What do you say to someone who says: "I don't have it in my heart to believe in God"?

[Jude24]

I mean basically this: You have to do something, but you can not merit anything. You can not simply sit there and let God.

This seems to be the definition of semi-Pelagianism. If we have to do anything to gain salvation, it is no longer by grace alone.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Yes, of course, unregenerate people can do these outward physical actions. None of these things save souls, however, and Edwards is not saying that they do.

But what Edwards is saying is that these things are necessary for someone to do if he ever wants to be saved. If you neglect these, you almost assuredly will never be saved. But if you do them diligently, there is a very good chance that you might get saved.

If we have to do anything to gain salvation, it is no longer by grace alone.

So you can stop attending the hearing of the Word? If there is no merit in anything, then the only thing that is left is grace. If your works don't merit you anything (which they don't), then it's all of grace.

Grace is the opposite of merit, not of working or doing in general. The opposite of doing is not-doing.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Look, when we read in the gospel that we are not justified by the works of the law, then it means that we get no merit from doing the works of the law. No one ever suggested that doing the works of the law is in any way bad or opposite to grace or to God. It's good to do the works of the law. But don't expect that they merit you anything before God.

Anything else is Antinomianism. And so it seems to me, that when we as Calvinists don't expect any works from an unbeliever, we are given them a free-pass to some sort of Antinomianism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

He desires salvation not in the sense that he loves God and finds him beautiful (he hates God), but he doesn't want to be punished. The reason a sinner seeks salvation is love to self, not love to God. For some reason he is convicted that there is a judgment coming after death, and so he can not rest and therefore truly seeks salvation. It is a sinful seeking, but it is nevertheless less sinful than not seeking at all. And, it may lead to salvation.

In other words, he doesn't desire salvation or seek it in any sense that justifies the expression. That is what he should have explained to him, so that he might come actually to know the truth, in the grace of God. In his case, "less" sinful though it may be, his sorrow is not that he is "not far from the kingdom of heaven," Mk.12:34, but that he is plainly not in the kingdom. Will it be more miserable or less in eternity to have been so near the gate, but continued in blindness groping for it until all was lost?

 

[MyCrows]

I mean basically this: You have to do something, but you can not merit anything. You can not simply sit there and let God.

But the only doing that you are engaged in is the receiving of Christ's righteousness, through faith.

 

[Apologia Christou]

In other words, he doesn't desire salvation or seek it in any sense that justifies the expression.

What exactly do you mean by that? No one desires salvation the right way but true Christians. No unbeliever is able to desire salvation in a God-honoring way, nor to do anything in a God-honoring way. All he does, speaks and breathes is sin. It really is. He's undone. You don't ever get anything good out of him, not even in the slightest sense.

Will it be more miserable or less in eternity to have been so near the gate, but continued in blindness groping for it until all was lost?

It will be less miserable, because seeking puts you in a position which restrains you from sinning. And so ultimately you end up heaping up less wrath.

I remember Gerstner quoting Edwards like this (I'm pretty sure I get this right): The sinner in hell would give the world and all beside to make the number of his sins one less.

But the only doing that you are engaged in is the receiving of Christ's righteousness, through faith.

So you are not doing good works? What about all the commands in Scripture to live a holy life?

 

[Jude24]

Look, when we read in the gospel that we are not justified by the works of the law, then it means that we get no merit from doing the works of the law. No one ever suggested that doing the works of the law is in any way bad or opposite to grace or to God. It's good to do the works of the law. But don't expect that they merit you anything before God.

Anything else is Antinomianism. And so it seems to me, that when we as Calvinists don't expect any works from an unbeliever, we are given them a free-pass to some sort of Antinomianism.

We don't expect any works from unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot perform any works. Good works are the result of salvation. They are not possible beforehand. This is not antinomianism. Unbelievers cannot keep the law...believers cannot even keep the law perfectly! This is why salvation is by grace alone and has absolutely nothing to do with works. This does not mean the moral law is bad or useless. It just means that keeping it does not play a role in salvation except for showing unbelievers their inability to keep it and their need for salvation.

 

[MyCrows]

So you are not doing good works? What about all the commands in Scripture to live a holy life?

I'm referring to entering through the strait gate, entering into a state of salvation though Jesus Christ. The good works and the holiness are the product of his Spirit working in you, after the fact.

 

[Jude24]

But what Edwards is saying is that these things are necessary for someone to do if he ever wants to be saved. If you neglect these, you almost assuredly will never be saved. But if you do them diligently, there is a very good chance that you might get saved.



So you can stop attending the hearing of the Word? If there is no merit in anything, then the only thing that is left is grace. If your works don't merit you anything (which they don't), then it's all of grace.

Grace is the opposite of merit, not of working or doing in general. The opposite of doing is not-doing.

