Owen, in his third volume of Works (the section, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Owen, Works, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Banner, repr. 1966), p. 229
Click to expand...


Trevor,
in my opinion, one must consider the order in relation to this subject. The distinction, if not considered can cause one to misinterpret what the men you quote are saying. For instance, many use the terms 'regeneration' and 'conversion' interchangeably. I have been guilty of this at times. When discussing this subject however, it must be considered. For instance:



> That a man cannot prepare himself for conversion certainly does not imply that God, with whom all things are possible, cannot by his common grace prepare an elect person for conversion while that person is yet in a state of nature.



Do the scriptures show us this? John 3 tells us no. 1 Cor 1:18 tells us that the gospel is 'foolishness' too them who are not regenerate. 1 Cor 1 tells us that God uses 'foolishness', but not in the way you intend. If man is yet unconverted, is he at enmity w/ God? In the compound sense, he may be elect; in the divided, he remains an enemy. Did God use the torment of Paul's persecution of believers in the regeneration and conversion of Paul? Well, yea in his witness after his conversion; but prior to that, it played no part in the decree to regenerate and convert Paul on that Damascus road. I believe Young is speaking about regeneration vs conversion specifically. This is why, in my personal walk, I have struggled when men tell me that the order is not chronological; in some instances, it can be. For example, a child regenerated in the womb......


----------



## Toasty

Tell sinners to repent of their sins and to trust Jesus for salvation.


----------



## deleteduser99

Pergamum said:


> Should we beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just beseech sinners to believe?
> 
> Last month I received a mild critique of one of my sermons. Here is it in paraphrase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the sermon when you were appealing to the lost you told them to "pray and ask God for a new heart" or something like that. I know what you mean by saying it, I have said it to people to probably, but Brother T-- has pointed out to our church that this isn't actually found in the scriptures. He actually said that it is a wrong conclusion from God's sovereignty. He said that in the scriptures they never say, ask the Lord to save you, they say to believe immediately.
> 
> Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
> Another example of a call to immediate response it
> 
> Acts 2:37-38
> 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
> 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
> 
> brother T-- was actually teaching us that to tell the sinner to ask God to save them, or something of that nature can give the person an excuse not to come to Christ or can hinder them from it. The sinner supposedly prays for the Lord to save them and then when he doesn't he blames the Lord for not saving them. Or they are made to feel that they have time to repent because they are waiting on the Lord to save them since they've heard it's a sovereign work of God. He was saying that we are to call people to immediate believe as we see in the new testament. To press people with their responsibility to believe immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think? My mind goes immediately to the man in the Gospels that says, "O Lord I believe, but help my unbelief..." Would the correct response have been to have simply said, "Well..then just believe then!"
> 
> Is there anything wrong with imploring sinners in a sermon to pray that the Lord grants them saving faith or should we just tell them then and there to believe savingly?
Click to expand...




Pergamum said:


> It seems that "awakening" or conviction of sin often occurs prior (and sometimes for a protracted period) prior to the conversion of some people. As such, it is appropriate to speak of some people as "awakened sinners" or "inquirers" that the Lord may be dealing with and drawing them to salvation. It is not necessary to assume that all of these must be considered already born again to gain such an interest or curiosity.



This is a subject that's been on my mind a lot in the past few months because I know the church you attended and I heard some messages preached by "Brother T--" on this matter.

As I thought on the comments made in his messages I've come to agree more. John 3:18 says, "He who believes is not condemned; he who believes not is condemned already." As long as a sinner is not believing and repenting they are living in sin whether or not God has given them a new heart; therefore they are to flee _immediately_ to Christ. The stage of "seeking" is not a safe one, assuming the one labeled a seeker is not converted yet, but the wrath of God abides on them.

I do believe God uses preparatory work. He did it with me. He did it with the crowds in Acts 2 who murdered Christ by convicting them with the law first before the way of salvation was opened to them.

However, knowledge of the Puritan doctrine of preparation for grace is dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands. What often happens is an awakened sinner or Christian lacking assurance gets hold of the Puritan teachings on preparation and they interpret them as steps they need to take before they may trust on Christ. They say "I haven't had the John Bunyan style conversion" or "I never felt like I was living in hell above ground", and so their efforts turn into getting this experience. And when they find that their conviction of sin is small, their repentance isn't as deep as others (or they don't see any), that there is still pride in their hearts, or they haven't wept enough they conclude they are not saved. They then focus their efforts on trying to exercise those graces so God might reward them with salvation. They try to increase their sincerity, resignation to God's sovereignty, humility, etc. They catch at everything but the finished work of Christ. If they would look to Christ they would be saved immediately, yet that's the one thing they are not doing.

I wonder if the seeker's praying for a new heart is similar. It's not that they trust Christ, but they trust the new heart. "Well, these graces of resignation, humility and sincerity come with a new heart; so if I get the new heart I will have grounds to trust Christ!" But until they look to Christ, regardless what they see in their hearts, they are not safe.


----------



## Pilgrim

If I'm not mistaken, it was "just beseeching sinners to believe" that got Mr. Spurgeon into trouble with the hyper-Calvinists.


----------



## deleteduser99

Pilgrim said:


> If I'm not mistaken, it was "just beseeching sinners to believe" that got Mr. Spurgeon into trouble with the hyper-Calvinists.



Sermons like this one?

Sermon No. 361 - "None But Jesus" - (John 3:18)

The sermon is applicable to our discussion too.


----------



## MW

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:543: "Pray earnestly for the Spirit, Luke 11:13. God has made a promise of the Spirit, and gives that as a ground of your prayer for him; Ezek. 36:27, 37, “A new Spirit will I put within you… I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them.” And although God regard not prayer as performed by one without the Spirit, yet he regards it as a means and ordinance of his own appointment, whereby the Spirit is conveyed into the hearts of his elect."

Works, 2:561-562: "Objection. But it is needless for them to pray, since they cannot pray acceptably. Answer. No: for it is a mean of grace, and an ordinance of God; and though God have no respect to it as it is their performance, yet he may have respect to it as it is his own ordinance, and do good to them by it. The matter lies here: they are neither to continue in their sinful state, nor to satisfy themselves with their praying in that condition, but come out of it, and join themselves to God’s family, and so they will come to pray acceptably."


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I'm with you fellers.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I was in a church very guarded against presumption- totally toxic...... God delivered me to a more faithful one!

The Old Life | SermonAudio.com


----------



## Mushroom

So much peering into the secret things of God seems pointless. Preach the Gospel. Call sinners to repentance. Proclaim Christ.

1Co 2:1-2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. (2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


----------



## Pergamum

Harley said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we beseech sinners to ask the Lord to enable them to believe or just beseech sinners to believe?
> 
> Last month I received a mild critique of one of my sermons. Here is it in paraphrase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the sermon when you were appealing to the lost you told them to "pray and ask God for a new heart" or something like that. I know what you mean by saying it, I have said it to people to probably, but Brother T-- has pointed out to our church that this isn't actually found in the scriptures. He actually said that it is a wrong conclusion from God's sovereignty. He said that in the scriptures they never say, ask the Lord to save you, they say to believe immediately.
> 
> Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
> Another example of a call to immediate response it
> 
> Acts 2:37-38
> 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
> 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
> 
> brother T-- was actually teaching us that to tell the sinner to ask God to save them, or something of that nature can give the person an excuse not to come to Christ or can hinder them from it. The sinner supposedly prays for the Lord to save them and then when he doesn't he blames the Lord for not saving them. Or they are made to feel that they have time to repent because they are waiting on the Lord to save them since they've heard it's a sovereign work of God. He was saying that we are to call people to immediate believe as we see in the new testament. To press people with their responsibility to believe immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think? My mind goes immediately to the man in the Gospels that says, "O Lord I believe, but help my unbelief..." Would the correct response have been to have simply said, "Well..then just believe then!"
> 
> Is there anything wrong with imploring sinners in a sermon to pray that the Lord grants them saving faith or should we just tell them then and there to believe savingly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that "awakening" or conviction of sin often occurs prior (and sometimes for a protracted period) prior to the conversion of some people. As such, it is appropriate to speak of some people as "awakened sinners" or "inquirers" that the Lord may be dealing with and drawing them to salvation. It is not necessary to assume that all of these must be considered already born again to gain such an interest or curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a subject that's been on my mind a lot in the past few months because I know the church you attended and I heard some messages preached by "Brother T--" on this matter.
> 
> As I thought on the comments made in his messages I've come to agree more. John 3:18 says, "He who believes is not condemned; he who believes not is condemned already." As long as a sinner is not believing and repenting they are living in sin whether or not God has given them a new heart; therefore they are to flee _immediately_ to Christ. The stage of "seeking" is not a safe one, assuming the one labeled a seeker is not converted yet, but the wrath of God abides on them.
> 
> I do believe God uses preparatory work. He did it with me. He did it with the crowds in Acts 2 who murdered Christ by convicting them with the law first before the way of salvation was opened to them.
> 
> However, knowledge of the Puritan doctrine of preparation for grace is dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands. What often happens is an awakened sinner or Christian lacking assurance gets hold of the Puritan teachings on preparation and they interpret them as steps they need to take before they may trust on Christ. They say "I haven't had the John Bunyan style conversion" or "I never felt like I was living in hell above ground", and so their efforts turn into getting this experience. And when they find that their conviction of sin is small, their repentance isn't as deep as others (or they don't see any), that there is still pride in their hearts, or they haven't wept enough they conclude they are not saved. They then focus their efforts on trying to exercise those graces so God might reward them with salvation. They try to increase their sincerity, resignation to God's sovereignty, humility, etc. They catch at everything but the finished work of Christ. If they would look to Christ they would be saved immediately, yet that's the one thing they are not doing.
> 
> I wonder if the seeker's praying for a new heart is similar. It's not that they trust Christ, but they trust the new heart. "Well, these graces of resignation, humility and sincerity come with a new heart; so if I get the new heart I will have grounds to trust Christ!" But until they look to Christ, regardless what they see in their hearts, they are not safe.
Click to expand...


Great explanation.


----------



## Pergamum

MW said:


> Thomas Boston, Works, 1:543: "Pray earnestly for the Spirit, Luke 11:13. God has made a promise of the Spirit, and gives that as a ground of your prayer for him; Ezek. 36:27, 37, “A new Spirit will I put within you… I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them.” And although God regard not prayer as performed by one without the Spirit, yet he regards it as a means and ordinance of his own appointment, whereby the Spirit is conveyed into the hearts of his elect."
> 
> Works, 2:561-562: "Objection. But it is needless for them to pray, since they cannot pray acceptably. Answer. No: for it is a mean of grace, and an ordinance of God; and though God have no respect to it as it is their performance, yet he may have respect to it as it is his own ordinance, and do good to them by it. The matter lies here: they are neither to continue in their sinful state, nor to satisfy themselves with their praying in that condition, but come out of it, and join themselves to God’s family, and so they will come to pray acceptably."



Yes! Thank you so much for that quote.


