# When a presentation of the Gospel turns into a discussion of Calvinism



## Davidius

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I just don't understand how a person would come to the point in a conversation about the Gospel where an unbeliever would complain that God hasn't zapped him. The Gospel requires them to believe and gives them no excuse not to. Whether they have the capacity to is irrelevant to the issue of their wanton rebellion.


----------



## MW

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.


----------



## Davidius

armourbearer said:


> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.



So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. The willingness to pray in order to find grace shows that the problem of their inability is genuine and not merely an excuse. But I suppose you could be confrontational if you want to press the point; maybe you could ask them if they would believe if it were in their power to do so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.



If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.
Click to expand...


"Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.


----------



## Davidius

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.
Click to expand...


This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.
Click to expand...


We're talking past each other perhaps. I'm certainly not arguing that a man consider himself capable of pleasing God. I think men need to understand they are dead in sin and trespasses and that nothing in them is acceptable before God and that the Gospel is a call to trust in the righteousness of Christ and not their own.

I'm not trying to distill the Gospel per se but, concerning a very first basic presentation, the discussion of Jacob and Esau is not a prerequisite.

By the time Paul reaches the middle of Romans Chapter 3, the unbeliever possesses sufficient information to understand that no good lies within him and he has a need for a Savior. The presentation that a righteousness exists apart from the Law is sufficient at that point without then explaining why some do not continue in belief.

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).
Click to expand...


I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.

Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.


----------



## Davidius

SemperFideles said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily _precede_ the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.
> 
> Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I think that's exactly what I needed to hear (read).


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.



There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgment." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgment, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.


----------



## MW

Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgment." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgment, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.
Click to expand...


I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

It is my experience, limited as it is, that many people understand that God has given them faith without having the ability to articulate it. Most recently, the wife of one of the deacons started asking about why God gives her faith while He doesn't give others the same even though I had never directly dealt with God's particular election directly except to note that our salvation is based on the unmerited favor of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."



 I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one _must_ understand predestination to _begin_ discipleship.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.



Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe?
Click to expand...


The "weight" ascribed is simply to present two exceptions to a rule you seem to be making. If, as you seem to argue,the Gospel *must* include an explicit reference to the inability of men to respond to the Gospel then these simply represent examples of Gospel presentations that did not contain explicit reference to those details in all instances.

It was never my intent to argue that the Gospel must *not* include references to men's inability. I am trying to avoid the notion that *all* Gospel preaching is of the same kind to all audiences. Certainly the preacher must preach whatever is in God's Word and the regular preaching of the Gospel during worship will include this data. I do not wish to preclude that.

Thus, my examples were not to state that Peter and Paul's examples were the only *type* of Gospel presentation but were *a* type of Gospel presentation. I frankly don't understand your objection to these examples and citing that Peter and Paul didn't precisely call men to believe. It's rather obvious that when Peter states that Jesus is Lord and Christ that this is something that demands some sort of response. I would argue that "...oh and you need to believe what I just said..." is superfluous given everything that preceded and cut men to the heart to the point that they were cognizant of their great sin.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to drive at and I wish you'd be more explicit. I'd rather like to stick with Peter if you don't mind so I can make sure I understand where you're coming from. Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one _must_ understand predestination to _begin_ discipleship.



Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, my examples were not to state that Peter and Paul's examples were the only *type* of Gospel presentation but were *a* type of Gospel presentation. I frankly don't understand your objection to these examples and citing that Peter and Paul didn't precisely call me to believe. It's rather obvious that when Peter states that Jesus is Lord and Christ that this is something that demands some sort of response. I would argue that "...oh and you need to believe what I just said..." is superfluous given everything that preceded and cut men to the heart to the point that they were cognizant of their great sin.



You acknowledge there is no *explicit* call to believe, and yet you require an *explicit* acknowledgment of faith as a gift of God. Did you go for your run today?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.


----------



## Davidius




----------



## Semper Fidelis

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?
> 
> How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?





armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one _must_ understand predestination to _begin_ discipleship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.
Click to expand...


Incidentally, I don't want to miss out on agreeing with this point. I think a person that is objecting to the Gospel might need this means of grace and ought to be told that you will pray that God will open up his/her eyes to the Gospel and that they pray the same if they don't believe but wonder if they really could. I reviewed the scenario again and realized that it might be the particular scenario that caused the divergent opinion here. I've been more broadly focused on the issue of whether every presentation of the Gospel is going to include the issue of predestination.

I still maintain, however, that getting into Romans 9 type discussions with a person who is objecting is simply not the tact I would take. The "why did God choose some and not others" question is most always a smokescreen. The objector doesn't really care why others don't believe, he just wants to get off the subject of his own unbelief and divert the discussion to putting God on trial.


----------



## Davidius

SemperFideles said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?
> 
> How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one _must_ understand predestination to _begin_ discipleship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I don't want to miss out on agreeing with this point. I think a person that is objecting to the Gospel might need this means of grace and ought to be told that you will pray that God will open up his/her eyes to the Gospel and that they pray the same if they don't believe but wonder if they really could. I reviewed the scenario again and realized that it might be the particular scenario that caused the divergent opinion here. I've been more broadly focused on the issue of whether every presentation of the Gospel is going to include the issue of predestination.
> 
> I still maintain, however, that getting into Romans 9 type discussions with a person who is objecting is simply not the tact I would take. The "why did God choose some and not others" question is most always a smokescreen. The objector doesn't really care why others don't believe, he just wants to get off the subject of his own unbelief and divert the discussion to putting God on trial.
Click to expand...