Hearing of the Word is a means God uses to bring people to salvation. It is not a work, and hearing itself does not save. Many people hear the Word and are never saved.

 

[Apologia Christou]

I'm referring to entering through the strait gate, entering into a state of salvation though Jesus Christ. The good works and the holiness are the product of his Spirit working in you, after the fact.

Okay, so how exactly does this look like: God demands us Christians to live holy lifes, with the threat that when there is no such thing found, our justification is of no effect. And at the same time, unbelievers can sit back and wait on God to convert them out of thin air, not bound to do anything?

Is this reasonable? Is this warranted by Scripture?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What do we do with this, directly concerning salvation, from our Lord:

"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."

Lk 13,24.

What does this mean? Now these are very strong words, "strive" is ἀγωνίζομαι, which is agonizomai, from which we get "to agonize".

To whom does Jesus speak? He addresses someone with the question, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" It is a question that could come from anyone listening to Jesus preach of his kingdom, anyone listening with attention and contemplating the implications of it. The person could be more a disciple or a dilettante; it is a "natural" question.

The summons to strive presupposes sight of the entrance and some incentive to enter. To the disciple, Jesus gives a warning: those who would find life in his kingdom must let nothing stand in their way; they must "take heaven by storm" if need be, see Mt.11:12. To the desultory seeker, perhaps to someone who finds the promise of the kingdom as Christ presents it uncompelling--especially if there are not that many around who appear eager to get inside, which could indicate that lackluster is the benefit within, disappointing to those who arrive--Jesus' word is a warning and a rebuke. Those latter are presently judging by an outward appearance, and will fail of entrance without a purpose.

Jesus does not instruct his interrogator to simply "give it a go," or "try harder." He is as aware as any could be that no working up of passion and willpower can bring one to or through that narrow gate. When one senses, by God's grace, that he cannot take himself to or through that gate, he will plead for Christ to bring him in. Only then, in the strength of Another, will any barriers dissolve and the way fall open. The disciple is never content to think he is so far within the gate that he is done with striving, with agonizing, until he rests in glory.

 

[MyCrows]

Maybe the best way for

Okay, so how exactly does this look like: God demands us Christians to live holy lifes, with the threat that when there is no such thing found, our justification is of no effect. And at the same time, unbelievers can sit back and wait on God to convert them out of thin air, not bound to do anything?

Is this reasonable? Is this warranted by Scripture?

Christians are justified people. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Christians are justified people. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Okay, so God commands us to do good works, even though we are already justified, and the ones who are not justified, they are free to do nothing? Like chill, until you're in, and then go and do good works, altough you are justified anyway?

When one senses, by God's grace, that he cannot take himself to or through that gate, he will plead for Christ to bring him in.

That (I think) is exactly the goal of seeking: to come to the realization that you can not do it on your own. I remember Thomas Goodwin giving an analogy here, it went something like this: When the man discovers that he has no money in his purse (no merit before God), the first and natural thing he does is trying to earn this money himself (try to please God from now on). So God has to take away both of his arms (the end-result of seeking) to make him realize that he has nothing on his own and can give nothing to God. Only at this point he is fit to receive Christ.

I think this is a good analogy.

Also, Edwards points out that God acts with people as rational creatures, since that's what they are. And therefore surely, before a man is fit to receive Christ, he has to be aware of who he is, and be aware of his sins and misery. And God shows it to him by way of seeking. Otherwise, he won't estimate and appreciate the gift of Christ, and what it really means, and how hopelessly lost he would have been without Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But what Edwards is saying is that these things are necessary for someone to do if he ever wants to be saved. If you neglect these, you almost assuredly will never be saved. But if you do them diligently, there is a very good chance that you might get saved.

Statements of the kind that Edwards has here been quoted saying or writing is one reason why he has been doubted by eminent Presbyterian theologians as least as far back as Charles Hodge, as belonging in the first rank of reliable guides. This is not to question Edwards salvation, or his being used by God for the sound conversion of many, or his overall intellect. Edwards had helpful things to say. It is, however, correct to observe that his was a pietest tradition, of the N.E. Puritan strain; which partook of both preparationism, and a most powerful emphasis on experience (ahead of revelation) versus simple faith as that which made a Christian.

The more men look to their works or religious exercises as proof of their faith--to themselves and others--the more of their labor they will come to rely on as if it was the root, and not the fruit, of their faith. A said-faith, lacking fruit, is worthless as James teaches. But a works-obsessed faith, one that makes an impressive show of means-attendance without practical indifference to those means in preference for the Christ-of-the-means; this faith is worthless as well. This man, if he makes it to heaven at all, will come in "saved by fire" 1Cor.3:15.

 

[Apologia Christou]

I mean, Christ says: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

This invitation is for people who are "weary and burdened", seeking to get rest. Rest from what? Well, what else can be meant here but the burden of the law, trying to please God themselves?