----------



## Pergamum

Harley said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, it was "just beseeching sinners to believe" that got Mr. Spurgeon into trouble with the hyper-Calvinists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sermons like this one?
> 
> Sermon No. 361 - "None But Jesus" - (John 3:18)
> 
> The sermon is applicable to our discussion too.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the Spurgeon sermon, gonna read it today.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott Bushey said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link also contains many quotes on a sinner's preconversion experience of conviction:
> 
> Quotes about Conviction | Puritan Paperbacks & Reformed Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This bruising is required before conversion that so the Spirit may make way for himself into the heart by leveling all proud, high thoughts, and that we may understand ourselves to be what indeed we are by nature. We love to wander from ourselves and to be strangers at home, till God bruises us by one cross or other, and then we `begin to think’, and come home to ourselves with the prodigal (Luke 15:17). It is a very hard thing to bring a dull and an evasive heart to cry with feeling for mercy. Our hearts, like criminals, until they be beaten from all evasions, never cry for the mercy of the judge.
> Again, this bruising makes us set a high price upon Christ. Then the gospel becomes the gospel indeed; then the fig leaves of morality will do us no good. And it makes us more thankful, and, from thankfulness, more fruitful in our lives; for what makes many so cold and barren, but that bruising for sin never endeared God’s grace to them?
> Likewise this dealing of God establishes us the more in his ways, having had knocks and bruisings in our own ways. This is often the cause of relapses and apostasy, because men never smarted for sin at the first; they were not long enough under the lash of the law. Hence this inferior work of the Spirit in bringing down high thoughts (2 Cor. 10:5) is necessary before conversion. And, for the most part, the Holy Spirit, to further the work of conviction, joins with it some affliction, which, when sanctified, has a healing and purging power. ~ The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also of interest is this article by Dr. William Young entitled "Conversion" (Fall 1993, PRC Magazine)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preparation for Conversion
> 
> By Dr. William Young
> 
> 
> "The confessional declaration that the natural man is not able, by his own strength, to prepare himself for conversion has been taken by some to exclude any preparation for conversion. A careful reading of the Confession, however, will show that this inference is unwarranted. That a man cannot prepare himself for conversion certainly does not imply that God, with whom all things are possible, cannot by his common grace prepare an elect person for conversion while that person is yet in a state of nature. It does not even mean that an unconverted person may not perform duties, with the help of God, which may, in the course of providence be preparatory to his conversion. A failure to recognize this may be due to a one-sided preoccupation with the important truth of the radical difference in the state of a sinner before and after the great change.
> 
> One contributing factor in this mistake is a confusion of conversion with regeneration. A person is either spiritually dead or alive. There is no intermediate state here, but only an instantaneous change. Conversion, however, may be a process with distinguishable stages, and in a sense may admit of repetition, which is not the case with regeneration. The Apostle Peter was no doubt a converted person when the Lord said to him, “When thou art converted strengthen the brethren.” Luke 22:32. Among Reformed theologians, Maccovius (1588-1644) in his controversy with Amesius (1576-1633)[26] denied preparations to regeneration as being inconsistent with total depravity. More commonly, Calvinistic writers, and especially the Presbyterians and Puritans, have agreed with Amesius. Frequently today one hears loud repudiation of what is called “preparationism” by poorly informed Evangelicals who often fail to make the most elementary distinctions in connection with the subject. Among writers that have recognized the fact of preparations, there have been diverse views expressed, while there is basic agreement in doctrine and practice.
> 
> Samuel Rutherford has discussed the question in minute detail (see pp. 275-301 of Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, 1803 edition). Negatively, preparations are not the improvement of our natural abilities with a certain issue in conversion: even if “wrought in us by the common and restraining grace of God” they cannot produce our conversion. All such humiliation and displeasure with sin cannot please God and “can be no formal parts of conversion.” They are not moral preparation with any promise of Christ annexed to them. These antecedents to conversion do not detract from the omnipotency of free grace. One may be not far from the kingdom of God, (Mark 12:34), and yet not enter in. Protestant divines do not “make true repentance a work of the law going before faith in Christ.” Rutherford is especially concerned to defend preparations against Antinomian objections, particularly those of the Saltmarsh. Several pages of controversy are followed by a more positive exposition in which a number of interesting observations are made. First, a distinction is made as to whether one’s reason for believing is that one is a needy sinner or because one is fitted for mercy and humbled. The way of humiliation is sweetly subordinate to free pardon. Examples are given from Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, from Paul’s conversion and the argument in Romans 3. Rutherford summarizes in characteristic fashion: “Preparations are penal, to subdue; not moral to deserve a merit; nor conditional to engage Christ to convert, but to facilitate conversion.” (p. 297)
> 
> Rutherford grants that in regard of time sinners cannot come too soon to Christ, but adds “in regard of order many come too soon, and unprepared.”
> 
> A distinctive representation of preparation to conversion is found in the works of the 17th century New England Puritans. The sermons of Thomas Shepard and Thomas Hooker abound in minute descriptions of the stages of the experience of the awakened sinner prior to conversion. Detailed directions are given to those who are burdened with a sense of sin, including warning against “catching at Christ” prematurely and resting in the carnal security of the evangelical hypocrite.
> 
> The most important account of conversion in colonial New England theology is that of Jonathan Edwards, whose extensive experience of conversion in the Great Awakening is reflected in his balanced treatment of the subject. In his masterpiece on The Religious Affections, Part 2, Sec. 8, he argues for the necessity of preparation, while cautioning against misconceptions. After an exhaustive consideration of Scripture instances, he concludes: “If it be indeed God’s manner, (and I think the foregoing considerations show that it undoubtedly is) before he grants men the comfort of deliverance from their sin and misery, to give them a considerable sense of the greatness and dreadfulness of those evils, and their extreme wretchedness by reason of them; surely it is not unreasonable to suppose, that persons, at least oftentimes, while under these views, should have great distress and terrible apprehensions of mind.”
> 
> On the other hand, in agreement with Thomas Shepard, Edwards states: “It is no evidence that comforts and joys are right, because they succeed great terrors, and amazing fears of hell.” In a footnote he observes: “Mr, Stoddard, who had much experience of things of this nature, long ago observed that converted and unconverted men cannot be certainly distinguished by the account they give of their experience; the same relation of experiences being common to both.” Edwards, like Norton, also points out, “nothing proves it to be necessary, that all those things which are implied or presupposed in an act of faith in Christ, must be plainly and distinctly wrought in the soul, in so many successive and distinct works of the Spirit, that shall be each one manifest, in all who are truly converted.” Although Shepard is repeatedly cited with approval, yet Edwards appears to propose a correction to prevalent views, when he writes: “Nor does the Spirit of God proceed discernable in the steps of a particular established scheme, one half so often as is imagined.” Edward’s concluding remark is worthy of serious consideration:
> 
> “Many greatly err in their notions of a clear work of conversion; calling that a clear work, where the successive steps of influence and method of experience is clear; whereas that indeed is the clearest work, (not where the order of doing is clearest, but) where the spiritual and divine nature of the work done, and effect wrought, is most clear.” The study of Edward’s writings on the Great Awakening will prove rewarding, but especially the careful discrimination between the saving work of God’s spirit and all else, so admirably set forth in the Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In similar fashion, Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State describes minutely twelve stages in the breaking off of a branch from its natural stock. Yet he observes that he does not desire to rack or distress tender-consciences, of whom he found but few in his day. He explains: “But this I assert as a certain truth, that all who are in Christ have been broken off from these several confidences; and that those who were never broken off from them, are yet in their natural stock. Nevertheless, if the house be pulled down, and the old foundation razed, it is much the same, whether it was taken down stone by stone, or whether it was undermined, and all fell down together.” (Part 3, Head 2., p. 190 Sovereign Grace Book Club ed.)[28].
> 
> Common to the doctrine of these and many other Reformed writers is the recognition of the fact that God’s ordinary method is to prepare his elect for conversion, employing the law and the gospel to produce conviction of sin and an enlightenment of the mind to see the way of salvation in Christ. This preparatory work is common to those who are eventually converted and others who are not. It neither merits salvation not guarantees conversion, but is ordinarily an antecedent to it. God’s sovereignty in the methods he uses in performing this work is acknowledged, while due emphasis is placed upon the work performed. To overlook or minimize the importance of preparation for conversion is to encourage superficial views and practices with respect to the translation of a sinner from darkness to God’s marvelous light. A solid foundation in conviction is indispensable to a sound and lasting conversion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is John Owen, in his third volume of Works (the section, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Owen, Works, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Banner, repr. 1966), p. 229
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trevor,
> in my opinion, one must consider the order in relation to this subject. The distinction, if not considered can cause one to misinterpret what the men you quote are saying. For instance, many use the terms 'regeneration' and 'conversion' interchangeably. I have been guilty of this at times. When discussing this subject however, it must be considered. For instance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That a man cannot prepare himself for conversion certainly does not imply that God, with whom all things are possible, cannot by his common grace prepare an elect person for conversion while that person is yet in a state of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the scriptures show us this? John 3 tells us no. 1 Cor 1:18 tells us that the gospel is 'foolishness' too them who are not regenerate. 1 Cor 1 tells us that God uses 'foolishness', but not in the way you intend. If man is yet unconverted, is he at enmity w/ God? In the compound sense, he may be elect; in the divided, he remains an enemy. Did God use the torment of Paul's persecution of believers in the regeneration and conversion of Paul? Well, yea in his witness after his conversion; but prior to that, it played no part in the decree to regenerate and convert Paul on that Damascus road. I believe Young is speaking about regeneration vs conversion specifically. This is why, in my personal walk, I have struggled when men tell me that the order is not chronological; in some instances, it can be. For example, a child regenerated in the womb......
Click to expand...


It is hard for me to hold this position for it seems to entail that there are some who are regenerate who lack faith or that the new birth comes first and then a long time afterwards belief may lag behind and finally catch up. 

I suppose some difficulty is relieved if we posit infant faith (which I am somewhat ready to accept). Faith is the bridge that links us to Christ. Therefore, no faith=no regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> It is hard for me to hold this position for it seems to entail that there are some who are regenerate who lack faith or that the new birth comes first and then a long time afterwards belief may lag behind and finally catch up.
> 
> I suppose some difficulty is relieved if we posit infant faith (which I am somewhat ready to accept). Faith is the bridge that links us to Christ. Therefore, no faith=no regeneration.



Did John the Baptist have 'faith' in the womb or did he acquire it under the preached word later? I guess one could argue that John's situation is not typical or God could preach to Him Himself in the womb and convert him right there, but thats not the standard we can draw from. The Presbyterian believes some of our infants are elect. Many have what is called 'seeds of faith'. Are these seeds a form of conversion? I believe that the gospel must be preached to all for conversion to occur. I say this as a general mandate. Infants dying in the womb are not saved any differently x for the fact that it is Christ Himself who delivers that message.


----------



## Pergamum

It is hard to argue anything from John the Baptist's womb scenario, but I know John the Baptist leapt in there....which seems to be a volitional act. Luke 1:44 says that he did this out of "joy."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> It is hard to argue anything from John the Baptist's womb scenario, but I know John the Baptist leapt in there....which seems to be a volitional act. Luke 1:44 says that he did this out of "joy."



Not to belabor my point, but the scriptures do say that he was 'filled with the Holy Spirit' from the womb. The point being, even John would have needed to hear the gospel to be converted as that is exactly what the scriptures tell us. He was regenerated in the womb and later, under the preached word, converted. Men must see first before spiritual things are relevant; otherwise, they are indeed, foolishness to them.

Thanks for the interaction, brother.


----------



## Pergamum

God bless Scott. Thanks for the comments. I will go back through and re-evaluate later this week and re-read your comments.


----------



## deleteduser99

Pergamum said:


> Great explanation.



Glad to help you.



AJ Castellitto said:


> I was in a church very guarded against presumption- totally toxic...... God delivered me to a more faithful one!
> 
> The Old Life | SermonAudio.com



What do you do with a person who has been "seeking" forty years and they still haven't come to the faith? Or worse, a church full of lifelong "seekers?" From John 3:18 it seems to be presumption to _not_ come.



Mushroom said:


> So much peering into the secret things of God seems pointless. Preach the Gospel. Call sinners to repentance. Proclaim Christ.
> 
> 1Co 2:1-2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. (2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.



The discussion is far more practical than it might first appear to be. The Gospel message is indeed simple as you show, but the human heart is so corrupt that if it can't get away with blatant ways to disobey the Gospel, it will catch at subtle ways. Satan is also a master of deceit, and so pastors have the hard work of untangling the mess of corrupt thoughts imposed by the flesh and by the devil. Discussing whether we should counsel an unconverted man to "ask God for a new heart" sounds like a hair-splitting distinction, but it's the difference between evangelical Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism in a very subtle form.

Just to give an example, I do know individuals who have been "seeking" God for forty years of their lives and they are either still lost or have thick scales covering their eyes. They will say to you, "Yeah I know I have to believe," but they make a wrong application of God's sovereignty. "Because I don't have a new heart I will be presuming if I trust on Christ and deceive myself; and I know God must give me the heart so all I can do is wait." Their logic leads them to keep away from Christ, keeps them from obedience, and therefore they never attain salvation, or any real joy and peace. That makes an eternal difference; therefore, goal of discussions like this is to smoke out their refuges from obedience.

There are further ramifications, but could you take this as food for thought my brother?


----------



## Pergamum

For the long term "seeker" who is wavering in his resolve and not "closing with Christ" despite a long time period, I would urge them to come to Christ and to "close with Christ" like anyone. Praying that God would finally remove those obstacles seems also appropriate. Asking them point-blank why they have not yet believed and repented also seems appropriate, reminding them that there is no hindrance outside of themselves to coming to Christ (God is ready to receive them at any moment if they are willing). 

If they continue under conviction for a long time, we can point them to the promises of God that sin can finally be done away with and can remove the guilt. For our age, lengthy periods of time spent under conviction of sin are ab unusual problem...as soon as someone feels troubles or guilty a little bit, dozens of religious counselors are there to assure them that their souls are not truly in danger or give them some sort of false remedy to quiet their consciences. I am glad when I see those at pain over their sins, for so many in America can never be saved because they have never been lost.


----------



## The Narrator

This question is not so easily answered as some suppose. Notice, in Pilgrim's Progress, that Christian was pointed to the wicket gate. Why? I assume he already knew it was his immediate duty to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also aware of his utter inability to do so. Whole books were written just to give counsel. The Anxious Inquirer, John Angell James, chapter 6 of William Spragues, "Lectures on Revival." TREATMENT DUE TO AWAKENED SINNERS - Or consider the various sermons in the Morning Exercises and Cripplegate... What Sinners Must and Can Do Towards Their Conversion-William Greenhill. I have three lectures on this subject on Sermon Audio called, Did the Puritans Teach Preparationism? Thomas Sullivan Is preparatory law-work necessary? and other titles. But here is the rub. God can and often does save people without any extended LEGAL conviction of sin prior to conversion. But until 1850, it appears to me - and I have studied this for 30 years, these type of conversions were more exceptional than normal like they are in our day. See Timothy Dwight's sermons, The Antecedents to Regeneration, or William Shedd's Dogmatic Theology - Witsius (Covenants, III. vi. 27), says:
<,
“Let none think it absurd that we now speak of means of regeneration,
when but a little before (III. vi. 10, 12) we rejected all preparatives for it.”
Owen, on the other hand, denies “means,” and asserts “preparatives” of
regeneration. Yet Owen and Witsius agree in doctrine. In the Calvinistic system, a
“preparative” to regeneration, or a “means” of it, is anything that demonstrates
man’s total lack of holy desire and his need ofregeneration. It is consequently not
a part of regeneration, but something prior and antecedent to it. There is a work
performed in the soul previous to the instantaneous act of regeneration, as there is
a work performed in the body previous to the instantaneous act of death. A man
loses physical life in an instant, but he has been some time in coming to this instant.
So man gains spiritual life in an instant, though he may have had days and months
ofa foregoing experience ofconviction and sense ofspiritual death. This is the
ordinary divine method, except in the case of infants. - Regeneration Note...it is worthwhile reading what John Owen wrote on this... 
John Owen Works Volume 3, Chapter 5... The Nature, Causes and MEANS of regeneration. 
That the use of those means unto men in the state of sin, if they are
not complied withal, is sufficient, on the grounds before laid down, to
leave them by whom they are rejected inexcusable: so Isaiah 5:3-5;
Proverbs 29:1; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16.


----------



## The Narrator

This question is not so easily answered as some suppose. Notice, in Pilgrim's Progress, that Christian was pointed to the wicket gate. Why? I assume he already knew it was his immediate duty to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also aware of his utter inability to do so. Whole books were written just to give counsel. The Anxious Inquirer, John Angell James, chapter 6 of William Spragues, "Lectures on Revival." TREATMENT DUE TO AWAKENED SINNERS - Or consider the various sermons in the Morning Exercises and Cripplegate... What Sinners Must and Can Do Towards Their Conversion-William Greenhill. I have three lectures on this subject on Sermon Audio called, Did the Puritans Teach Preparationism? Is preparatory law-work necessary? Thomas Sullivan and other titles. But here is the rub. God can and often does save people without any extended LEGAL conviction of sin prior to conversion. But until 1850, it appears to me - and I have studied this for 30 years, these type of conversions were more exceptional than normal like they are in our day. See Timothy Dwight's sermons, The Antecedents to Regeneration, or William Shedd's Dogmatic Theology - Witsius (Covenants, III. vi. 27), says:
<,
“Let none think it absurd that we now speak of means of regeneration,
when but a little before (III. vi. 10, 12) we rejected all preparatives for it.”
Owen, on the other hand, denies “means,” and asserts “preparatives” of
regeneration. Yet Owen and Witsius agree in doctrine. In the Calvinistic system, a
“preparative” to regeneration, or a “means” of it, is anything that demonstrates
man’s total lack of holy desire and his need ofregeneration. It is consequently not
a part of regeneration, but something prior and antecedent to it. There is a work
performed in the soul previous to the instantaneous act of regeneration, as there is
a work performed in the body previous to the instantaneous act of death. A man
loses physical life in an instant, but he has been some time in coming to this instant.
So man gains spiritual life in an instant, though he may have had days and months
ofa foregoing experience ofconviction and sense ofspiritual death. This is the
ordinary divine method, except in the case of infants. - Regeneration Note...it is worthwhile reading what John Owen wrote on this... 
John Owen Works Volume 3, Chapter 5... The Nature, Causes and MEANS of regeneration. 
That the use of those means unto men in the state of sin, if they are
not complied withal, is sufficient, on the grounds before laid down, to
leave them by whom they are rejected inexcusable: so Isaiah 5:3-5;
Proverbs 29:1; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16.