Yes, I was thinking that even if the examples of sermons you gave do not create a normative idea of what a Gospel presentation must look like, they should at least be proof that a Gospel presentation does not necessarily have to include a discussion of Romans 9.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.



What is there to answer? I believe I have spoken perspicuously. This is what you said: "There is not *explicit mention with the command to believe* that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them." This is the reason you have provided as to why the gospel need not provide reference to faith as God's gift. My reply was, that there is no *explicit* command to believe, so how can you require an *explicit mention* that faith is God's gift. At which point I received an impatient response urging me to answer a question I was never asked.


----------



## Iconoclast

*simple but direct*



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?
> 
> How do you handle the friend when
> 
> 
> 
> he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?
> 
> David, this is a good question and easier to answer in a live conversation rather than a keyboard.
> In particular if the unbeliever raises the question which you know deals with election you can answer it directly and simply. Assuming you have had time to lay the groundwork about the fall, the law of God, and judgment to come.
> When the discussion gets to
> 
> 
> 
> he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> , I would just use his statement to press home his responsibility. ie, God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. The world is condemned already. God has purposed to save a multitude IN Christ.
> All that the Father has given to Christ willcome. If he has not yet come to Christ he has cause for concern if he cares about his soul.
> You then might have to be careful to indicate it is not a physical work that he can perform.
> show him from scripture it involves an earnest seeking of Jesus in and through the word of God.
> The scripture becomes the main focus, not his objection or carnal reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Thomas2007

Hello Davidus,

I would like to share with you my personal opinion, that I have developed through experience. First, however, when I refer to things that are old, and I appreciate a lot of old things and see them as essentials, like our Confession of Faith, I am often told we need to change them to make them relevant. I generally disagree. I personally don't like to utilize the TULIP a lot, because it is in a context that presumes the people you face today have the presuppositions of the Dutch Arminians. Without contradiction, I usually update this whole approach, with folks that aren't true Arminians.

Every man has faith in something, so many people simply cannot grasp the idea of an inability to believe because they have no frame of reference to understand it. A lot of time can be wasted trying to convince a man of a principle when his presuppositions axiomatically deny it. We have to start understanding where people are at, and why, and speak so they have a frame of reference they can understand. Ultimately, you have to challenge their axioms, but you have to be able to have a meaningful conversation to even get them to consider that.

The TULIP presumes you have a frame of reference in relationship to Scripture's teaching. The Dutch Arminians didn't develop their system in ignorance of Calvinism, but as a system of counter Reformation. I've found that to presume that the average American is epistemically self-justified as an "Arminian in ignorance," is simply to set myself up for needless conversation and generally abuse. I haven't been able to be profitable that way, I know others are, but I haven't.

I have expressed my approach to this here. You might find it edifying.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there to answer? I believe I have spoken perspicuously. This is what you said: "There is not *explicit mention with the command to believe* that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them." This is the reason you have provided as to why the gospel need not provide reference to faith as God's gift. My reply was, that there is no *explicit* command to believe, so how can you require an *explicit mention* that faith is God's gift. At which point I received an impatient response urging me to answer a question I was never asked.
Click to expand...


I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.

I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.
> 
> I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.



If that was a genuine question, I apologise; it looked rhetorical to me. If it's not rhetorical then my response should have made clear that I regard it as irrelevant. And the remark about running wasn't intended to needle you, but simply to lighten the atmosphere to my challenge. Again, I apologise if I gave occasion for you to take this the wrong way.

Warranted impatience; that's new.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.
> 
> I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a genuine question, I apologise; it looked rhetorical to me. If it's not rhetorical then my response should have made clear that I regard it as irrelevant. And the remark about running wasn't intended to needle you, but simply to lighten the atmosphere to my challenge. Again, I apologise if I gave occasion for you to take this the wrong way.
> 
> Warranted impatience; that's new.
Click to expand...


Then call it having more important things to do than trying to resolve this puzzle right now. I don't quite understand how you believe the question is irrelevant but you don't seem to want to explain yourself either so we'll cordially leave it at that.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Then call it having more important things to do than trying to resolve this puzzle right now. I don't quite understand how you believe the question is irrelevant but you don't seem to want to explain yourself either so we'll cordially leave it at that.



Here's the question: "Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?" I ignored this question thinking it was rhetorical, because the suggestion itself is absurd. My response was to cast doubt on the very premise of your question, that faith isn't explicitly mentioned in the passages you cited. Since its not explicitly mentioned you can hardly require an explicit mention of faith as the gift of God; and if that's the case your question is irrelevant. Please don't insinuate that I have been anything less than candid in this discussion simply because you don't have the time to reply patiently.


----------



## panta dokimazete

now, now, fellers...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then call it having more important things to do than trying to resolve this puzzle right now. I don't quite understand how you believe the question is irrelevant but you don't seem to want to explain yourself either so we'll cordially leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the question: "Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?" I ignored this question thinking it was rhetorical, because the suggestion itself is absurd. My response was to cast doubt on the very premise of your question, that faith isn't explicitly mentioned in the passages you cited. Since its not explicitly mentioned you can hardly require an explicit mention of faith as the gift of God; and if that's the case your question is irrelevant. Please don't insinuate that I have been anything less than candid in this discussion simply because you don't have the time to reply patiently.
Click to expand...

OK, candid then but not clear to me at least. I cannot blame my reaction to it on anyone but myself.