 

[MyCrows]

I mean, Christ says: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

This invitation is for people who are "weary and burdened", seeking to get rest. Rest from what? Well, what else can be meant here but the burden of the law, trying to please God themselves?

Rest from striving to enter by their own.

Lol.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Statements of the kind that Edwards has here been quoted saying or writing is one reason why he has been doubted by eminent Presbyterian theologians as least as far back as Charles Hodge, as belonging in the first rank of reliable guides.

But Edwards isn't the only one here, preparation was widely held, not only in New-England, but before that, in England (Perkins and Ames, for example). Also the attendants of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort held to preparation unto conversion, as I gather from John Owen (who is of the same sort, as is Thomas Goodwin). So it seems to be an (at least) English thing, I don't really know about the Continent, I haven't read that much concerning it. And this to me is most interesting, since today, it's very rare, ye almost non-existing.

Rest from striving to enter by their own.

Lol.

Why do you laugh? All this is saying is, first comes the law, and then comes the gospel.

Now what is wrong about that?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What exactly do you mean by that? No one desires salvation the right way but true Christians. No unbeliever is able to desire salvation in a God-honoring way, nor to do anything in a God-honoring way. All he does, speaks and breathes is sin. It really is. He's undone. You don't ever get anything good out of him, not even in the slightest sense.



It will be less miserable, because seeking puts you in a position which restrains you from sinning. And so ultimately you end up heaping up less wrath.

I remember Gerstner quoting Edwards like this (I'm pretty sure I get this right): The sinner in hell would give the world and all beside to make the number of his sins one less.

I mean that what has been described as his "desire for salvation" referred to by the unbeliever since the OP is now agreed upon by all to be unreal, and not God-honoring. It truly does not deserve such description; but addressing that claim from the unbeliever requires the Christian witness to disabuse him by some means of his error. The aim of evading punishment is purely natural, purely of the flesh; just as is the pretended willingness to "do the crime, and do the time" without any complaining. The "certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," Heb.10:27, is hardly a "step in the right direction." It is no such thing; only, unless, peradventure, if the providence of God has foreordained in his singular case that it be thus. It is no such thing in the nature of the case.

And, I suppose (being of contrary mind to your thought above) for many who grope fruitlessly about the Door until they perish, it will not equate to one less sin for them; but it will be more bitter for having had less excuse than someone who was left in sinful ignorance far, far away from grace.

 

[Joshua]

In other words, he doesn't desire salvation or seek it in any sense that justifies the expression. That is what he should have explained to him, so that he might come actually to know the truth, in the grace of God. In his case, "less" sinful though it may be, his sorrow is not that he is "not far from the kingdom of heaven," Mk.12:34, but that he is plainly not in the kingdom. Will it be more miserable or less in eternity to have been so near the gate, but continued in blindness groping for it until all was lost?

Reminds me of Esau's "repentance," though sought with tears, he couldn't gain it. Because his repentance was not with regard to the eternal inheritance (the thing signified), but the carnal birthright (the sign). A seeking of which, of course, springs from the Spirit of God, the natural man unable and unwilling so to seek.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But Edwards isn't the only one here, preparation was widely held, not only in New-England, but before that, in England (Perkins and Ames, for example). Also the attendants of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort held to preparation unto conversion, as I gather from John Owen (who is of the same sort, as is Thomas Goodwin). So it seems to be an (at least) English thing, I don't really know about the Continent, I haven't read that much concerning it. And this to me is most interesting, since today, it's very rare, ye almost non-existing.

LBC 9:3 (Of Free Will) Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

 

[Apologia Christou]

but it will be more bitter for having had less excuse than someone who was left in sinful ignorance far, far away from grace.

I once was thinking about exactly that. So you disagree with the WCF on this point?

7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.

WCF — Chapter XVI: Of Good Works

So it seems they say that not doing good works always ends up in being more sinful. So doing them would always be better than not doing them.

LBC 9:3 (Of Free Will) Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

What do you want to say with that? That the people who hold to the Confessions (like Edwards) and wrote their Confessions (Owen and Goodwin on the Savoy Declaration, which says the exact same thing) contradict themselves? I don't understand exactly why you posted that.

 

[Taylor]

I think this thread is what happens when the ordo salutis is viewed as a step-by-step temporal process—"you do this, then you do this, then you do this, then this, then this, etc." Instead, saving faith, union with Christ, justification, adoption, sanctification, etc., are all the effects of regeneration/effectual calling. The only ones who can strive after the Lord are those who have been given a new heart by the Spirit of God.

 

[MyCrows]

Why do you laugh? All this is saying is, first comes the law, and then comes the gospel.

Now what is wrong about that?

Well I'm not laughing at you, and don't think that I'm not taking this conversation serious. I am.