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> This question is not so easily answered as some suppose. Notice, in Pilgrim's Progress, that Christian was pointed to the wicket gate. Why? I assume he already knew it was his immediate duty to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also aware of his utter inability to do so. Whole books were written just to give counsel. The Anxious Inquirer, John Angell James, chapter 6 of William Spragues, "Lectures on Revival." TREATMENT DUE TO AWAKENED SINNERS - Or consider the various sermons in the Morning Exercises and Cripplegate... What Sinners Must and Can Do Towards Their Conversion-William Greenhill. I have three lectures on this subject on Sermon Audio called, Did the Puritans Teach Preparationism? Thomas Sullivan Is preparatory law-work necessary? and other titles. But here is the rub. God can and often does save people without any extended LEGAL conviction of sin prior to conversion. But until 1850, it appears to me - and I have studied this for 30 years, these type of conversions were more exceptional than normal like they are in our day. See Timothy Dwight's sermons, The Antecedents to Regeneration, or William Shedd's Dogmatic Theology - Witsius (Covenants, III. vi. 27), says:
> <,
> “Let none think it absurd that we now speak of means of regeneration,
> when but a little before (III. vi. 10, 12) we rejected all preparatives for it.”
> Owen, on the other hand, denies “means,” and asserts “preparatives” of
> regeneration. Yet Owen and Witsius agree in doctrine. In the Calvinistic system, a
> “preparative” to regeneration, or a “means” of it, is anything that demonstrates
> man’s total lack of holy desire and his need ofregeneration. It is consequently not
> a part of regeneration, but something prior and antecedent to it. There is a work
> performed in the soul previous to the instantaneous act of regeneration, as there is
> a work performed in the body previous to the instantaneous act of death. A man
> loses physical life in an instant, but he has been some time in coming to this instant.
> So man gains spiritual life in an instant, though he may have had days and months
> ofa foregoing experience ofconviction and sense ofspiritual death. This is the
> ordinary divine method, except in the case of infants. - Regeneration Note...it is worthwhile reading what John Owen wrote on this...
> John Owen Works Volume 3, Chapter 5... The Nature, Causes and MEANS of regeneration.
> That the use of those means unto men in the state of sin, if they are
> not complied withal, is sufficient, on the grounds before laid down, to
> leave them by whom they are rejected inexcusable: so Isaiah 5:3-5;
> Proverbs 29:1; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16.



Yes, thanks for the comments:



> This question is not so easily answered as some suppose. Notice, in Pilgrim's Progress, that Christian was pointed to the wicket gate. Why? I assume he already knew it was his immediate duty to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also aware of his utter inability to do so. Whole books were written just to give counsel. The Anxious Inquirer, John Angell James, chapter 6 of William Spragues, "Lectures on Revival." TREATMENT DUE TO AWAKENED SINNERS - Or consider the various sermons in the Morning Exercises and Cripplegate... What Sinners Must and Can Do Towards Their Conversion-William Greenhill.



I had The Anxious Inquirer and also some of Sprague's lectures on revival in mind.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I agree with Spurgeon's "criticism" of Christian being pointed to the Wicket Gate first instead of the Cross. He mentions this in a few places, one of which is contained in this sermon: http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols58-60/chs3332.pdf.

All of this lends itself to easy misunderstanding and creates a whole category of "awakened sinner" in which one remains for years. There is no proper biblical precept (or even example) of such. To be sure, law and gospel need to be preached: the law to show us our sin in the light of God's holiness and the gospel to show us our Savior as the only hope for sinners who see their need. And we can certainly look back as Christians and see all that God brought us through in our coming to Him, all preparatory, we might say, to faith and repentance.

And yet, that's all quite different than creating this category of persons ("awakened sinners") in which people may stay for some time while we urge them to Christ. If they are not truly trusting Christ, they need to be urged to to do so at once (in terms, as I've argued herein, of "Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Needy"). Perhaps they are trusting Him (and they are if they are looking to Him and Him alone) and need to be assured. It is the case that it is no humility on our parts to question His love for us, or the like--it's simply unbelief. All of us need to be challenged in this unbelief and to receive Him and His love, simply resting and trusting in Him.

I call all sinners (all those who see their desparate condition) to look away from all that they are and have and do to the only One who can do their souls any good and to receive Him, whether for the first or the ten-thousandeth time. This is what needs to be preached to this needy, dying world.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Strange, 

Thanks so much for the link on Spurgeon's criticism of this portion of Pilgrim's Progress. I am reading it now. Spurgeon's criticism makes a lot of sense. Though, I hate to think there is any major theological flaw in Pilgrim's Progress since I love it so and have read it so much to my son.

About the "awakened sinner."...

Are you saying that there is no such category as an "awakened sinner" who is awakened to his sense of sinfulness and yet remains in this state for a time? Are you saying that all such "awakened sinners" really have the seed of regeneration in them already or else they would not seek? (i.e. sinners do not seek)...

Right now, I still believe there is such a category called "awakened sinners" and I even believe there exist "seekers" or "inquirers" who have their minds awakened to the truthfulness of the facts of the Gospel and who feel their sinfulness, and yet who are not saved. I even believe there are some of these who will be lost after having tasted/nibbled of the truth of the Gospel (Hebrews 6). Does this place me into the camp of those who hold to "preparationism" then? And how serious of an error is such preparationism? It seems a lot of Puritans expressed preparationist sentiments.

What are we to make of Jonathan Edwards sermons on "pressing into the kingdom of God" and "What Seeking Sinners Can and Must Do": What Seeking Sinners Can and Must Do: Pressing Into the Kingdom of God 1 of 2 | SermonAudio.com



Do you have any reviews of this book by Joel Beeke? Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on Godâ€™s Way of Leading Sinners to Christ - Reformation Heritage Books

A final note: Also, there seems to be a difference in positing that the sinner can do preliminary steps to more greatly dispose himself to the grace of God (which is how some define preparationism), and the view (mine) that there is often a "pre-conversion ploughing of the Spirit" by which the sinner is awakened and becomes interested in the things of God prior to conversion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> Dr. Strange,
> 
> Thanks so much for the link on Spurgeon's criticism of this portion of Pilgrim's Progress. I am reading it now. Spurgeon's criticism makes a lot of sense. Though, I hate to think there is any major theological flaw in Pilgrim's Progress since I love it so and have read it so much to my son.
> 
> About the "awakened sinner."...
> 
> Are you saying that there is no such category as an "awakened sinner" who is awakened to his sense of sinfulness and yet remains in this state for a time? Are you saying that all such "awakened sinners" really have the seed of regeneration in them already or else they would not seek? (i.e. sinners do not seek)...
> 
> Right now, I still believe there is such a category called "awakened sinners" and I even believe there exist "seekers" or "inquirers" who have their minds awakened to the truthfulness of the facts of the Gospel and who feel their sinfulness, and yet who are not saved. I even believe there are some of these who will be lost after having tasted/nibbled of the truth of the Gospel (Hebrews 6). Does this place me into the camp of those who hold to "preparationism" then? And how serious of an error is such preparationism? It seems a lot of Puritans expressed preparationist sentiments.
> 
> What are we to make of Jonathan Edwards sermons on "pressing into the kingdom of God" and "What Seeking Sinners Can and Must Do": What Seeking Sinners Can and Must Do: Pressing Into the Kingdom of God 1 of 2 | SermonAudio.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any reviews of this book by Joel Beeke? Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on Godâ€™s Way of Leading Sinners to Christ - Reformation Heritage Books



If I can answer for Dr. Strange; I do not believe anyone, outside of God giving sight, i.e. John 3 see anything spiritual; it is 'foolishness' to them....



> I even believe there exist "seekers" or "inquirers" who have their minds awakened to the truthfulness of the facts of the Gospel



The scriptures tell us that no one seeks after God, outside of regeneration. 

Trevor, 
I recommend that you read 'A Treatise on Regeneration' by Van Mastricht; the pothole you are hitting seems to be in the idea that regeneration and conversion are instantaneous.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott:

Yes, I believe that regeneration and conversion occur at the same chronological period of time. Otherwise, you would have to assert that there are regenerate folks who lack true faith and true repentance. Faith joins us to Christ; therefore, everywhere the New Birth is present, faith is also present. Are there any "New Creations in Christ" who are yet faithless? In a previous post this week I think we spoke of John the Baptist's faith (he leapt and had joy, even in the womb) such that I would say that even there, regeneration is joined to faith/repentance. God moves the wheel, but all the spokes move at once such that a logical priority of regeneration "before" faith does not entail a chronological gap.

Do you know where I can get Van Mastricht's work? A link?


----------



## Pergamum

How are we to understand this passage from John Owen from Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit (in the chapter "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration"):



> "FIRST, in reference unto the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe, that ordinarily* there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it.* ... But to return; I speak in this position only of them that are adult, and not converted until they have made use of the means of grace in and by their own reasons and understandings; and the dispositions I intend are only materially so, not such as contain grace of the same nature as is regeneration itself. A material disposition is that which disposeth and some way maketh a subject fit for the reception of that which shall be communicated, added, or infused into it as its form. So wood by dryness and a due composure is made fit and ready to admit of firing, or continual fire...
> 
> 
> ...First, There are some things required of us in a way of duty in order unto our regeneration, which are so in the power of our own natural abilities as that nothing but corrupt prejudices and stubbornness in sinning do keep or hinder men from the performance of them. ... A diligent intension of mind, in attendance on the means of grace, to understand and receive the things revealed and declared as the mind and will of God. For this end hath God given men their reasons and understandings, that they may use and exercise them about their duty towards him, according to the revelation of his mind and will. To this purpose he calls upon them to remember that they are men, and to turn unto him. And there is nothing herein but what is in the liberty and power of the rational faculties of our souls, assisted with those common aids which God affords unto all men in general. And great advantages both may be and are daily attained hereby. Persons, I say, who diligently apply their rational abilities in and about spiritual things, as externally revealed in the word and the preaching of it, do usually attain great advantages by it, and excel their equals in other things ...
> 
> ...These things are required of us in order unto our regeneration, and it is in the power of our own wills to comply with them. ... Ordinarily, God, in the effectual dispensation of his grace, meeteth with them who attend with diligence on the outward administration of the means of it. ... ordinarily he dispenseth his peculiar especial grace among them who attend unto the common means of it: for he will both glorify his word thereby, and give out pledges of his approbation of our obedience unto his commands and institutions.
> 
> "Secondly, There are certain internal spiritual effects wrought in and upon the souls of men, whereof the word preached is the immediate instrumental cause, which ordinarily do precede the work of regeneration, or real conversion unto God. And they are reducible unto three heads: --
> 
> "1.* Illumination; 2. Conviction; 3. Reformation.* The first of these respects the mind only; the second, the mind, conscience, and affections; and the third, the life and conversation: --
> 
> "1. *The first is illumination, of whose nature and causes we must afterward treat distinctly. At present, I shall only consider it as it is ordinarily previous unto regeneration, and materially disposing the mind thereunto.* Now, all the light which by any means we attain unto, or knowledge that we have in or about spiritual things, things of supernatural revelation, come under this denomination of illumination. And hereof there are three degrees: -- (1.) That which ariseth merely from an industrious application of the rational faculties of our souls to know, perceive, and understand the doctrines of truth as revealed unto us; for hereby much knowledge of divine truth may be obtained, which others, through their negligence, sloth, and pride, are unacquainted with. And this knowledge I refer unto illumination, -- that is, a light superadded to the innate conceptions of men's minds, and beyond what of themselves they can extend unto, -- because it is concerning such things as the heart of man could never of itself conceive, but the very knowledge of them is communicated by their revelation ... (2.) There is an illumination which is an especial effect of the Holy Ghost by the word on the minds of men. With respect hereunto, some who fall totally from God and perish eternally are said to have been 'once enlightened,' Hebrews 6:4. This light variously affects the mind, and makes a great addition unto what is purely natural, or attainable by the mere exercise of our natural abilities.
> 
> "2. *Conviction of sin is another effect of the preaching of the word antecedaneous unto real conversion to God*. ... And sundry things are included herein, or do accompany it; as, -- (1.) A disquieting sense of the guilt of sin with respect unto the law of God, with his threatenings and future judgment. Things that before were slighted and made a mock of do now become the soul's burden and constant disquietment. 'Fools make a mock of sin;' they traverse their ways, and snuff up the wind like the wild ass; but in their month, when conviction hath burdened them, you may find them. (2.) Sorrow or grief for sin committed, because past and irrecoverable; which is the formal reason of this condemning sorrow. ... (3.) Humiliation for sin, which is the exercise or working of sorrow and fear in outward acts of confession, fasting, praying, and the like. This is the true nature of legal humiliation, 1 Kings 21:29. (4.) Unless by these things the soul be swallowed up in despair, it cannot be but that it will be filled with thoughts, desires, inquiries, and contrivances about a deliverance out of that state and condition wherein it is; as Acts 2:37, 16:30. 3. Oftentimes a great reformation of life and change in affections doth ensue hereon ... In their own nature they are good, useful, and material preparations unto regeneration, disposing the mind unto the reception of the grace of God.
> 
> "Again: What he worketh in any of these effectually and infallibly accomplisheth the end aimed at; which is no more but that men be enlightened, convinced, humbled, and reformed, wherein he faileth not. In these things he is pleased to take on him the management of the law, so to bring the soul into bondage thereby, that it may be stirred up to seek after deliverance; and he is thence actively called the 'Spirit of bondage unto fear,' Romans 8:15. ...
> 
> "This work extends itself to the conscience also; but yet it doth not purge the conscience from dead works, that we should serve the living God. ... Two things it effects upon the conscience: -- (1.) It renders it more ready, quick, and sharp in the reproving and condemning of all sin than it was before. To condemn sin, according unto its light and guidance, is natural unto and inseparable from the conscience of man; but its readiness and ability to exercise this condemning power may, by custom and course of sinning in the world, be variously weakened and impeded. But when conscience is brought under the power of this work, having its directing light augmented, whereby it sees more of the evil of sin than formerly, and having its self-reflections sharpened and multiplied, it is more ready and quick in putting forth its judging and condemning power than it was. (2.) Conscience is assisted and directed hereby to condemn many things in sin which before it approved of; for its judging power is still commensurate unto its light, and many things are thereby now discovered to be sinful which were not so by the mere natural guidance under which before it was. But yet, notwithstanding all this, it doth not purge the conscience from dead works; that is, conscience is not hereby wrought unto such an abhorrency of sin for itself as continually to direct the soul unto an application to the blood of Christ for the cleansing of itself and the purging of it out. It contents itself to keep all things in a tumult, disorder, and confusion, by its constant condemning both sin and sinners."