So, because faith is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, you don't believe faith was present in the hearers at that point? (Note: I'm trying to understand whether you actually don't believe faith was present in the hearers when Peter responded "Repent and be baptized..." or are you trying to drive home a point about my use of the term explicit in a previous sentence where I was careless in its use.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> My response was to cast doubt on the very premise of your question, that faith isn't explicitly mentioned in the passages you cited. Since its not explicitly mentioned you can hardly require an explicit mention of faith as the gift of God; and if that's the case your question is irrelevant.


I keep reading and re-reading what you're trying to state and so I'd like to ask another clarifying question:

Are you stating that the Gospel can be heralded without an explicit reference to faith but, if it does, then the basis for faith _must_ be explicitly explained as well?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> So, because faith is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, you don't believe faith was present in the hearers at that point? (Note: I'm trying to understand whether you actually don't believe faith was present in the hearers when Peter responded "Repent and be baptized..." or are you trying to drive home a point about my use of the term explicit in a previous sentence where I was careless in its use.)



The second option. I emboldened "explicit mention" because that is what you were requiring even though there is no explicit mention of faith in the text. You can't require burden of proof outside terms of reference.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Are you stating that the Gospel can be heralded without an explicit reference to faith but, if it does, then the basis for faith _must_ be explicitly explained as well?



The historical facts can be heralded, but the imperative call cannot, without expressing the duty to believe. I would say that when any hearer of the gospel is called to believe, it is as a sinner that he is called to believe, and so he should be convinced that he can do nothing spiritually good of himself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, because faith is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, you don't believe faith was present in the hearers at that point? (Note: I'm trying to understand whether you actually don't believe faith was present in the hearers when Peter responded "Repent and be baptized..." or are you trying to drive home a point about my use of the term explicit in a previous sentence where I was careless in its use.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second option. I emboldened "explicit mention" because that is what you were requiring even though there is no explicit mention of faith in the text. You can't require burden of proof outside terms of reference.
Click to expand...

OK, this is what I figured out where we were stuck. I never meant to imply that that explicit mention was required. It was a sloppy sentence. I shouldn't have even noted an explicit command to believe. The point at the time had to do with whether predestination must be explicitly understood. Having at least unwrapped this problem, let me proceed to figure out more.

I had given example of Peter's sermon as not the only example but simply one example of a type of Gospel presentation that need not mention predestination unto belief. Am I right in assuming that you were arguing that the Gospel must explain this point to the hearer or they will not have the proper basis to be convinced that they can do nothing spiritually good of themselves?



armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you stating that the Gospel can be heralded without an explicit reference to faith but, if it does, then the basis for faith _must_ be explicitly explained as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical facts can be heralded, but the imperative call cannot, without expressing the duty to believe. I would say that when any hearer of the gospel is called to believe, it is as a sinner that he is called to believe, and so he should be convinced that he can do nothing spiritually good of himself.
Click to expand...


To further elaborate, would you argue that all this "convincing" had been accomplished _implicitly_ by Peter up to the point they were cut to the heart as you agreed that they had faith after he told them to repent and be baptized....

Peace Rev. Winzer. Please forgive me for getting aggravated earlier.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I had given example of Peter's sermon as not the only example but simply one example of a type of Gospel presentation that need not mention predestination unto belief. Am I right in assuming that you were arguing that the Gospel must explain this point to the hearer or they will not have the proper basis to be convinced that they can do nothing spiritually good of themselves?



The sinner should be convinced first, as a part of the preaching the law, that he can do nothing that is spiritually good. Then the gospel should be preached, which requires faith as the condition to interest the sinner in Christ -- faith of the operation of God to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation, not a mere mental assent to certain historical facts.



SemperFideles said:


> To further elaborate, would you argue that all this "convincing" had been accomplished _implicitly_ by Peter up to the point they were cut to the heart as you agreed that they had faith after he told them to repent and be baptized....



Just to be clear, from my perspective the speeches are not germane to the discussion, because (1.) they are selected to serve the overall apologetic purpose of the book, not to provide a homiletical pattern; and (2.) their original delivery would have taken into account the theological understanding of their hearers. We can't make theological abstractions from the text and then impose those categories of thought back onto the text in order to answer questions which the text does not raise. But if I were to make a theological abstraction from the text, it would be that "repentance" includes what we have described in the Shorter Catechism answer on effectual calling.



SemperFideles said:


> Peace Rev. Winzer. Please forgive me for getting aggravated earlier.



Peace and blessings, dear brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had given example of Peter's sermon as not the only example but simply one example of a type of Gospel presentation that need not mention predestination unto belief. Am I right in assuming that you were arguing that the Gospel must explain this point to the hearer or they will not have the proper basis to be convinced that they can do nothing spiritually good of themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sinner should be convinced first, as a part of the preaching the law, that he can do nothing that is spiritually good. Then the gospel should be preached, which requires faith as the condition to interest the sinner in Christ -- faith of the operation of God to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation, not a mere mental assent to certain historical facts.
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't assume I believed a mere presentation of facts was in order. I didn't respond to your previous reply as I was trying to bound the discussion but, had I done so, I would have made sure you knew I agreed with this.