Just kind of chuckling to myself and wondering if we aren't talking circles around ourself is all.

I'm not promoting laziness, or the neglect of the means of grace, or antinomianism. I'm just saying that I believe the passage we were looking at has Jesus calling people to strive to enter salvation through him.

Not strive to frame their lives in a certain way, or lock themselves into a more appropriate way of seeking salvation, but he's putting the emphasis on entering through Him.

Notice he says "many will seek to enter, but not be able." There are many people who seek to enter heaven. They don't miss it because they aren't seeking it, they miss it because they neglect the narrow gate(Jesus Himself).

 

[Apologia Christou]

I think this thread is what happens when the ordo salutis is viewed as a step-by-step temporal process—"you do this, then you do this, then you do this, then this, then this, etc." Instead, saving faith, union with Christ, justification, adoption, sanctification, etc., are all the effects of regeneration/effectual calling. The only ones who can strive after the Lord are those who have been given a new heart by the Spirit of God.

No, I don't think this topic has anything to do with the ordo salutis to be honest. It is simply about evangelism. What kind of person is fit to receive the gospel, and how shall one present the gospel. Like a theology on evangelism - and ye, this goes a bit deeper than just "preach the gospel". I think our Puritan fathers at least deserve some earnest credit and consideration in this matter, since they are the ones who came up with it. You do not have to agree, of course, but to me it's amazing that the whole thing got lost. Like this is what marked their evangelism, and it just seems like it eclipsed from their history, since we don't consider it anymore.

 

[Ed Walsh]

So, we being Calvinists, let's imagine a situation where the unbeliever says to you these very words: "Dear Christian, I don't have it in my heart to believe in Christ, nor to repent. How can I be saved? What can I do?"

The first thing I would tell the friend is that he's making a good and hopeful start but what he just said.

 

[Apologia Christou]

The first thing I would tell the friend is that he's making a good and hopeful start but what he just said.

You can already see the uprising theologian in him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I once was thinking about exactly that. So you disagree with the WCF on this point?

7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.

WCF — Chapter XVI: Of Good Works

So it seems they say that not doing good works always ends up in being more sinful. So doing them would always be better than not doing them.



What do you want to say with that? That the people who hold to the Confessions (like Edwards) and wrote their Confessions (Owen and Goodwin on the Savoy Declaration, which says the exact same thing) contradict themselves? I don't understand exactly why you posted that.

I'm not in any kind of disagreement with the WCF. My observation has to do with the intrinsic pain associated with coming terribly close to a goal, without achieving it. I can say with some confidence that whoever loses the upcoming SuperBowl will know bitterness that the HustonTexans cannot comprehend. Furthermore, there is the possibility that some team played as well as possible, kept to the rules better than their opponents, had fewer penalties, and it brought them little joy for the season. It might and ought go worse for them if they cheated, and had the same losing record. Who says, "You've no chance of ultimate success, so may as well behave horribly?"

I could advise an unbeliever to "do good, at least for yourself and even others in this life," but this would actually be detrimental to my purpose. I am a preacher of law to unbelievers not as an encouragement, but as condemnation. If I encourage them in "righteousness" on the proposal that such acts will bring them closer to God than otherwise, I am a false teacher. I have no encouragement for them outside of Christ other than to cast themselves on his mercy, or face death without a Mediator.

As for your last point, Edwards came only just barely to the edge of Presbyterianism before his death. His call to serve outside the Congregational churches by going to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) was preempted by his death. WCF was not his confession. If the others spoke contrary to their own confession, or avoided such contradiction by explaining their meaning consistent with it (and we haven't seen evidence presented of possible conflict, merely claimed), it is not my burden of proof to correct them.

There is no spiritual good inherent in preparationism, even if some natural good is discoverable. There is no necessity of preparationism to faith in the gospel.

 

[Apologia Christou]

My observation has to do with the intrinsic pain associated with coming terribly close to a goal, without achieving it.

Why do you assume that they come terribly close to the goal of salvation? You're either in or out, there is nothing in between.

 

[AOB]

Genuine question: what is the intention of this thread? Is it the OP title? The merits of preparationism? I thought @jw gave a great answer to the OP in comment #3.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Genuine question: what is the intention of this thread? Is it the OP title? The merits of preparationism? I thought @jw gave a great answer to the OP in comment #3.

I wanted to know (given our calvinistic theology) what our response would be to such a question. I think you can see why I wanted to ask the question. In some methodologies you end up giving the sinner nothing to do. It's like a shrugging of shoulders as the answer to the question. And I don't think that's right.

I am interested in evangelism, and I want to find a consistent methodology. And this question (at least at first glance) seems to be an obstacle to calvinism. And so I was curious and discovered the evangelism of the puritans, and I wanted to see what the people here, by contrast, would give as an answer, and what they think about the puritan methodology. And this is where we are at the moment.