----------



## Pergamum

Also William Guthrie in _The Christian's Great Interest_ speaks of the religious stirrings found in many, which he calls "preparatory work":



> "It will be hard to give sure essential differences between the preparatory work on those in whom afterwards Christ is formed, and those legal stirrings which are sometimes in reprobates. ... I shall offer some things which rarely shall be found in the stirrings of reprobates, and which are ordinarily found in that law-work which hath a gracious issue."



Here is Joseph Alleine in his _Alarm to the Unconverted_ [bolding is mine to emphasis how the quote relates to the OP]:



> "Now mercy is wooing you; now Christ is waiting to be gracious to you, and the Spirit of God is striving with you.
> 
> ... Oh! Strike in with the offers of grace. Oh! Now or never.
> 
> ... Strike in with the Spirit when He begins to work upon your heart. When He works convictions, O do not stifle them, but join in with Him, and *beg the Lord to give you saving conversion*. 'Quench not the Spirit.' Do not reject Him, do not resist Him.
> 
> ... Thus yield yourself to the working of the Spirit, and hoist your sails to His gusts.
> 
> ... O what hopeful beginnings have these often stifled! ... How many poor sinners have been enlightened and convinced, and been just ready to escape the snare of the devil, and have even escaped it: and yet wicked company has pulled them back at last, and made them sevenfold more the children of hell! In a word, I have no hope for you, except you shake off your evil company. Your life depends upon it: forsake this, or you cannot live.
> 
> ... And now, beloved, let me know your mind. What do you intend to do? ... Well, do not put me off with a dilatory answer; tell me not later. I must have your immediate consent. If you are not now resolved, while the Lord is treating with you and inviting you, much less likely are you to be later, when these impressions are worn off, and you are hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
> 
> ... Will you set open the door and give the Lord Jesus the full and ready possession?
> 
> ... Remember, you are now upon your good behavior for everlasting; if you do not make a wise choice now, you are undone for ever. What your present choice is, such must be your eternal condition. ... Now the Holy Spirit is striving with you. He will not always strive. Have you not felt your heart warmed by the Word, and been almost persuaded to leave off your sins and come to Christ? Have you not felt some motions in your mind, in which you have been warned of your danger, and told what your careless course would end in? It may be you are like young Samuel who, when the Lord called once and again, knew not the voice of the Lord, but these motions are the offers, and callings, and strivings of the Spirit.
> 
> ... Now the Lord stretches wide His arms to receive you. He beseeches you by us. How movingly, how meltingly, how compassionately He calls.
> 
> ... Behold, O ye sons of men, the Lord Jesus has thrown open the prison, and now He comes to you by His ministers, and beseeches you to come out. ... But it is a small matter that you turn me off; you put a slight upon the God that made you; you reject the compassion and beseechings of a Saviour, and will be found resisters of the Holy Ghost, if you will not now be prevailed upon to repent and be converted."


----------



## MW

Alan D. Strange said:


> And yet, that's all quite different than creating this category of persons ("awakened sinners") in which people may stay for some time while we urge them to Christ.



As long as they are urged to come to Christ I don't see anything wrong with the category. It appears to be a necessary consequence of preaching the need to be awakened to a sense of sin and inability. To quote Thomas Boston again (Works, 6:372):



> 1st, Insensible sinners, come to a sense of your weakness, and under the sense of it come to Christ. Without it ye will not.
> 
> 2ndly, Sensible sinners, let not your weakness scare you from Christ, but rather prompt you not to delay coming, Matt. 9:12, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." They will perish in their weakness that come not.


----------



## Pergamum

Murray writing about Thomas Hooker here: http://www.puritansermons.com/pdf/murray4.pdf



> Hooker and his brethren considered it vital that those who are
> ‘awakened’ and labouring under conviction of sin should not be treated as
> already saved.
> 
> Conviction of sin, even when attended by manifest evidence
> of the Spirit of God speaking to the conscience, is no evidence of a saving
> conversion. The rich young ruler was ‘very sorrowful’ but he was not
> converted [Luke 18.23]. Felix ‘trembled’ under the Word of God but he did
> not become a Christian.
> 
> The New Testament gives clear indication of
> general or common operations of the Holy Spirit which can be experienced
> by the unregenerate man. Gospel hearers may be ‘made partakers of the
> Holy Ghost’ and taste ‘the good word of God and the powers of the world
> to come’ [Heb 6.4-5] and yet they may never experience the ‘things that
> accompany salvation’ [Heb 6.9].
> 
> Thus when a person comes under conviction, what results from that
> conviction is by no means a foregone conclusion. Any one of three different
> conditions may follow in the experience of an awakened person:
> 
> (i) Conviction may be lost or thrown off, as Herod at last threw it off under
> the preaching of John the Baptist. ‘Thus’, writes Hooker, ‘Millions of men
> perish, go within the view of Canaan, and never possess it’.87 It is, he says
> again, ‘a dangerous and desperate mistake’ to get no further than ‘a legal
> reformation . . . and here millions perish’.88 Speaking of the same point, a
> century later, Jonathan Edwards writes in his Treatise Concerning the
> Religious Affections, ‘In times of great reviving of religion . . . it is as with
> the fruit trees in the spring; there are a multitude of blossoms, all of which
> appear fair and beautiful, and there is a promising appearance of young
> fruits; but many of them are of short continuance; they soon fall off, and
> never come to maturity.’
> 
> (ii) A person may get the burden of conviction off his back by a false belief
> that he has received Christ. ‘Out of self-love to self-ends’ the sinner may
> ‘catch at that comfort and supply’ of which he hears in the gospel, imagine
> he is converted, and thereafter ‘in a blind kind of boldness’ he pretends ‘to
> hang upon Christ and free mercy’.89 This is the stony-ground hearer of the
> gospel of whom Jesus says, he ‘heareth the word, and anon with joy
> receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself’ [Matt 13.20-21]. Some in this
> category will later fall away from their Christian profession under trials.
> Others will remain in the church having the form of godliness without the
> power: in the words of John Owen, ‘they become walking and talking
> skeletons in religion – dry, sapless, useless, worldlings.’90 Describing this
> same group, Robert Bolton says, they ‘hold on in a plodding course of
> formal Christianity all their life long, and at last depart this life like the
> foolish virgins.’91
> 
> The frequent warnings of Scripture, and their own experience, led the
> Puritans to believe that there is indeed danger of men making a premature
> and unsound profession of faith. Many, writes Hooker, are ‘still-born, not
> “begotten again to a lively hope”, [1 Pet 1.3]. They heal themselves before
> God heals them, make application before sound preparation; not that they
> can apply too soon, if they apply truly; but they think they do apply when
> they neither do nor can.’92
> 
> (iii) In the third instance there are those in whom conviction of sin is
> accompanied with, or followed by, the experience of the saving power of
> God in regeneration.
> 
> 3. The fact that the awakened sinner is unable to change his own heart, and
> the danger that he may depend upon his own efforts for acceptance with
> God, must not be allowed to weaken his obligation to act. There are things
> to be done if he is to be converted. Reading, hearing, repenting, praying and
> believing are not duties from which a man is excused until he is regenerate.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

MW said:


> 1st, Insensible sinners, come to a sense of your weakness, and under the sense of it come to Christ. Without it ye will not.
> 2ndly, Sensible sinners, let not your weakness scare you from Christ, but rather prompt you not to delay coming, Matt. 9:12, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." They will perish in their weakness that come not.



I heartily agree with the Boston quote. Boston urges those who have no sense of their sin to see their need, without which conviction of sin (at some level), they will not come to Christ. And he urges all those who see their sin to come to Christ, not to exist comfortably--note that I said I oppose the notion that this is a condition in which one may stay "for some time," not that there is such a thing as Boston calls a "sensible sinner"--in some category other than "resting and trusting in Christ alone."

So I agree with Boston, though I differ with Hooker (as D. Murray cites): I think that Hooker does create a category that Boston does not. Some of us have been a part of such churches that required something akin to a narrative of grace in order to convince ourselves and others that we are "truly saved": in such, the emphasis comes to be my religious experience and not Christ and Him alone. I do not find this emphasis in the WCF, either in its treatment of ordo salutis or God's decrees (see especially, and think about, the warning in WCF 3.8). 

Item ii. in Murray's list is quite a delicate matter and can be easily mishandled to the detriment of sensitive souls. Is it true? Are those who say that they've received Christ who haven't? Yes, we encounter such not infrequently. But if you don't handle that truth carefully, it is the bruised reed that you are likely to break and the smoking flax to quench, and the presumptuous, and perhaps brutish, souls at which you aim these comments are likely to continue on in their ways, unheedful of such statements. It's not that this stuff is not true and it's not that we don't have religious experience. But we must always be careful to point people away from their religious experience to Christ. This is what the Bible does again and again. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Scott Bushey

Forgive me, but call me stupid. How can anything done outside of the HS and regeneration (sight) be at all profitable? If the unbeliever, prior to regeneration sees and understands scripture as 'foolishness', how can one see this as a ramping up towards regeneration? This thinking that a preparatory work is of any value is a difficulty I cannot find supported in scripture. The only distinction I can see is that men, in their morality are pricked; however, this concious burden is not a burden from God but from a fleshly burden much akin to the repentance Judas felt.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Scott:

I appreciate your conundrum. 

Here is the answer, I think: we hold forth Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel. He is received by faith alone, i.e., only someone in the exercise of faith (the fruit of regeneration) will profitably receive Him.

What if someone says, however, "I do not yet see these things or trust in Him?" How do we counsel them? We tell them both to continue to place themselves under the means of grace and we urge upon them, as desparate sinners, their need of Christ. We try to convince them of their sin and need and of the sole remedy for such in Jesus Christ. We urge them not to rest until they rest in Him.

We understand that only the regenerate will believe and repent and so we keep urging that upon them, praying that God would bring them to Himself, always pointing to the only One who can do them any good. You are right, though, that only the regenerate can properly see any of these things, since the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can he, for they are spiritually discerned (I Cor. 2:14) and "no one seeks for God" (Romans 3: 10-18) apart from a saving work of the Spirit. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Scott Bushey

Alan D. Strange said:


> Scott:
> 
> I appreciate your conundrum.
> 
> Here is the answer, I think: we hold forth Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel. He is received by faith alone, i.e., only someone in the exercise of faith (the fruit of regeneration) will profitably receive Him.
> 
> What if someone says, however, "I do not yet see these things or trust in Him?" How do we counsel them? We tell them both to continue to place themselves under the means of grace and we urge upon them, as desparate sinners, their need of Christ. We try to convince them of their sin and need and of the sole remedy for such in Jesus Christ. We urge them not to rest until they rest in Him.
> 
> We understand that only the regenerate will believe and repent and so we keep urging that upon them, praying that God would bring them to Himself, always pointing to the only One who can do them any good. You are right, though, that only the regenerate can properly see any of these things, since the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can he, for they are spiritually discerned (I Cor. 2:14) and "no one seeks for God" (Romans 3: 10-18) apart from a saving work of the Spirit.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Amen Dr. Strange.

In regard to the ordo: The presbyterian holds that infants, much like John can be regenerated as God sees fit. In the womb, it would be what we call, 'seeds of faith'. It is akin to a form of faith; it is not absolute. When we consider John 3, men are given sight. Faith comes via the word: Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. This sight allows for the processing of spiritual data. If regeneration and conversion happens simultaneously, it would then follow what Pergamum is saying. The process would have had to start prior to regeneration and the data processed could not be considered 'foolishness' as it is being stored for future kingdom business. But that is not what scripture tells us. As Dr. Strange noted, ' the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can he'. The flesh profiteth nothing. As well, we know Romans tells us that men must have the gospel preached to them to be saved. If we hold to an idea that in every case, the order happens all at one time, that would exclude any hope of our infants being regenerated prior to them being able to comprehend the data preached, to which we firmly reject.


----------



## Pergamum

Spurgeon once said:



> "Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."


(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

Right now I believe he is correct. This seems to accord with I John, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loveth him that begot loveth him also that is begotten of him."—1 John 5:1. Regeneration and faith are not to be separated, even if regeneration logically (though not chronologically) "precedes" faith.

Spurgeon's view is that regeneration neither precedes faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself. This is my current position as well.

Also, Calvin's comments on 1 Corinthians 13:13 seems to accord with my views, for he states, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us." All the Confessions as well speak of the instrumentality of the Word of God. To state that regeneration can occur where faith does not exist is to deny these instrumentalities.


----------



## Pergamum

The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, Article VIII obliges that I believe as I do:

"We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseperable graces, *wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God;* whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on Him alone as the only and all sufficient Saviour."

Thus, when the Spirit regenerates, he plants these things (Repentance and Faith) in our souls. Thus, they are ordinarily to occur together.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pergamum said:


> Spurgeon once said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."
> 
> 
> 
> (Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).
> 
> Right now I believe he is correct. This seems to accord with I John, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loveth him that begot loveth him also that is begotten of him."—1 John 5:1. Regeneration and faith are not to be separated, even if regeneration logically (though not chronologically) "precedes" faith.
> 
> Spurgeon's view is that regeneration neither precedes faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself. This is my current position as well.
> 
> Also, Calvin's comments on 1 Corinthians 13:13 seems to accord with my views, for he states, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us." All the Confessions as well speak of the instrumentality of the Word of God. To state that regeneration can occur where faith does not exist is to deny these instrumentalities.
Click to expand...