I fully agree that the sinner ought to be convinced both of the above. Maybe it is the specifics of receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation that the disconnect is occuring. Do you believe receiving a resting on Christ must include a seminal understanding of God's election and foreordination of their faith and that He gave them that faith or do you believe it is possible for a person to have faith without really understanding where it is coming from but just understands that he knows he's a wretch and his only hope is Christ.



armourbearer said:


> To further elaborate, would you argue that all this "convincing" had been accomplished _implicitly_ by Peter up to the point they were cut to the heart as you agreed that they had faith after he told them to repent and be baptized....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, from my perspective the speeches are not germane to the discussion, because (1.) they are selected to serve the overall apologetic purpose of the book, not to provide a homiletical pattern; and (2.) their original delivery would have taken into account the theological understanding of their hearers. We can't make theological abstractions from the text and then impose those categories of thought back onto the text in order to answer questions which the text does not raise. But if I were to make a theological abstraction from the text, it would be that "repentance" includes what we have described in the Shorter Catechism answer on effectual calling.
Click to expand...

Depends on the discussion we're having I guess because this medium today hasn't lent itself to our mutual understanding. Further clarification continues to remove the initial tension that I sensed was artificial.

I never meant to imply that it had to be a homiletical pattern. It was simply _an_ example. I wouldn't go to Peter or Paul's presentations of the Gospel to specific audiences and seek to create a "how to" book out of them. They were simply useful at the time to try to provide a basis for discussion.

I also don't disagree that there are certain categories that Peter could draw on. He didn't have to explain what it meant, for instance, that Jesus was the Christ and could refer to David and set Christ in a Covenant context.

Depending on how you respond above, it may lead to further questions but I think we're on the same page ironically enough.

I have to run out in town now for a few hours. Probably won't pick this conversation back up with you until tomorrow. I'll be sure to break out that jar of vegemite from the shelf tomorrow morning so I can be extra sharp. By the way, I did exercise this AM. I got up at 0430 because I had a 0700 meeting. I was a bit cranky and irritable. Should have had vegemite this morning and it might have made up for it!


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I fully agree that the sinner ought to be convinced both of the above. Maybe it is the specifics of receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation that the disconnect is occuring. Do you believe receiving a resting on Christ must include a seminal understanding of God's election and foreordination of their faith and that He gave them that faith or do you believe it is possible for a person to have faith without really understanding where it is coming from but just understands that he knows he's a wretch and his only hope is Christ.



Good morning, Rich; I hope you enjoyed your vegemite toast for breakfast. 

I believe there must be a renouncing of self and natural power for it to be a true resting on Christ. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself," etc. Although faith is required as a duty, it is also given as a gift and should be received as such as a part of the blessing of salvation. Eternal life is God's gift, Rom. 6:23. If the sinner is not aware of that fundamental point then the gospel has not been preached sufficiently. Whether this requires the doctrine of election to be taught might be debated, as we did above; but I think ordinarily, as we agreed, it _ought_ to be taught, and this will mean certain questions will arise in hearers' minds when they hear it is their duty to believe in order to be saved, and these questions will require an answer. I will post a statement by William Guthrie, which I think is fairly representative of what would be the traditional reformed way of presenting the relationship between the duty and the gift of faith.

The one thing I think we need to be very careful about, is to make sure we do not regard the doctrines of grace as some sort of second blessing. The doctrines of grace should be preached as THE gospel, not as some optional clause which the disciple can sign up for if he pleases. If we are not proclaiming the gospel of sovereign grace, then we are not proclaiming the gospel.

I note your qualification with regard to the speeches in Acts and think you are correct to see the speeches as examples of the apostolic witness. But as always, phenomena require principia in order to be interpreted correctly; so we need to be careful not to slip into the mode of reading between the lines of these examples. Blessings!


----------



## MW

From William Guthrie, Christian's Great Interest.



> VI.--Objections from the want of power to believe answered.
> 
> Object. Although I be not excluded from the benefit of the new covenant, yet it is not in my power to believe on Christ; for faith is the gift of God, and above the strength of flesh and blood. Ans. It is true that saving faith, by which alone a man can heartily close with God in Christ, is above our power and is the gift of God, as we said before in the premises; yet remember, 1. The Lord has left it as a duty upon all who hear this gospel cordially by faith to close with His offer of salvation through Christ, as is clear from Scripture. And you must know, that although it be not in our power to perform that duty of ourselves, yet the Lord may justly condemn us for not performing it, and we are inexcusable; because at first he made man perfectly able to do whatsoever He should command. 2. *The Lord commanding this thing*, *which is above our power*, *willeth us to be sensible of our inability to do the thing*, *and would have us to put it on Him to work it in us*. He has promised to give the new heart, and He has not excluded any from the benefit of that promise. 3. *The Lord uses*, by these commands and invitations, and men's meditation on the same, and *their supplication about the thing*, *to convey power unto the soul to perform the duty*. Therefore, for answer to the objection, I do 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 of to do these things ' (Ezek. 36: 37); 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 approve of that salvation in the way God does offer it, and so 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 (Isa. 64: 5), will not be wanting on His part; and thou shalt not have ground to say, that thou movedst toward 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 loveth it, and desireth to be engaged with it, thou hast it already performed within thee; so that difficulty is past before thou wast aware of it.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> I believe I have spoken perspicuously.



Why be perspicuous when you can be clear?


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have spoken perspicuously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be perspicuous when you can be clear?
Click to expand...


It's the "Puritan" board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree that the sinner ought to be convinced both of the above. Maybe it is the specifics of receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation that the disconnect is occuring. Do you believe receiving a resting on Christ must include a seminal understanding of God's election and foreordination of their faith and that He gave them that faith or do you believe it is possible for a person to have faith without really understanding where it is coming from but just understands that he knows he's a wretch and his only hope is Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning, Rich; I hope you enjoyed your vegemite toast for breakfast.
> 
> I believe there must be a renouncing of self and natural power for it to be a true resting on Christ. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself," etc. Although faith is required as a duty, it is also given as a gift and should be received as such as a part of the blessing of salvation. Eternal life is God's gift, Rom. 6:23. If the sinner is not aware of that fundamental point then the gospel has not been preached sufficiently. Whether this requires the doctrine of election to be taught might be debated, as we did above; but I think ordinarily, as we agreed, it _ought_ to be taught, and this will mean certain questions will arise in hearers' minds when they hear it is their duty to believe in order to be saved, and these questions will require an answer. I will post a statement by William Guthrie, which I think is fairly representative of what would be the traditional reformed way of presenting the relationship between the duty and the gift of faith.
> 
> The one thing I think we need to be very careful about, is to make sure we do not regard the doctrines of grace as some sort of second blessing. The doctrines of grace should be preached as THE gospel, not as some optional clause which the disciple can sign up for if he pleases. If we are not proclaiming the gospel of sovereign grace, then we are not proclaiming the gospel.
> 
> I note your qualification with regard to the speeches in Acts and think you are correct to see the speeches as examples of the apostolic witness. But as always, phenomena require principia in order to be interpreted correctly; so we need to be careful not to slip into the mode of reading between the lines of these examples. Blessings!
Click to expand...

What a great breakfast today! My wife bought some bread from a Japanese bakery that is so good. It's very soft with sort of a spongy but stiff crust and it's got butter all the way through. I broke out that jar of vegemite that you guys gave me as a gift and spread it on the bread. It was SO good. I need to find a source of vegemite because I think I'm going to start eating it every day.

Anyhow, with my mind sharpened by things Australian this AM, let me see if I can interact. I've got to run out in town to mail something after this post so I'll look forward to your reply.

I completely agree with everything you said. I'm just always amazed about what people do and don't really understand. I think in our own discussions and with others about the nature of faith, I've always tried to distinguish between what we need to be able to intellectually articulate and what we sort of have by faith without always being able to put words to it. I know, for instance, that I'm teaching my children a seminal understanding that they are incapable of coming to Christ apart from Him loving them while they did not deserve it. I'm also cognizant, however, of the fact that children don't really grasp the concept of incapacity yet.

The other day, I was teaching all the children in the Church because, later, I was teaching the adults about 1 John and the fact that we didn't love God but that He first loved us. I asked the children if they loved their parents and they responded that they did but then asked them why. None of them really knew but sort of gave answers that indicated that their love was a reflection of the love that had been lavised on them by their parents. I explained that, before they could even grasp that there was someone beside themselves and even knew they had hands or feet, they were loved by their parents. It's not a perfect analogy but it's not a bad one either and many of the adults understood the application about God's love toward those who had not capacity to love Him.

I don't think that an understanding of man's incapacity is a second blessing because that would imply some sort of instantaneous apprehension of it. I do think, however, that our incapacity and the need for God to initiate love while we deserved nothing but a curse and that there was nothing in us to move Him to it, is something that we understand more clearly with maturity.

On the one hand, I've taught a number of very strong lessons to the entire Church on many streams that demonstrate the impetus for Christian service is a Divine inheritance that was received by us - an inheritance we contribute(d) _nothing_ to. Men and women will marvel at that and thank me for it afterward as they begin to reflect on the amazing grace of God that has been lavished upon them. Then, reflecting on it, some have started to ask questions.

So last night I spent a good hour explaining how central our understanding of God's initiation of grace is to our life as Christians. I was in a sweat at the end of it. I made sure they understood that God had saved them while they were enemies of His, that they could offer Him nothing, and that the fact they could see and respond to the Gospel was a glorious grace. I furthered explained that to ask God why He doesn't give that grace to all is none of our business but to praise God for the riches He gives us for, it is not clear what all His purposes are, but it is clear from the things revealed that, left to ourselves, we would surely perish.

After all that, people were very content knowing that God had made them His friends and they could rest secure in the salvation they were not looking for but found them. With *all that*, someone asked about free will. It was innocent enough. People have been taught that way after all. I did my best to patiently explain that our wills are in bondage but that we act with freedom according to our dispositions. I demonstrated that man, in his fallen condition, does not *desire* to please God and disobeys. The light went on and she noted: "Ah yes, that's why Romans 1 says we're given over...." Bingo.

I don't think these people were converted to Christ last night but discipled. That's my only point in all of this. I think many of them, in spite of the impoverishment of their faith, have trusted Christ even though former teachers have undermined that program. Many Christians hold together rank contradictions and think nothing of it. Working through those in a Church is very difficult and requires some delicacy. I know some that think it's something that never needs to be dealt with so as not to make waves. I disagree. I simply believe that as you're teaching people about such things, especially when they're holding on to another idea more out of ignorance/tradition than rebellion, you need to come near them in love, show them you love them, and then gently explain things to them so that they see the truth in a way that they're ready to receive it.

Some Churches don't have to do this extra work because the views are monolithic. Others that are reforming need to be mindful of the bruised reeds and be gentle with them as they are strengthening them.


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> I don't think that an understanding of man's incapacity is a second blessing because that would imply some sort of instantaneous apprehension of it. I do think, however, that our incapacity and the need for God to initiate love while we deserved nothing but a curse and that there was nothing in us to move Him to it, is something that we understand more clearly with maturity.



Dear Rich, I completely agree. I think Hebrews 5:12-14 is apt here:


> 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.