Pergie,
Calvin speak about 'seeds of faith' in infants in his institutes 4,16,20. Would you agree that God can regenerate an infant in the womb? Since I am sure you agree that regeneration and conversion are two different segments of the ordo, how is it that these infants are converted? If God decrees that my daughter be regenerated in the womb and live to a ripe age, the only means God has allowed for her conversion is by the preaching of the word; either by me or the pastor.

The distinction that we need to consider in light of these truths are levels of faith; seeds of faith and absolute faith are not one and the same. 

Here is Calvin utilizing an example I speak of:



> But faith, they says comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), the use of which infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses declares, without the knowledge of good and evil, (Deut. 1: 39.) But they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of the knowledge of good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of God. Those therefore whom the Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves or have any knowledge at all resembling faith, (this I would rather leave undecided but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks affirm or deny whatever suits them.



Here is something from Turretin:



> XVI. (3) There are examples of various infants who were sanctified from the womb (as was the case with Jeremiah and John the Baptist, Jer. 1:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Lk. 1:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 80Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). For although here occur certain singular and extraordinary things (which pertained to them alone and not to others), still we may fairly conclude that infants can be made partakers of the Holy Spirit, who since he cannot be inactive, works in them motions and inclinations suited to their age (which are called “the seed of faith” or principles of sanctification).
> XVII. (4) Infants draw from natural generation common 4. notions (koinas ennoias), and theoretical as well as practical principles of the natural law; and if Adam had continued
> innocent, the divine image (which consists in holiness) would have passed by propagation to his children. Therefore what is to prevent them from receiving by supernatural regeneration certain seeds of faith and first principles of sanctification, since they are not less capable of these by grace than of those by nature?
> XVIII. Although there seem to be in infants no marks from which we can gather that they are gifted with the Holy Spirit and the seed of faith (because their age prevents it), it does not follow that this must be denied to them since the reason of their salvation demands it and the contrary is evi*dent from the examples adduced.
> XIX. As before the use of reason, men are properly called rational because they have the principle of reason in the rational soul; thus nothing hinders them from being termed believers before actual faith because the seed which is given to them is the principle of faith (from which they are rightly denominated; even as they are properly called sinners, although not as yet able to put forth an act of sin).


----------



## Pergamum

Hi Scott,

Yes, I am leaning towards believing what Calvin says about infant faith. I already believe it in regards to John the Baptist who leapt in the womb for "joy" at the sound of his Messiah. I feel I must not separate regeneration from faith, and therefore, it seems that I must believe in some form of faith even in these infant cases (for I believe children who die in infancy are saved). This is more satisfactory than believing in a regeneration without faith.

I admit, however, I am not sure how to piece it all together or what all the implications are concerning my belief.


----------



## The Narrator

I decided to upload my paper I wrote some years ago for a class I was taking. http://www.puritanaudiobooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Preparationism.htm But I wanted to respond to something Dr. Alan Strange said. By the way, I am a big fan of anything I can listen to by him. He mentioned Spurgeon's criticism of the Evangelist pointing Christian to yonder Wicket Gate instead of to the cross. If you look at my paper, I have a quote by Horatius Bonar that shows he was concerned as well about the men used during the Great Awakening. That they throw the sinner too much upon their own selves, perhaps for fear of showing them
the gospel message prematurely. HOWEVER, I have read hundreds of conversions, David Brainerd, Asahel Nettleton, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Samuel Bolton, and have read every revival book I can
get hold of.... and nobody's conversion experience is a detailed as Spurgeon's lengthy awakening given in his autobiography that I am aware of except for Thomas Halyburton. So I am not sure if he is completely consistent to his own experience and his counsel to others. https://archive.org/stream/memoirsoflifeofr00haly#page/n7/mode/2up


----------



## MW

Alan D. Strange said:


> I heartily agree with the Boston quote. Boston urges those who have no sense of their sin to see their need, without which conviction of sin (at some level), they will not come to Christ. And he urges all those who see their sin to come to Christ, not to exist comfortably--note that I said I oppose the notion that this is a condition in which one may stay "for some time," not that there is such a thing as Boston calls a "sensible sinner"--in some category other than "resting and trusting in Christ alone."



Prof. Strange, The time element is dependent on how long the person himself remains in this "sensible" state. The preacher can call him to come to Christ, but if he does not come to Christ he remains in this state. Nor should a preacher wish him to become insensible of his sin. I think that is where the pastoral process is required, and helps the person step by step through the concerns of his soul. It is not for the purpose of creating a "narrative," but merely to help the individual in his struggle.


----------



## The Narrator

Pergamum: Here is an interesting quote from William Tennent to Thomas Prince during the Great Awakening, October 9th 1744....
Such as have been converted were every one of them prepared for it by a sharp law-work of conviction in discovering to them in a heart 
affecting manner their sinfulness both by nature and practice as well as their liableness to damnation for their original and actual transgressions. As to what Alan Strange comments about their 
being a stage called the Awakened Sinner that my go on for awhile - in not a Biblical concept, it certainly was the case with Owen, Spurgeon, Halyburton, David Brainerd, Asahel Nettleton - who says the awakening
was 10 months, and many other examples. And I dare say that those who have been sometime in the Slough of Despond are the better counselors for it when others come to them
with their own burden on their backs. John Owen could not have written his Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins with the learned experimental detail he did had he not known what
it was like to hear the thunder in his own conscience. I am always told that such experiences are not detailed in the Bible. But if you look at Jonathan Edwards's sermon, God Makes Men Sensible of Their Misery Before He Reveals His Love and Mercy, it is not a concept that is foreign to God's dealing with His people. But further, I always tell people that the Bible is not an exhaustive testimony of every person's experience. It is that Touchstone in which all of our experiences our weighed, but I don't see things like the case of Francis Spira or David Brainerd in the Scriptures. Yet I don't doubt what they went through. I myself was 3.5 years under awakening before I had a real level of assurance.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Mr. Sullivan, please fix your signature; see the link in mine for instructions.


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> I decided to upload my paper I wrote some years ago for a class I was taking. http://www.puritanaudiobooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Preparationism.htm But I wanted to respond to something Dr. Alan Strange said. By the way, I am a big fan of anything I can listen to by him. He mentioned Spurgeon's criticism of the Evangelist pointing Christian to yonder Wicket Gate instead of to the cross. If you look at my paper, I have a quote by Horatius Bonar that shows he was concerned as well about the men used during the Great Awakening. That they throw the sinner too much upon their own selves, perhaps for fear of showing them
> the gospel message prematurely. HOWEVER, I have read hundreds of conversions, David Brainerd, Asahel Nettleton, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Samuel Bolton, and have read every revival book I can
> get hold of.... and nobody's conversion experience is a detailed as Spurgeon's lengthy awakening given in his autobiography that I am aware of except for Thomas Halyburton. So I am not sure if he is completely consistent to his own experience and his counsel to others. https://archive.org/stream/memoirsoflifeofr00haly#page/n7/mode/2up



Than you, I am reading your paper now.


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> Pergamum: Here is an interesting quote from William Tennent to Thomas Prince during the Great Awakening, October 9th 1744....
> Such as have been converted were every one of them prepared for it by a sharp law-work of conviction in discovering to them in a heart
> affecting manner their sinfulness both by nature and practice as well as their liableness to damnation for their original and actual transgressions. As to what Alan Strange comments about their
> being a stage called the Awakened Sinner that my go on for awhile - in not a Biblical concept, it certainly was the case with Owen, Spurgeon, Halyburton, David Brainerd, Asahel Nettleton - who says the awakening
> was 10 months, and many other examples. And I dare say that those who have been sometime in the Slough of Despond are the better counselors for it when others come to them
> with their own burden on their backs. John Owen could not have written his Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins with the learned experimental detail he did had he not known what
> it was like to hear the thunder in his own conscience. I am always told that such experiences are not detailed in the Bible. But if you look at Jonathan Edwards's sermon, God Makes Men Sensible of Their Misery Before He Reveals His Love and Mercy, it is not a concept that is foreign to God's dealing with His people. But further, I always tell people that the Bible is not an exhaustive testimony of every person's experience. It is that Touchstone in which all of our experiences our weighed, but I don't see things like the case of Francis Spira or David Brainerd in the Scriptures. Yet I don't doubt what they went through. I myself was 3.5 years under awakening before I had a real level of assurance.



Thank you again, I am looking for a link to this Edwards sermon now, God Makes Men Sensible of Their Misery Before He Reveals His Love and Mercy.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a link: God Makes Men Sensible of Their Misery Before He Reveals His Mercy and LoveÂ  --Â  Jonathan Edwards


----------



## Alan D. Strange

MW said:


> Prof. Strange, The time element is dependent on how long the person himself remains in this "sensible" state. The preacher can call him to come to Christ, but if he does not come to Christ he remains in this state. Nor should a preacher wish him to become insensible of his sin. I think that is where the pastoral process is required, and helps the person step by step through the concerns of his soul. It is not for the purpose of creating a "narrative," but merely to help the individual in his struggle.



Rev. Winzer:

With respect to the development of the so-called Puritan narrative conversion (as detailed by Pat Caldwell, Edmund Morgan, Norman Pettit, Michael McGiffert and others), I am simply being descriptive as a historian. I am not talking about what should be, but what existed. Prescriptively, I agree that the pastor is to help someone sense his need and then to point him to the only remedy for that need, not to help him construct a narrative. As a matter of fact, however, as I noted in the citation that I gave above to an article in which I discussed this, it became a requirement in various places in colonial New England to give a convincing conversion narrative in order to be admitted to communion, a requirement that Edwards himself admitted that he could not fulfill (all detailed in my cited article). 

It was required in the narrative, taking Perkins' steps, and those of others, to detail legal humiliation that gave way to evangelical humiliation, usually with at least one (if not more) later-discovered-to-be-false conversions along the way. It became an extended exercise in spiritual navel-gazing and had to, in the congregational contexts, be related to the whole congregation and then voted upon as to whether the congregation found the conversion narrative credible and compelling. Thankfully, this never prevailed in Presbyterian contexts (even those of the New Side). 

All this is to say that we've gone down a dangerous path before of something that could lead to stylized conversion narratives, all of which focus on religious experience and not Christ. I heartily agree that there must be a sight of sin for a true conversion, because a true conversion consists of repentance and faith, in which one sees one's sin and need and in which one sees one's Savior (though repentance will have a rather different shape in the the life of a four-year-old than it would in the life of someone years outside of Christ). I agree that a sinner must be sensible (as Boston says) and have an awareness of his sin and misery as Edwards argues. This does not mean, however, that there are many people in this state for some time before repenting and believing and that such may fall away from this state, since the Spirit brought them into it and will safely lead them home. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Brothers and Sisters:

I think that one of the great challenges of this whole discussion is the notion that regeneration/conversion for some (and I mean among some of our Puritan forebears) served as the culmination of a spiritual crisis and not as much the beginning of our spiritual lives in Christ. 

I believe that we should properly be preparationists and what I mean by this is not only that sinners need to have the law preached to them and thus to become sensible of their sin (which only the regenerate will truly and properly), but that all who trust in Christ should spend much time praying for the Lord to work in and among us, to use the appointed means so that we are truly inwardly transformed and brought to more and more charity and not only outwardly conformed in our doctrine, worship and piety. Bob Godfrey has a good article on this meaning of _ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda _(in the current issue of _Table Talk_).

In other words, it is simply not the case that we should look for all sorts of reformation of life and spiritual understanding before one trusts Christ (yes, one needs knowledge of self and God as a part of saving faith and repentance). The message is not "clean up your life and come to Christ" but "come to Christ and begin to enjoy living out the life that He has won for you." 

I appreciate the kinds words of our brother The Narrator (Mr. Sullivan, I believe). But when he says "I myself was 3.5 years under awakening before I had a real level of assurance," he makes my point. Was he unregenerate all that time simply because he lacked assurance? I would go so far as to say that the brother has no real way of knowing precisely what his spiritual state truly was during that time: Because he may believe himself to have then been unregenerate does not mean that he was and besides, what difference does it make? He trusts now; he has assurance now; he is walking, albeit quite imperfectly (as is true of all the saints) with his Savior. 

If the point of all this is that many are simply insensible of their sin and need to know it, I agree. If the point is that they need to have tons of things happen that culminates in a crisis conversion, I disagree. Folk need to trust Christ. Perhaps that will come about through a crisis-conversion. Perhaps not. We need to encourage, I agree, proper self-examination. But we also, for those thus engaged, need to discourage morbid introspection and to invite all to take ten looks at Christ for every look that they take at themselves. 

Trusting in Christ alone and repenting of our sin is something that the regenerate begin to do and never stop doing. This is why the same Edwards referrred to sanctification as "continuous conversion," always turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God. Yes, we begin that turning at some point, by God's grace, and we never stop (by that same grace). We are not to be pointing people ever to themselves and having them ask, "Am I truly saved?" Rather we are to proclaim that all who trust in Christ truly are His and need to "get on" with their Christian lives (and are empowered by the Spirit to do so). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Dr Strange. 

I agree with your last post and have profited from your comments (as well as the comments of others such as Harley and Rev. Winzer, etc. 

I agree...except perhaps for where you say, "We are not to be pointing people ever to themselves and having them ask, "Am I truly saved?" Rather we are to proclaim that all who trust in Christ truly are His and need to "get on" with their Christian lives (and are empowered by the Spirit to do so)." 

I still believe that asking the sinner pointedly whether they have ever truly been saved or not is valid and beneficial. "Am I truly saved" needs to be asked by most of today's church-goers. Paul tells us to examine ourselves. False assurance seems one of the major blights upon the church today. "Are you saved?" and "What are you trusting for your salvation" or "Why do you believe that you have been saved?" all seem good questions to ask.

Though...we are not to answer by means of a long past narrative leading up to a crisis as proof, but by one's present proclamation of faith and even by way of fruit (the fruits of the Spirit and the tests of faith as found in I John). But, there does need to be some sensible and intentional commitment to Christ and not a general reply of, "Well...I've ALWAYS been a Christian..." For those who have believed as young children, a reply of "Well..I don't remember exactly when I savingly believed, but I believe savingly now to the best of my knowledge and I seem to exhibit the fruits of the Spirit." 

Would you agree with that last paragraph of mine? 

Also, I notice you used the word "preparationist" in your last posting. Is this the proper term to use for what we are advocating? I have read some definitions of preparationism (i.e._ a series of steps people must do before they can believe, or preliminary actions a sinner may take so that God might more likely save them_), and as of right now I reject the assertion that I believe in "preparationism" (if these are, indeed, accurate definitions of this belief). I do not believe in preparationism if by preparationism you mean the belief that man must first commend himself to God in some way before God becomes more disposed to save that man (this sounds like Wesley's prevenient grace scheme). Yet, I still believe the Spirit works in people in ways that do not always lead to conversion (the Holy Spirit falling on King Saul in the OT, per example) and that the Spirit often draws sinners slowly. I believe the category of "Awakened sinner" and even "inquirer" are valid realities. Do you agree?

Also, as of right now, I agree that there is an immediacy to our Gospel appeals such that it might be wiser often to say, "Believe now" instead of "Ask the Lord for Him to enable you to believe." And yet I see examples of the Puritans doing the latter and it seems appropriate still sometimes to do the latter, "Pray that the Lord will open your eyes." I do not believe Joseph Alleine erred in his _Alarm to the Unconverted_ when he wrote,


> ... Strike in with the Spirit when He begins to work upon your heart. When He works convictions, O do not stifle them, but join in with Him, and *beg the Lord to give you saving conversion. *'Quench not the Spirit.' Do not reject Him, do not resist Him.



Do I err in this?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

I did not say that we are not to ask people to examine themselves as to whether they truly trust Christ. I said that we are not to point people ever (and by this I meant "always") to themselves with such a question, but to urge them to trust Christ and get on with the Christian life.

If one is a pastor of a settled congregation, it is, I think, quite problematic to be always questioning the same people (and why would we want to do that?) with some form of "yes, but do you really know Christ?" In doing so, we fail to help them on to maturity and keep them in a place of forever wondering if they are saved--getting a bit of assurance here and losing it in the struggle against sin there. This is inimical to sound and healthy Christianity. 

When you assert "False assurance seems one of the major blights upon the church today," what specifically do you have in mind? I don't necessarily disagree with you here (I believe that there are many professors who give no evidence of being possessers in the mainline churches as well as in some evangelical churches). But we have to be rather careful with this assessment, particularly as a broad-brush judgment and we have to be especially careful with respect to what prompts or motivates us in this and what we base it on. 

In most of our congregations (confessionally Reformed churches), we don't have, largely, people who appear to be afflicted with false assurance, but, rather, earnest souls who believe the gospel and endeavor to lead godly lives, and nonetheless afflicted with remaining sin and may be full of doubt about themselves. In the case of such, they need rather to be pointed to Christ and comforted and encouraged. If someone is orthodox in doctrine and evidences love of God and neighbor but comes to me and expresses lack of assurance, my primary approach in seeking to encourage them is not to point them to themselves but to Christ. Why would I do otherwise?

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW

Thankyou for you comments, Prof. Strange. You have helpfully articulated the dangers of preparationism while acknowledging the place of a preparatory work, and I heartily agree with the imperative to offer Christ fully and freely to all, sensible and insensible sinners alike. Blessings!


----------



## Pergamum

Alan D. Strange said:


> Trevor:
> 
> I did not say that we are not to ask people to examine themselves as to whether they truly trust Christ. I said that we are not to point people ever (and by this I meant "always") to themselves with such a question, but to urge them to trust Christ and get on with the Christian life.
> 
> If one is a pastor of a settled congregation, it is, I think, quite problematic to be always questioning the same people (and why would we want to do that?) with some form of "yes, but do you really know Christ?" In doing so, we fail to help them on to maturity and keep them in a place of forever wondering if they are saved--getting a bit of assurance here and losing it in the struggle against sin there. This is inimical to sound and healthy Christianity.
> 
> When you assert "False assurance seems one of the major blights upon the church today," what specifically do you have in mind? I don't necessarily disagree with you here (I believe that there are many professors who give no evidence of being possessers in the mainline churches as well as in some evangelical churches). But we have to be rather careful with this assessment, particularly as a broad-brush judgment and we have to be especially careful with respect to what prompts or motivates us in this and what we base it on.
> 
> In most of our congregations (confessionally Reformed churches), we don't have, largely, people who appear to be afflicted with false assurance, but, rather, earnest souls who believe the gospel and endeavor to lead godly lives, and nonetheless afflicted with remaining sin and may be full of doubt about themselves. In the case of such, they need rather to be pointed to Christ and comforted and encouraged. If someone is orthodox in doctrine and evidences love of God and neighbor but comes to me and expresses lack of assurance, my primary approach in seeking to encourage them is not to point them to themselves but to Christ. Why would I do otherwise?
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thanks so much for the comments. Maybe false assurance is more of a problem in broad evangelical or baptist circles.


----------



## Gforce9

Pergamum said:


> Maybe false assurance is more of a problem in broad evangelical or baptist circles.



I think so.....for the very reason Dr. Strange elaborated on. Where he ministers (and when he blesses Westminster from time-to-time), God's people hear weekly what Christ has done for sinners, encourages them believe on Him, and leads them into the unfolding of God and His Christ through the faithful reading and proclamation of God's word. It is glorious! This is by and large absent from pop-evangelicalism, which happens to be mostly Baptist. What you find in the "more faithful" evangelical circles/churches is Promise Keeper type stuff (ie. work hard to be a better husband/father, change your culture,....veiled social gospel stuff).
After 20ish years of that garbage, I love and need to be pointed away from myself and pointed to Christ. The Christians _telos_ is Christ, nothing within us. Anything less is rubbish.


----------



## The Narrator

I agree with the sentiments of Dr. Strange. I could not say that I was not regenerate before Sept. 18th 1986, and really obtained assurance on that date. But I will say that a pastor who properly counsels someone during this time of being in the slough of despond must be scrupulously careful, and I will say as for myself, I could never rest in anything less than the highest assurance of my faith's reality. I dared not build on the sand. The extreme, in this regard, I am afraid are persons like William Nichols, http://www.intoutreach.org/ insist that the preparatory work is necessary and persons who detail a conversion without it have a suspect conversion. I deal with all of this in three hours of lectures that are on Sermon Audio. Did the Puritans Teach Preparationism? 1 of 3 Is preparatory law-work necessary? MP3 | SermonAudio.com SID=51010131775 and SID=510101411335 One of the most interesting discussions on this subject was written by Increase Mather in his introduction to Stoddard's Guide to Christ. "That eminent man of God, Mr. Baxter relates that he was once at a meeting of many Christians, as eminent for holiness as most in the land, of whom divers were ministers of great fame, and it was desired that every one of them would give an account of the time and manner of his conversion, and there was but one of them all that could do it. And, (says he,) I aver from my heart, that I neither know the day, nor the year, when I began to be sincere. Nevertheless, for the most part, they that have been great sinners, are not converted without dreadful terrors of conscience."


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> I agree with the sentiments of Dr. Strange. I could not say that I was not regenerate before Sept. 18th 1986, and really obtained assurance on that date. But I will say that a pastor who properly counsels someone during this time of being in the slough of despond must be scrupulously careful, and I will say as for myself, I could never rest in anything less than the highest assurance of my faith's reality. I dared not build on the sand. The extreme, in this regard, I am afraid are persons like William Nichols, http://www.intoutreach.org/ insist that the preparatory work is necessary and persons who detail a conversion without it have a suspect conversion. I deal with all of this in three hours of lectures that are on Sermon Audio. Did the Puritans Teach Preparationism? 1 of 3 Is preparatory law-work necessary? MP3 | SermonAudio.com SID=51010131775 and SID=510101411335 One of the most interesting discussions on this subject was written by Increase Mather in his introduction to Stoddard's Guide to Christ. "That eminent man of God, Mr. Baxter relates that he was once at a meeting of many Christians, as eminent for holiness as most in the land, of whom divers were ministers of great fame, and it was desired that every one of them would give an account of the time and manner of his conversion, and there was but one of them all that could do it. And, (says he,) I aver from my heart, that I neither know the day, nor the year, when I began to be sincere. Nevertheless, for the most part, they that have been great sinners, are not converted without dreadful terrors of conscience."



That is an interesting link you posted. I am reading through it now (with caution).

Thanks for the quote by Increase Mather.


----------



## The Narrator

I do want to qualify the whole discussion. There is always an underlying presupposition here that I am assuming. Of course we always direct persons to Christ. That is assumed. What I am talking about is assisting someone who is keenly aware of his innate inability to believe any of the gospel promises. There is a lengthy quote in the preface to Owen's Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins but worth reading. But before I quote it, I still believe that many modern pastors could hardly write a book like Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience, or write a detailed work like Ichabod Spencer's Pastor's Sketches. Often they aren't well trained in experimental theology. (2) any person who was under the terrors that I was under does not easily respond to the gospel promises. One of the BEST means I have given awakened sinners is to tell them to read a hymnal like the Gadsby Hymnal. By the way, Pergie! as someone called you, I use the nickname "The Narrator" because I have been narrating Puritan and Reformed works for 29 years... Puritan / Reformed Audio Books | Narrating from 1985 to the Present. Comments? Questions? jubwubbins AT yahoo DOT com - Here is the preface... THE circumstances in which this Exposition of Psalm 130 originated are
peculiarly interesting. Dr Owen himself, in a statement made to Mr
Richard Davis, who ultimately became pastor of a church in Rowel,
Northamptonshire, explains the occasion which led him to a very careful
examination of the fourth verse in the psalm. Mr Davis, being under
religious impressions, had sought a conference with Owen. In the course of
the conversation, Dr Owen put the question, “Young man, pray in what
manner do you think to go to God?” “Through the Mediator, sir,”
answered Mr Davis. “That is easily said,” replied the Doctor, “but I
assure you it is another thing to go to God through the Mediator than
many who make use of the expression are aware of. I myself preached
Christ,” he continued, “some years, when I had but very little, if any,
experimental acquaintance with access to God through Christ; until the
Lord was pleased to visit me with sore affliction, whereby I was brought
to the mouth of the grave, and under which my soul was oppressed with
horror and darkness; but God graciously relieved my spirit by a powerful
application Psalm 130:4, ‘But there is forgiveness with thee, that
thou mayest be feared;’ from whence I received special instruction, peace,
and comfort, in drawing near to God through the Mediator, and preached
thereupon immediately after my recovery.”


----------



## JimmyH

The Narrator said:


> I do want to qualify the whole discussion. There is always an underlying presupposition here that I am assuming. Of course we always direct persons to Christ. That is assumed. What I am talking about is assisting someone who is keenly aware of his innate inability to believe any of the gospel promises.
> 
> There is a lengthy quote in the preface to Owen's Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins but worth reading. But before I quote it, I still believe that many modern pastors could hardly write a book like Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience, or write a detailed work like Ichabod Spencer's Pastor's Sketches.
> 
> Often they aren't well trained in experimental theology. (2) any person who was under the terrors that I was under does not easily respond to the gospel promises. One of the BEST means I have given awakened sinners is to tell them to read a hymnal like the Gadsby Hymnal. By the way, Pergie! as someone called you, I use the nickname "The Narrator" because I have been narrating Puritan and Reformed works for 29 years...
> 
> Puritan / Reformed Audio Books | Narrating from 1985 to the Present. Comments? Questions? jubwubbins AT yahoo DOT com - Here is the preface... THE circumstances in which this Exposition of Psalm 130 originated are
> peculiarly interesting.
> 
> Dr Owen himself, in a statement made to Mr
> Richard Davis, who ultimately became pastor of a church in Rowel,
> Northamptonshire, explains the occasion which led him to a very careful
> examination of the fourth verse in the psalm.
> 
> Mr Davis, being under
> religious impressions, had sought a conference with Owen. In the course of
> the conversation, Dr Owen put the question, “Young man, pray in what
> manner do you think to go to God?” “Through the Mediator, sir,”
> answered Mr Davis.
> 
> “That is easily said,” replied the Doctor, “but I
> assure you it is another thing to go to God through the Mediator than
> many who make use of the expression are aware of. I myself preached
> Christ,” he continued, “some years, when I had but very little, if any,
> experimental acquaintance with access to God through Christ; until the
> Lord was pleased to visit me with sore affliction,
> 
> whereby I was brought
> to the mouth of the grave, and under which my soul was oppressed with
> horror and darkness; but God graciously relieved my spirit by a powerful
> application Psalm 130:4, ‘But there is forgiveness with thee, that
> thou mayest be feared;’ from whence I received special instruction, peace,
> and comfort, in drawing near to God through the Mediator, and preached
> thereupon immediately after my recovery.”



If you don't mind me saying so ........ in reading posts on the computer screen it is very helpful if the paragraphs are broken up by hitting the enter key every so often to separate them, as I have taken the liberty of doing to your post shown above. Makes it far more easier on old eyes such as mine. Thanks for the useful and informative posts.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I appreciate the kinds words of our brother The Narrator (Mr. Sullivan, I believe). But when he says "I myself was 3.5 years under awakening before I had a real level of assurance," he makes my point. Was he unregenerate all that time simply because he lacked assurance? I would go so far as to say that the brother has no real way of knowing precisely what his spiritual state truly was during that time: Because he may believe himself to have then been unregenerate does not mean that he was and besides, what difference does it make? He trusts now; he has assurance now; he is walking, albeit quite imperfectly (as is true of all the saints) with his Savior.



This has been the point I have been hammering away at. I am more comfortable w/ the idea that one was regenerate in this 'preparatory' phase than to consider the unregenerate man being dealt with in a manner that was less than the enmity which he held w/ Christ if unregenerate. In my opinion, there is a deep chasm between the realities, scripturally speaking; at least in what I am able to see. Part of the problem arises out of making the proper distinctions and using a consistent language. Many use the term conversion and regeneration interchangeably, to which in my estimation leads to some problems. I find myself having to sift through what is being said in these instances to gather the points correctly.

It has been a profitable discussion. Thanks to all.