New believers, let alone unbelievers, can't begin with "solid food", but with "milk". I would think that talking to unbelievers about their inability to believe, and thus the natural questions that immediately arise about it (the human will, it's freedom, predestination, etc. etc.), is too much too quickly. In my neck of the woods it's difficult enough getting the average Aussie pagan to understand the concept of sin, let alone total depravity.

Moreover, the evangelistic preaching in Acts can't tell us everything about evangelism, but it certainly has things to teach us, particularly Paul's sermons to rank pagans in Acts 14 and 17. Hence, in Athens Paul starts with creation ex nihilo to set up a right understanding of God in a polytheistic context. And this allows him just to get the concept of sin (qua idolatry) of across. That's hard enough in such a context ...

Every blessing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Marty,

Thank you Brother. Do you also agree that vegemite is delicious on toast?


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> Thank you Brother. Do you also agree that vegemite is delicious on toast?



I love it; have eaten it since I was in nappies. And vegemite is great to take traveling because it never goes off!

Do you think vegemite counts as "solid food"?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?
> 
> How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?



He has a responsibilty to embrace Christ and repent of his sin; that is all he needs to worry about. God makes it clear that sinners or to seek Him (Is. 55), saying that they have not been regenerated is not an excuse - though of course they won't flee to Christ until they are effectually called.

Quote him Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure I want to eat something that can't "spoil."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure I want to eat something that can't "spoil."



It's kind of a spread Chris. It's a byproduct of the brewing process from what I understand and has a lot of yeast in it. It looks and kind of spreads like a thin tar but it is really good. Matthew's kids were fascinated the first time I ate it and gave me all sorts of tips on how to eat with with butter and toast. I'm not sure I would like it "straight up" but it has a good taste.

Before I left, Matthew's wife had bought me a bow wrapped jar of it as a gift.

Guess what brand is on the jar?

Kraft Foods.


----------



## JohnOwen007

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure I want to eat something that can't "spoil."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

SemperFideles said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what brand is on the jar?
> 
> Kraft Foods.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they make Velveeta don't they? So I guess that makes sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I don't think that an understanding of man's incapacity is a second blessing because that would imply some sort of instantaneous apprehension of it. I do think, however, that our incapacity and the need for God to initiate love while we deserved nothing but a curse and that there was nothing in us to move Him to it, is something that we understand more clearly with maturity.



As we look at everything else which grows organically in this world, we see that maturation presupposes the existence of matter to be developed. If the matter isn't there in general, then there can be no particular ripening process. If a person isn't taught natural inability as preparatory to the gospel call to believe, then what they are being asked to learn after they have believed the gospel is something extra which needs to be grafted in at a later stage. Grafting and maturing are two different things.

The reality is, that men naturally trust their own ability. Hence, if their inability isn't pointed out to them, they will take everything you say about faith and repentance in the Arminian sense of it. This means that if the doctrines of grace are not preached in the first instance, they must be presented as a kind of "second gospel" or "second blessing" -- as something to be grafted into the disciple's new found knowledge rather than something which naturally grows from it.

But an even sadder reality is, that the soul which has come to act with dependence on its own ability is in fact unable to freely accept the doctrines of grace. It is not merely that the doctrines of grace are something different from natural ability; rather, they are opposed to it. Hence, by calling persons to believe the gospel under the notion that they are able to do so in and of themselves, a prejudice is built up against the doctrines of grace. This is so because, (1) the person now feels at peace because of what the gospel promises them; they have their deliverance from the wrath to come, and they have it without the doctrines of grace; and (2) they are not about to let go of their self-dependence now that the gospel has assured them that their well-being depends on what they have done in believing in Christ.

Evangelism should be distinctively reformed. I recommend John Murray's "Arminianism in the pilgrimage of the soul" (The Pilgrimage of the Soul), and especially the section where he describes the evangelist who preaches the gospel of sovereign grace. The doctrines of grace are the pure milk of the word. Just as babes desire the breast out of a feeling of need, so also souls will only seek Christ's fulness when they have a sense of complete emptiness.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> As we look at everything else which grows organically in this world, we see that maturation presupposes the existence of matter to be developed. If the matter isn't there in general, then there can be no particular ripening process.



I would've thought that humanity's inability to repent and believe can be unpacked from a right understanding of "Christ alone". If Christ saves people completely, and not just makes salvation possible, this naturally entails total depravity.


----------



## Pergamum

To the original OP:

We call people to repent and believe. 

Predestination need not be a starting point. In fact, Jesus tells all who are weary and heavy-laden to come. We plead with men to be reconciled to God. We ALWAYS are to appeal to man's volition. 

We are always to offer up the Gospel. Repent and believe....


Starting as the first point with "God may have predestinated you," is always a wrong way to present the Gospel. 

The Gospel is much more focused and much more basic than the five points - they are not the same thing. The five points are an explanation and an expansion of the Gospel, but the Gospel is simple and some very ignorant people can be saved.

This doctrine should not be shied away from, but the integrity of our witness as calvinistics need not be proven by turning all witnessing into a discussion of the 5 points.

In fact, if someone says "God did not zap me.." it is much more productive to speak of their responsibility and ask them "Why, if you are able to believe, do you not?"