----------



## The Narrator

The question that has plagued me for 30 years, and to which I don't have a definite answer, is why so many people in our day are converted so easily?
When I look at the huge turnout of the Young, Restless and Reformed "Calvinists" that attend assemblies from the Gospel Coalition, 
and when I see that Mark Driscoll's church had an assembly of 8000 people and John Piper's church, when I visited there in 2003,
had 22 pastors, inside I wonder how such a revival producing so many conversions took place but the testimonies differ so drastically
from many conversion testimonies I see detailed in works like John Gillies, Historical Collections and Accounts of Revival. I know God's
ways of bringing the dead sinner to life are so very various. But what I see that is different in many detailed autobiographical conversions
in a bygone day is a conviction that the sinner was brought to that by nature he has a dreadful enmity against God. Romans 8:7. 
This sentence, from the life of Asahel Nettleton, used to be a very common pre-conversion experience that is by and large unheard of in our day,
" One day, while alone in the field, engaged in prayer, his heart rose against God, because he did not hear and answer his prayers. 
-Then the words of the Apostle, the carnal mind is enmity against God, came to his mind with such overwhelming power, 
as to deprive him of strength, and he fell prostrate on the earth." Again, here is a statement from the biography of David Brainerd,
When I considered of it, it distressed me to think that my heart was so full of enmity against God; and it made me tremble, 
lest God's vengeance should suddenly fall upon me. I used before to imagine my heart was not so bad as the Scriptures and some other books represented."
But this kind of confession is very rarely met with in the details of so many conversions now. That it is necessary, I am not saying, that it should be preeminent 
I don't even say that. I am saying it is almost non-existent. I am only asking why?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The question that has plagued me for 30 years, and to which I don't have a definite answer, is why so many people in our day are converted so easily?



These are confessions; disciples who have the sign placed. No one knows who is actually regenerated and converted. The path is narrow, not wide. Many are called, few chosen. Numbers never tell the truth.

On


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Mr. Sullivan, I believe ("The Narrator"):

A few thoughts in answer to your question. Edwards himself is very clear that conviction of sin--deep and profound conviction of sin--often follows conversion (as it did in his case; as noted in my earlier cited article on Edwards). I think that your question is a valid one, then, when taken in the broader sense: what has happened to a deep conviction of sin in the life of the Christian (whether at the beginning of his walk or later)? 

I think that the answer there is that we tend to have little clear preaching of the law to see our sin, hate our sin, and turn from our sin. We don't take our sin very seriously. We are not a deeply spiritual age. Our spirituality tends to be thin and we need greater texturing, including a much greater sense of the unspeakable sinfulness of sin: what is cost the Savior and how that, unless we are killing it (to use Rutherford's terms), it will be killing us. 

More could be said here about the specifics of your question, but I think that the real point is that there is far too little sense of the truly horrifc nature of sin among us and we need to be in prayer for the Lord to revive such in our midst so that we might see and hate and turn from our sin as never before. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> I do want to qualify the whole discussion. There is always an underlying presupposition here that I am assuming. Of course we always direct persons to Christ. That is assumed. What I am talking about is assisting someone who is keenly aware of his innate inability to believe any of the gospel promises. There is a lengthy quote in the preface to Owen's Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins but worth reading. But before I quote it, I still believe that many modern pastors could hardly write a book like Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience, or write a detailed work like Ichabod Spencer's Pastor's Sketches. Often they aren't well trained in experimental theology. (2) any person who was under the terrors that I was under does not easily respond to the gospel promises. One of the BEST means I have given awakened sinners is to tell them to read a hymnal like the Gadsby Hymnal. By the way, Pergie! as someone called you, I use the nickname "The Narrator" because I have been narrating Puritan and Reformed works for 29 years... Puritan / Reformed Audio Books | Narrating from 1985 to the Present. Comments? Questions? jubwubbins AT yahoo DOT com - Here is the preface... THE circumstances in which this Exposition of Psalm 130 originated are
> peculiarly interesting. Dr Owen himself, in a statement made to Mr
> Richard Davis, who ultimately became pastor of a church in Rowel,
> Northamptonshire, explains the occasion which led him to a very careful
> examination of the fourth verse in the psalm. Mr Davis, being under
> religious impressions, had sought a conference with Owen. In the course of
> the conversation, Dr Owen put the question, “Young man, pray in what
> manner do you think to go to God?” “Through the Mediator, sir,”
> answered Mr Davis. “That is easily said,” replied the Doctor, “but I
> assure you it is another thing to go to God through the Mediator than
> many who make use of the expression are aware of. I myself preached
> Christ,” he continued, “some years, when I had but very little, if any,
> experimental acquaintance with access to God through Christ; until the
> Lord was pleased to visit me with sore affliction, whereby I was brought
> to the mouth of the grave, and under which my soul was oppressed with
> horror and darkness; but God graciously relieved my spirit by a powerful
> application Psalm 130:4, ‘But there is forgiveness with thee, that
> thou mayest be feared;’ from whence I received special instruction, peace,
> and comfort, in drawing near to God through the Mediator, and preached
> thereupon immediately after my recovery.”



Wow, I checked out your link. You have a very nice voice to narrate with! I will be exploring your website more today (after lots of turkey).


----------



## Pergamum

Scott Bushey said:


> I appreciate the kinds words of our brother The Narrator (Mr. Sullivan, I believe). But when he says "I myself was 3.5 years under awakening before I had a real level of assurance," he makes my point. Was he unregenerate all that time simply because he lacked assurance? I would go so far as to say that the brother has no real way of knowing precisely what his spiritual state truly was during that time: Because he may believe himself to have then been unregenerate does not mean that he was and besides, what difference does it make? He trusts now; he has assurance now; he is walking, albeit quite imperfectly (as is true of all the saints) with his Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the point I have been hammering away at. I am more comfortable w/ the idea that one was regenerate in this 'preparatory' phase than to consider the unregenerate man being dealt with in a manner that was less than the enmity which he held w/ Christ if unregenerate. In my opinion, there is a deep chasm between the realities, scripturally speaking; at least in what I am able to see. Part of the problem arises out of making the proper distinctions and using a consistent language. Many use the term conversion and regeneration interchangeably, to which in my estimation leads to some problems. I find myself having to sift through what is being said in these instances to gather the points correctly.
> 
> It has been a profitable discussion. Thanks to all.
Click to expand...


Thanks Scott!


----------



## Pergamum

The Narrator said:


> The question that has plagued me for 30 years, and to which I don't have a definite answer, is why so many people in our day are converted so easily?
> When I look at the huge turnout of the Young, Restless and Reformed "Calvinists" that attend assemblies from the Gospel Coalition,
> and when I see that Mark Driscoll's church had an assembly of 8000 people and John Piper's church, when I visited there in 2003,
> had 22 pastors, inside I wonder how such a revival producing so many conversions took place but the testimonies differ so drastically
> from many conversion testimonies I see detailed in works like John Gillies, Historical Collections and Accounts of Revival. I know God's
> ways of bringing the dead sinner to life are so very various. But what I see that is different in many detailed autobiographical conversions
> in a bygone day is a conviction that the sinner was brought to that by nature he has a dreadful enmity against God. Romans 8:7.
> This sentence, from the life of Asahel Nettleton, used to be a very common pre-conversion experience that is by and large unheard of in our day,
> " One day, while alone in the field, engaged in prayer, his heart rose against God, because he did not hear and answer his prayers.
> -Then the words of the Apostle, the carnal mind is enmity against God, came to his mind with such overwhelming power,
> as to deprive him of strength, and he fell prostrate on the earth." Again, here is a statement from the biography of David Brainerd,
> When I considered of it, it distressed me to think that my heart was so full of enmity against God; and it made me tremble,
> lest God's vengeance should suddenly fall upon me. I used before to imagine my heart was not so bad as the Scriptures and some other books represented."
> But this kind of confession is very rarely met with in the details of so many conversions now. That it is necessary, I am not saying, that it should be preeminent
> I don't even say that. I am saying it is almost non-existent. I am only asking why?



This is why I said in a previous post that "false assurance" was our biggest problem in the US church today. Lots of people who say they are saved, but the trouble seems to be getting people lost....nobody is ever "lost" nowadays and I've scarcely heard of people struggling for any extended period of time in conviction over their sins prior to salvation. Dr Strange responded that he did not see this as a problem in his church (which I assume is a solid church with long-time Christians in attendance), so maybe it is only a problem in more evangelical circles, but I am not ready to relent on the point that salvation has become altogether too easy in our day and nobody seems to struggle much prior to being delivered.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

I did not say that false assurance was not a problem in the confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I said that I did not see it as the predominate problem. I would agree, as I said above in response to The Narrator, that a low view of sin, and too little conviction of sin, is a predominate problem, as well as hearty faith. 

You've gone on to say other things, including this reiteration: "This is why I said in a previous post that "false assurance" was our biggest problem in the US church today." Trevor, just to be clear, when you assert this, what you are saying is, "Lots of people who profess faith in evangelical churches clearly are not Christians at all and are headed for hell." I am not suggesting that this is unclear to you, but I am not sure that it's equally clear to everyone in the conversation.

I am prepared to agree that in all our churches the spiritual temperature is low right now. I am not prepared to say what you are pretty clearly saying: "That's because most of these people are not Christians at all." You may well be right that many are not, but I do not believe that there's a necessity to assert such. If people's life and doctrine is such that clearly warrants such a conclusion that's one thing (e.g., they deny the virgin birth or live impenitently in sin). But I am not going to assert this on the grounds that "they are not saved because they've not had (or yet had) a particular religious experience." This is what you are doing, brother. 

I do not hear you saying "I think that many people are not really Christian because of their clearly defective doctrine and/or life." You may well think that, but that's not the point of all of these posts, is it? *The point of all of these posts is that you question whether people are Christian because you don't hear them testifying to an experience of significant conviction of sin before conversion, which is to say, that you are questioning, in the first place, whether people are Christians, not because of defective life or doctrine, but because they've not had the sort of religious experience that you think they should have had if they are truly Christian. *

This is why I urge you to rethink your position on this. It is not fundamentally sound to judge a person's spiritual state on the basis of whether you find their conversion narrative convincing or not. This is a path down which some good Puritans have gone in the past, but it is a fruitless and ultimately uncharitable one. Much better simply to say that we need refreshing and reviving and leave in God's hands how He works this all out. And one may object here that refreshing and renewal pertains only to those already trusting. Yet the dynamic of initial trust and continuing trust are not different: when one first trusts and repents, that's simply the begining of a life of trusting and repenting. So I need either to do it for the first time or be renewed in it. But it's always about Christ and what he's done for me, not the quality of my conviction for sin or the quality of my faith in Him. 

We (I am thinking of what a session does in this respect) don't properly examine men's religious experiences minutely in determining whether men are saved or not; rather, we examine their doctrine and life and ask them whether they repent and believe. Some see their sin clearer than others; many come to realize its depths later.

I think that we have the same concern (we both lament the current low spiritual temperature). But given your way of seeing it, one is likely to preach in a way that will prompt men to seek a certain religious experience, whereas we really want to point men to Christ so that they repent and believe for the first time or simply once again. We don't want to preach in a way that induces men to seek to have a certain religious experience. Rather, we want to preach in a way that makes it clear to all your hearers that outside of Christ there is no hope, that we are lost sinners, doomed and damned, and that Christ alone is our only hope of eternal salvation. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Yes, I agree that one's life and doctrine are important to examine. And yet, one may mentally assent to all the right things and yet still never commit to it or be changed by it. 

You write:


> we really want to point men to Christ so that they repent and believe for the first time or simply once again. We don't want to preach in a way that induces men to seek to have a certain religious experience


. How about the religious experience of having believed and repented? 

If a man truly believes and has repented, he might not know when this was exactly, but he would have an awareness of being alive. There does seem to be some importance to the experiential aspect. Just to be clear, if somebody comes to me for spiritual counsel, I would focus on present repentance and faith and doctrine and fruits. BUT, asking whether one has ever truly believed savingly in Christ or truly repented (questions pertaining to a past experience of conversion) are also very useful. The answer of, "Well I've always been a Christian..." might be justifiable in some cases of children raised up in the church, but for most people there was a time of conscious decision to commit to these doctrines. 

My wife grew up in a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod environment where she reported that no sermon ever addressed them as sinners or demanded a conscious placing of faith in Christ...it was always "just assumed" that all those in the church were already believers. There was never any "examine yourself to see whether you be in the faith" sort of sermons.

Yes, we are to preach in a way that shows that there is hope in Christ and that Christ is our only hope of eternal salvation. I am not sure how my preaching would diminish this if I were to ask "Have you ever truly hoped in Christ..." or "Have you ever placed your faith in the Saviour?"

Do you see anything wrong with Joseph Alleine's appeal in _An Alarm to the Unconverted_, _"... Strike in with the Spirit when He begins to work upon your heart. When He works convictions, O do not stifle them, but join in with Him, and *beg the Lord to give you saving conversion. *'Quench not the Spirit.' Do not reject Him, do not resist Him."_

I believe that the experiential aspect of salvation is of some importance. Though the experience varies in the particulars and in the intensity, if becoming a Christian is to be translated out of a kingdom of darkness into a kingdom of light, shouldn't Christians be able to be conscious of at least some of this change and be able to verbalize it? MY affections have been changed, my appetites have been changed, what my mind dwells on has been changed....


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

Of course I agree that one may merely mentally assent to the gospel. This is why I said that we look not only at doctrine and life but ask about repentance and faith. We want to know not only whether one assents, but whether one trusts in Christ and Him alone. I've been saying this all along so you can't seriously question me on this. My objection is not to Joseph Alleine's seeking to press faith and repentance on his hearer in every proper way. 

Rather, my objection, dear brother is to what you continue to say: On what basis do you assume that there are myriads with right doctrine and life but fall short of truly knowing Christ? And your answer must be, as it has consistently throughout these posts, not simply the theoretical "well one may have nothing but mental assent" but "clearly there are many religious professors who are not possessors of Christ because they do not have the requisite religious experience." I am not denying the reality of or even the need for religious experience. I am denying that one must have a certain experience: so much conviction before true conversion, for example. 

I ask all the time in my preaching "Have you ever truly hoped in Christ?" and the like. This is not the point. The point is that you identify whether or not one has done that with a particular sort of thing: sufifcient conviction before conversion and the like. You may think that you are doing what Edwards and Alleine are doing but I would say that you are not. I have no trouble inquiring, and think that good preaching should, as to whether or not one has truly trusted in Christ and Him alone. I do have a problem with concluding that many have false assurance because they've not undergone what is requisite to true assurance: a pre-conversion conviction of sin that becomes the touchstone for true conversion and thus the warrant of true assurance. It's one thing to say that deficient life and doctrine and no testimony to faith and repentance prompts one to question the assurance of others. It's another thing altogether to question the assurance of others based on their lack of pre-conversion conviction. That's simply unwarranted and uncharitable. Sorry to be so blunt, but I see no way around that.

I think that if you don't get what I am saying by now, I probably need simply to stop here and commit all these matters to prayer and perhaps take it up again, if that appears wise and useful, in the future. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Dr Strange for the comments. I am still struggling through your answers. I am struggling to figure out exactly where those points are in which we differ:

You wrote:


> I ask all the time in my preaching "Have you ever truly hoped in Christ?" and the like. This is not the point.



I think that is the point....or at least part of the point. Such a question hearkens back to a past experience. When we examine ourselves to see whether we be in the faith, this question is one that we normally ask of ourselves (a question based upon a past experience), even if the more important questions are, "Do I now presently savingly believe and repent RIGHT NOW...and what are my present fruits?"

I am not sure what you are arguing against, but I have set up no normative model of what the sinner must experience. I have set up no normative route that this "narrative of grace" must follow. But normally, a Christian does have a story to tell. And that story seems to include some level of awareness of being a sinner (and sometimes a period of conviction prior to deliverance). Sometimes this period of conviction is longer for some than for others (and the person often testifies that they were not yet saved/converted during this particular stretch of time, such that many would refer to such a person as an "awakened sinners"). Do you accept the category of "awakened sinner" or is this a point at which we differ?

I only assert that it is normal for the sinner to experience something (usually some level of awareness and/or conviction of sins and/or a thankfulness to God for the work of Christ) such that there is, in fact, an experiential component to their conversion. Some people not yet converted come under conviction of sin and are known as "awakened sinners" or "inquirers" or even "seekers". I agree that these should not to sit idly in that condition and should be told to believe and repent. Yet I see nothing wrong in counseling these awakened sinners to "pray that God would enable them to believe and repent" if they feel that they cannot do so. If the sinners WANTS to believe and repent, then he CAN do so. I also see no reason why we need to argue that these are already regenerate because of this conviction of sin, for many possess conviction of sin who do not ever possess conversion. 

My OP asked the question of whether we ought to beseech sinners to believe and repent or should we beseech sinners to pray that the Lord would enable them to believe and repent. And it seems that the answer that Alleine gives in his book _Alarm to the Unconverted_ is to do both, for he states, "beg the Lord to give you saving conversion" even as he beseeches the reader to believe and come to Christ. It appears that the immediate call to believe and repent is often better. Yet, I still have not found sufficient reason to see the second option (to also beseech sinners to pray the Lord to give them such an ability) as sinful or wrong. We have examples of the Puritans doing that very thing. Dr. Don Kistler gave the excellent Thomas Goodwin quote,_ "If you can't go to God WITH a right heart, then go to God FOR one_." Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with praying to God for a new heart.

You have already stated in a previous post:


> I heartily agree with the Boston quote. Boston urges those who have no sense of their sin to see their need, without which conviction of sin (at some level), they will not come to Christ. And he urges all those who see their sin to come to Christ...


. I fully agree.

Therefore, I am not all too clear where it is that we differ. Do you think that I am demanding that one MUST have had a period of conviction of a certain length before they can claim to be a Christian? I have not said as much, for each person's testimony often varies greatly. 

Please note that I have never used the phrase "crisis conversion." Only you have used this phrasing, "crisis conversion." I also do not believe that one must come to a crisis to be converted. If you are objecting to me because you believe that I am advocating this, then you have no need to object, I do not advocate this position of "crisis conversion." 

So, where are the points that we are disagreeing on? How do I misrepresent Edwards and Alleine? I did link the sermon of Edwards' that shows Edwards' belief that "God makes men sensible of their miseries before he reveals His mercy and love?" What do you think of that sermon?


The Apostle Paul was writing to a church in Second Corinthians 13:5 when he said, "


> Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!


. Was Paul being uncharitable when he wrote this to the church body at Corinth? And how are preachers in our day to handle this text?

Would you agree that most Puritans placed an importance on conviction of sin prior to conversion? I have searched through my previous posts and I don't recall ever making a certain level of conviction mandatory. I only believe that some level of awareness of sin and even some level of knowing that one is a sinner and guilty of sin is a normative experience for believers prior to conversion. Do you agree with that?

A Puritan's Mind Â» Conviction and Conversion – by Dr. William S. Plumer



> It is hard to prescribe a just measure of humiliation. It is the same in the new birth as in the natural. Some give birth with more pangs, and some with fewer. But would you like to know when you are bruised enough? When your spirit is so troubled that you are willing to let go those lusts which brought in the greatest income of pleasure and delight. When not only is sin discarded but you are disgusted with it, then you have been bruised enough. The medicine is strong enough when it has purged out the disease. The soul is bruised enough when the love of sin is purged out.
> 
> “The Godly Man’s Picture” pg. 227


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Strange and all:

I am rereading some of Thomas Hooker's writings. Reading this at the same time as I am reading through this book: Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God's Way of Leading Sinners to Christ: Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley: 9781601782342: Amazon.com: Books

This book "Prepared by Grace, For Grace." is simply a wonderful book.

Reading these two books together makes me more aware of the dangers that Dr Strange may be alluding to. Thomas Hooker seemed to have had 8-steps of preparation that sinners pass through prior to conversion. Rather than possible ways in which the Spirit might work, Hooker seemed to phrase it in such a way as to expect that every sinner WOULD pass through these steps prior to conversion and that this was THE WAY in which the Spirit worked. Thus, pastorally, in order to check the spiritual state of those sitting under your preaching, inquiring into what experiences a sinner might have already experienced along this path would indicate where they were along the path towards conversion.

Jonathan Edwards rejected these teachings, leaving it to divine mystery how the Spirit sometimes worked in sinners to convert them, _"Therefore there is a danger that the church will become defined by outward conformity to a learned formula of experiences instead of the inward reality of broken-hearted trust in Christ._" 

A real gem of a book and a good antidote to anything Thomas Hooker wrote about the Spirit's preparation of sinners for salvation.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

When an awaiting on marks of grace and inward inspection trump fruit of the spirit and righteous works are we placing 'experience' & 'self' over God's glory & praise? Shouldn't the growth be simultaneously internal AND external .....

Should awakened sinners not even crawl through that gait and lunge toward Christ..... I say 'yes!'

We will disappoint ourselves but we must press on and never lose sight of what He has done not what we have done (either sin or good work) we will be compelled to press on in what we cannot deny


----------



## Peairtach

I've found Paul Helm's book "The Beginnings" (BoT) good on the elements of true conversion - conviction, faith and repentance. He talks about them as different "strands" in conversion, to avoid the idea e.g. that one should have months, weeks or days of conviction before faith comes to have genuine conversion, or other forms of preparationism.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I fear there is a danger of waiting on that 'one experience'

What does scripture say regarding that one conversion experience.... I hear more of the good fight of faith & spiritual warfare not about sinners waiting on the outside for that 'one experience' prior to entering the battle as sinners living for Christ - nobody chooses this way. It's a way they can't deny. A way they've been lost to find.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Peairtach said:


> I've found Paul Helm's book "The Beginnings" (BoT) good on the elements of true conversion - conviction, faith and repentance. He talks about them as different "strands" in conversion, to avoid the idea e.g. that one should have months, weeks or days of conviction before faith comes to have genuine conversion, or other forms of preparationism.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


 thanks! I will look for that!


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Pergamum said:


> Jonathan Edwards rejected these teachings, leaving it to divine mystery how the Spirit sometimes worked in sinners to convert them, _"Therefore there is a danger that the church will become defined by outward conformity to a learned formula of experiences instead of the inward reality of broken-hearted trust in Christ._"
> 
> A real gem of a book and a good antidote to anything Thomas Hooker wrote about the Spirit's preparation of sinners for salvation.



Yes! Edwards is right!


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Pergamum
And around & around the circle you will go - did I have enough conviction ? Was I repentant enough? Why am I still a sinner? We could be literally stuck in a miserable and me-oriented state for years. That is not what Paul is advocating but that's what too many 'experiential' preachers do as a form of control & conformity


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I don't agree with the concept of awakened but not yet converted sinners - how may we be regenerated yet not converted? What is the biblical warrant for such a concept? Conviction should not yield confusion or discouragement - only further dependency aND YET dependency is an act of FAITH


----------



## AJ Castellitto

'Come to Christ' is Never Bad counsel- Never!


----------



## Pergamum

AJ Castellitto said:


> I don't agree with the concept of awakened but not yet converted sinners - how may we be regenerated yet not converted? What is the biblical warrant for such a concept? Conviction should not yield confusion or discouragement - only further dependency aND YET dependency is an act of FAITH



Awakened does not mean regenerated. Yes, I would also have trouble with a "regenerated but not yet converted sinner." Edwards and others put forth a position that God draws a sinner and that a sinner is awakened to his sinfulness and some begin to seek. This awakened state is not yet a saved state. Many of those awakened do not appear changed for good, but many only gain a temporary interest in the gospel.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I'm not sure one can have conviction of sin prior to being regenerated - is there scripture warrant for that? Sorry if u already posted it, God Bless!


----------



## Ben_Ives

Jesus Christ who is our great example, said to Peter that He would make him a, 'fisher of men'.

Fishing is an art form, it takes skill. Some bait is more suitable than others. When someone catches a fish next to you and you're not getting any bites, I would ask, what type of bait you are using.

I would have thought anything at all to get people to consider accepting Christ, including praying for their own salvation is appropriate. 

We are dealing with lost souls when preaching the gospel, not graduates from a Bible College, so I'm sure it doesn't really matter honestly.


----------



## Ben_Ives

AJ Castellitto said:


> I'm not sure one can have conviction of sin prior to being regenerated - is there scripture warrant for that? Sorry if u already posted it, God Bless!



Pharoh had conviction of sin, and even repented but was never regenerated. A false faith can carry someone a long distance, even to the place of being a preacher who isn't converted.

Note the following, and note that Christ said, I NEVER knew you. They were not saved and lost, they were never regenerated



> Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> 
> Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Ben_Ives said:


> AJ Castellitto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure one can have conviction of sin prior to being regenerated - is there scripture warrant for that? Sorry if u already posted it, God Bless!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pharoh had conviction of sin, and even repented but was never regenerated. A false faith can carry someone a long distance, even to the place of being a preacher who isn't converted.
> 
> Note the following, and note that Christ said, I NEVER knew you. They were not saved and lost, they were never regenerated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> 
> Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I meant conviction of sin as part of repentance / embracing Christ - that's the context of this topic / discussion - not seeing where your example or your cited verses apply - conviction of sin unrelated to Jesus would make the thread pointless I would imagine?


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Judas had conviction of sin - but no Jesus. Can u have conviction of sin without Jesus? Sure.... But I'm not sure that's the scenario being presented here.....


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I think the reason there are so many carnal Christians is because there is a skipping over the conviction of sin entirely - but as soon as its evident or expressed how do we rightly discourage ? If a person knows they are a sinner and are not being prompted but voluntarily identify as such ....


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Carnal Christians?


----------



## Ben_Ives

A person who has never heard the gospel, or heard of God's law (eg a tribesman in Africa) can still feel conviction of sin, because of his conscience. [Romans 1]

The woman who came to the Lord weeping and wiping His feet with her tears, was already regenerated to prompt her conscience to cry with repentance at the Lords feet. She was already regenerated and already justified. Christ then proceeded to inform her that her sins had been forgiven, thus declaring her justified (a recognition of her condition).

Same as Abraham, was he justified in circumcision or un-circumcision ? 

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 

Abraham was justified by his faith prior to travelling up the mountainside to sacrifice Isaac, what he did was evidence of his justification, and then the Lord declared him to be justified. There is a distinction between actual justification and declared justification. Actual justification is the actual state of a person, declared justification is actual justification that is declared and shown to be true.

Paul and James were speaking of different things when discussing justification. There is only 1 true justification, but 2 ways in which it can be expressed and communicated. There is no contradiction between Paul and James, when Paul says saved by faith not works lest any man should boast, he is referring to actual justification - and what he says is absolutely true (of course). James however was discussing declared justification.

Without actual justification, there can be no declared justification, but James was saying that a truly justified person will be manifested to be justified, will be declared justified, and be seen to be justified by their works. Thus faith without works is dead. As a person with a profession of faith that is constantly proven to be a profession only, and the same person when put under trials will be evidenced to be seen not to be faithful to the Lord. 

It is not in the time of trial that this person loses their salvation, or has their salvation (in actual terms) put to the test, so that if they are able to produce works they are saved, because of their works - that would be a confliction of what Paul teaches. It is that a person can be declared righteous - as Abraham was, and as the weeping lady at Christ's feet was, once it is evidenced that they are indeed justified.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

But that's not the main issue being discussed here.... With this conviction a sorry for sin and a response to the gospel when presented is evident - true conviction of sin is rooted in sorrow for sin & repentance


Ben_Ives said:


> A person who has never heard the gospel, or heard of God's law (eg a tribesman in Africa) can still feel conviction of sin, because of his conscience. [Romans 1]
> 
> The woman who came to the Lord weeping and wiping His feet with her tears, was already regenerated to prompt her conscience to cry with repentance at the Lords feet. She was already regenerated and already justified. Christ then proceeded to inform her that her sins had been forgiven, thus declaring her justified (a recognition of her condition).
> 
> Same as Abraham, was he justified in circumcision or un-circumcision ?
> 
> Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
> 
> Abraham was justified by his faith prior to travelling up the mountainside to sacrifice Isaac, what he did was evidence of his justification, and then the Lord declared him to be justified. There is a distinction between actual justification and declared justification. Actual justification is the actual state of a person, declared justification is actual justification that is declared and shown to be true.
> 
> Paul and James were speaking of different things when discussing justification. There is only 1 true justification, but 2 ways in which it can be expressed and communicated. There is no contradiction between Paul and James, when Paul says saved by faith not works lest any man should boast, he is referring to actual justification - and what he says is absolutely true (of course). James however was discussing declared justification.
> 
> Without actual justification, there can be no declared justification, but James was saying that a truly justified person will be manifested to be justified, will be declared justified, and be seen to be justified by their works. Thus faith without works is dead. As a person with a profession of faith that is constantly proven to be a profession only, and the same person when put under trials will be evidenced to be seen not to be faithful to the Lord.
> 
> It is not in the time of trial that this person loses their salvation, or has their salvation (in actual terms) put to the test, so that if they are able to produce works they are saved, because of their works - that would be a confliction of what Paul teaches. It is that a person can be declared righteous - as Abraham was, and as the weeping lady at Christ's feet was, once it is evidenced that they are indeed justified.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Carnal Christians?


 unregenerate professors of the faith


----------