The Gospel is that we are all sinners and that Jesus came to earth as the God-man and died for our sins. All who repent and believe can be saved. The eternal counsel of God can come later.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that an understanding of man's incapacity is a second blessing because that would imply some sort of instantaneous apprehension of it. I do think, however, that our incapacity and the need for God to initiate love while we deserved nothing but a curse and that there was nothing in us to move Him to it, is something that we understand more clearly with maturity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we look at everything else which grows organically in this world, we see that maturation presupposes the existence of matter to be developed. If the matter isn't there in general, then there can be no particular ripening process. If a person isn't taught natural inability as preparatory to the gospel call to believe, then what they are being asked to learn after they have believed the gospel is something extra which needs to be grafted in at a later stage. Grafting and maturing are two different things.
> 
> The reality is, that men naturally trust their own ability. Hence, if their inability isn't pointed out to them, they will take everything you say about faith and repentance in the Arminian sense of it. This means that if the doctrines of grace are not preached in the first instance, they must be presented as a kind of "second gospel" or "second blessing" -- as something to be grafted into the disciple's new found knowledge rather than something which naturally grows from it.
> 
> But an even sadder reality is, that the soul which has come to act with dependence on its own ability is in fact unable to freely accept the doctrines of grace. It is not merely that the doctrines of grace are something different from natural ability; rather, they are opposed to it. Hence, by calling persons to believe the gospel under the notion that they are able to do so in and of themselves, a prejudice is built up against the doctrines of grace. This is so because, (1) the person now feels at peace because of what the gospel promises them; they have their deliverance from the wrath to come, and they have it without the doctrines of grace; and (2) they are not about to let go of their self-dependence now that the gospel has assured them that their well-being depends on what they have done in believing in Christ.
> 
> Evangelism should be distinctively reformed. I recommend John Murray's "Arminianism in the pilgrimage of the soul" (The Pilgrimage of the Soul), and especially the section where he describes the evangelist who preaches the gospel of sovereign grace. The doctrines of grace are the pure milk of the word. Just as babes desire the breast out of a feeling of need, so also souls will only seek Christ's fulness when they have a sense of complete emptiness.
Click to expand...


I don't find our two statements to be incompatible and I agree with them. My presentations always include man's fallenness and God's initiation in grace. I think my concern was a proposal that they have a comprehensive understanding of the facts, which is why I used my children as an example. I certainly don't give them any reason to trust in themselves at this point but I was perhaps misreading you early on to presume a person could not have faith unless their understanding of the Gospel had a more developed sense of predestination.

I think I read your concern being that we never leave the seeds of sovereign grace out of our presentation of the Gospel because it is sowing for the wrong fruit. I agree. 

As I reflected on the original question, however, the types of give and takes that an objector can present may be because they refuse to simply accept the presentation of inability and grace. I've never found it fruitful to discuss the profounder truths of God's election with scoffers. It is enough, in my estimation, to sow the announcement in a way that clearly proclaims God's sovereign grace to save wretched sinners who cannot save themselves. When the scoffer tries to put God on trial for not saving all, I simply don't entertain the fool's perceived right to that discussion.

If the person is honestly seeking clarification and explanation without mockery then I don't hesitate. I have found, however, that most whose hearts are prepared will gladly embrace the positive presentation that salavation is of the Lord will not turn around and ask why they were given the gift and not another. Many are simply so joyful that they have received the gift of grace that it doesn't occur to them to ask why it wasn't given to another. That is really how it should be. Perhaps my problem is that many Reformed believe they need to anticipate the objector even when none is present.


----------



## Davidius

Pergamum said:


> To the original OP:
> 
> We call people to repent and believe.
> 
> Predestination need not be a starting point. In fact, Jesus tells all who are weary and heavy-laden to come. We plead with men to be reconciled to God. We ALWAYS are to appeal to man's volition.
> 
> We are always to offer up the Gospel. Repent and believe....
> 
> 
> Starting as the first point with "God may have predestinated you," is always a wrong way to present the Gospel.
> 
> The Gospel is much more focused and much more basic than the five points - they are not the same thing. The five points are an explanation and an expansion of the Gospel, but the Gospel is simple and some very ignorant people can be saved.
> 
> This doctrine should not be shied away from, but the integrity of our witness as calvinistics need not be proven by turning all witnessing into a discussion of the 5 points.
> 
> In fact, if someone says "God did not zap me.." it is much more productive to speak of their responsibility and ask them "Why, if you are able to believe, do you not?"
> 
> 
> The Gospel is that we are all sinners and that Jesus came to earth as the God-man and died for our sins. All who repent and believe can be saved. The eternal counsel of God can come later.



I didn't say that I wanted to begin with the 5 points. In the OP I made it clear that I was asking about a conversation which turns into a discussion of the 5 points because of the unbeliever's inquisitiveness. Sometimes an unbeliever may ask a question which can only be faithfully answered by going deeper than one planned...or one could just dodge the question and say "stop asking questions and repent!" over and over. And it appears that the discussion truly has revolved around whether one should entertain the questions.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we look at everything else which grows organically in this world, we see that maturation presupposes the existence of matter to be developed. If the matter isn't there in general, then there can be no particular ripening process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would've thought that humanity's inability to repent and believe can be unpacked from a right understanding of "Christ alone". If Christ saves people completely, and not just makes salvation possible, this naturally entails total depravity.
Click to expand...


If it can be unpacked then why isn't it being unpacked? If it is entailed, why isn't it being stated? The idea of a minimalist gospel is unbiblical.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> If it can be unpacked then why isn't it being unpacked? If it is entailed, why isn't it being stated? The idea of a minimalist gospel is unbiblical.



Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "minimalist gospel" so I won't disagree with it. However, the biblical category with which I'm working is the distinction between "*milk*" and "*solid food*" in Hebrews 5:12-14. If milk is for immature believers, how much more for unbelievers. Meat for a baby won't just cause indigestion, the little one actually can't stomach it ...


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it can be unpacked then why isn't it being unpacked? If it is entailed, why isn't it being stated? The idea of a minimalist gospel is unbiblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "minimalist gospel" so I won't disagree with it. However, the biblical category with which I'm working is the distinction between "*milk*" and "*solid food*" in Hebrews 5:12-14. If milk is for immature believers, how much more for unbelievers. Meat for a baby won't just cause indigestion, the little one actually can't stomach it ...
Click to expand...


The distinction is between milk and meat. Both contain the nutrients needful for building up the soul according to its stage of development. The doctrines of faith and repentance are "the principles of the doctrine of Christ," Heb. 6:1. The distinction is not between water and meat. To deny to the soul an important teaching which is necessary for its profit is to feed it water, not milk. Acts 20:20, 21, "And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Natural repentance is not "repentance toward God" and historical faith is not "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Verses 26, 27, "Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Says Calvin: "What order must pastors then keep in teaching? First, *let them not esteem at their pleasure what is profitable to be uttered and what to be omitted*; but let them leave that to God alone to be ordered at his pleasure. So shall it come to pass that the inventions of men shall have none entrance into the Church of God."


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, yes that's a great point, and I wholeheartedly concur. God bless you brother.


----------



## Davidius

Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.


----------



## JohnOwen007

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.



That's the nub of the issue, and a great question. I personally think predestination (amongst other things) should be classed as "meat", because it naturally raises a whole host of issues that are difficult to grasp both intellectually and psychologically.

As Calvin said, speculation about predestintion can take one into a labyrinth, out of which escape is very difficult. Hence, it is a doctrine not for the immature. It must be handled with care and hence needs some godliness in those who embrace it.

However, it is a doctrine that must be taught if we want to reach maturity! That is what many shy from.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the nub of the issue, and a great question. I personally think predestination (amongst other things) should be classed as "meat", because it naturally raises a whole host of issues that are difficult to grasp both intellectually and psychologically.
> 
> As Calvin said, speculation about predestintion can take one into a labyrinth, out of which escape is very difficult. Hence, it is a doctrine not for the immature. It must be handled with care and hence needs some godliness in those who embrace it.
> 
> However, it is a doctrine that must be taught if we want to reach maturity! That is what many shy from.
Click to expand...


I agree _but_... 

I realized after we got into this circle with Matthew that my American mind was able to process an inherent problem in this discussion from the beginning even without the vegemite in my system. Notice that the title doesn't ask: "Should I leave out sovereign grace in my presentation of the gospel?" The question was whether or not a discussion of Calvinism is appopriate during an initial Gospel presentation. 

Calvinism is an example of a "theological heading" that need not be discussed during an initial orientation. The terms "five points" don't even have to be utilized nor do other exact phrases have to be utilized. The goal is _clarity_ of presentation and using terms that others may have a caricature in their mind concerning doesn't serve the communication of truth in all cases. It's funny how I've been learning about the debates during the Nicean controversy and how _homo ousias_ had been used by a heretic so that men who otherwise agreed with what the orthodox were saying were gun shy of the term because others had misappropriated it. We are not faced with a "love or leave John Calvin" set of choices or terms.

Thus, I do believe that a proper presentation of the Gospel would not undermine the notion that men have been appointed to eternal life per se but I also don't think it would have to be spelled out. Again, this goes into the realm of the kinds of questions men might ask initially. I don't see how the milk of the Gospel can exclude a fairly clear presentation of men's utter fallenness in sin and incapacity to please God in their flesh. That God had sent His Son to be the propritiation for everyone that believes is the inevitable news that follows. That God has provided this remedy independent of anything good that He saw in those He redeemed is also inevitable. That God's gift includes faith is also inevitable in a presentation.

Now, if a man is sophisticated enough to reason by good and necessary consequence, suffiicient conditions exist at that point for him to lead to more questions as it implies complete Divine inititiation as God extends friendship to an enemy that was not looking for Him. But there are times for those questions. I think it is artificial to expect that every man, especially given the many men and women I know who are very simple people, would start asking profound questions right away. The natural response for a man to do is to repent and believe. If he is predestined, all the means for his salvation have been presented to him and Providence is always best read backwards anyhow.


----------



## Davidius

Just to clarify, the OP was meant to address the question of what to do when it looks like a conversation with an unbeliever is heading in the direction of Calvinism. I do assume that just walking up and beginning a discussion about predestination ("hey man, did you know that you might be a vessel of wrath???") is not the way to share the Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Just to clarify, the OP was meant to address the question of what to do when it looks like a conversation with an unbeliever is heading in the direction of Calvinism. I do assume that just walking up and beginning a discussion about predestination ("hey man, did you know that you might be a vessel of wrath???") is not the way to share the Gospel.



Roger that little brother. I'm simply clarifying how thoughts form in my own mind d not accusing you of anything.

Part of this is very existential to me. My family is Roman Catholic and when I first started learning this stuff I would start a conversation with my brother like: "Are you Pelagian or Auguistinian?" and then let the dialogue ensue that really didn't leave him anything but intellectually challenged.

I wasted many opportunities. I'm not saying I'm sage but I'm much wiser than when I was 27. I realize now that the thing I didn't force him to contend with is sin and what the nature of the Gospel is. I was focused on the headers and the forms but not on the substance of the matter. I could have penetrated to the core without even using those terms.


----------

