What 3 verses say that a lost man cannot believe the gospel?
- Thread starter throughfaith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You do realize that the mustard seed parable wasn't to be taken from a literal perspective?
Mustard seed, nor any seed for that matter, does not have faith.
Also just to tie seed facts up nice and tidy.
How many gardeners are there here?
Seed is not dead if it is said to later grow into something. Take the word of a hundred plus year old source.
Pacific Rural Press, Volume 45, Number 11, 18 March 1893
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=PRP18930318.2.14.1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1
a prominent California scientist approvingly quoted the absurd doctrine that "the seed must die" before it can sprout and grow. Whoever will stop and analyze the question will see the impossibility of such a state of matters occurring. For a seed to die would be the end of it, so far as its being is concerned. To die means to decompose, to disintegrate, and the elements thereof to return to air, earth and water from whence they came. To die is to rot and become offensive to smell. On the other hand, the germinating seed does not die, nor rot, nor disintergrate, nor become offensive to smell. It only softens to become sufficiently fluid or liquid to be absorbed, and the elements thereof rearrange themselves in the form of roots and stem.
Hope that helps.
Mustard seed, nor any seed for that matter, does not have faith.
Also just to tie seed facts up nice and tidy.
How many gardeners are there here? Seed is not dead if it is said to later grow into something. Take the word of a hundred plus year old source.
Pacific Rural Press, Volume 45, Number 11, 18 March 1893
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=PRP18930318.2.14.1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1
a prominent California scientist approvingly quoted the absurd doctrine that "the seed must die" before it can sprout and grow. Whoever will stop and analyze the question will see the impossibility of such a state of matters occurring. For a seed to die would be the end of it, so far as its being is concerned. To die means to decompose, to disintegrate, and the elements thereof to return to air, earth and water from whence they came. To die is to rot and become offensive to smell. On the other hand, the germinating seed does not die, nor rot, nor disintergrate, nor become offensive to smell. It only softens to become sufficiently fluid or liquid to be absorbed, and the elements thereof rearrange themselves in the form of roots and stem.
Hope that helps.
The thing about discussion sites is everyone defends their belief as if their soul depends on it. It's just the way of traditions that offer salvation through belief in what is taught.
I'll leave you to your denominational construct and wish you the best as you work to stay saved. No snark intended.
I'll leave you to your denominational construct and wish you the best as you work to stay saved. No snark intended.
Are we playing word games again?
The three verses ForestGreenCook gave you are very good verses on the subject. Many things are learned in Scripture by implication. You cannot deny that. So why now play word games? It is obvious, you don't like the implication.
What's wrong with those three verses? If they do not teach what he thinks they teach, then give him a helping hand.
While your at it, here are few more:
Mat 13:14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:
John 5:39-40 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
And a verse we should ask ourselves, if we are trying to lay a trap for the ones we disagree with while forsaking the clear teaching of Scripture.
John 5:44 How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that is coming from the only God, ye seek not?
The three verses ForestGreenCook gave you are very good verses on the subject. Many things are learned in Scripture by implication. You cannot deny that. So why now play word games? It is obvious, you don't like the implication.
What's wrong with those three verses? If they do not teach what he thinks they teach, then give him a helping hand.
While your at it, here are few more:
Mat 13:14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:
John 5:39-40 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
And a verse we should ask ourselves, if we are trying to lay a trap for the ones we disagree with while forsaking the clear teaching of Scripture.
John 5:44 How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that is coming from the only God, ye seek not?
Again , I wonder how many here realize what they're saying about God and his heart, his character, when they believe any aspect of the false doctrine related in any way to Tulip.
Taking scripture out of context to support its premise is not sustaining the Gospel according to Tulip. It is sustaining Tulip through corruption of scripture.
Maybe what makes things easier in this discussion is to consider the Denominational affiliation of a member first and when they post such things as, a sinner cannot believe the Gospel. Or, that we are able to lose our Salvation. There are different Denominations that teach different things about Salvation.
Some teach Salvation is conditional and not secure at all. Some teach natural man, sinners, are unable to comprehend the Bible. Some teach God has to give a person he has elected to save their faith in him, their belief, because they can't come to have faith or belief themselves. And then and only then will that person be able to comprehend the Bible at all. Some teach God has to make create faith in a person first. And then that person will be able to believe in God.
I think the really important thing about those kind of Denominational teachings is that if nothing else they teach us that while God inspired the Bible, man is able to edit in order to bolster their pride and egocentricity. And like minded people then do find those type teachings after that fact appealing to their own pride and egocentricity.
God made everything! But he picked me by name to be one of his saved before he created anything else so that I am assured heaven.
And the argument from that perspective when such a one defends themselves and that belief adds, and as for the rest of you? Not so much.
Think of it in Soup Nazi terms. "No heaven for you!"
Then Jesus didn't actually exist?
If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty?
1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us
If you want to read a short essay that absolutely demolishes the teaching that tells us we can't understand the Gospel as sinners, or we can lose our salvation, when it seems our personal perspectives on the matter aren't received or respected, this essay is one that will do the trick. One of many actually.
The gospel is by definition “good news”—a message about Jesus Christ who accomplished salvation for sinners by his substitutional death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Because of his saving work, repentance and forgiveness of sins must now be proclaimed in his name (Luke 24:47; cf. Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel proclamation entails a call to repentance and faith as the means of entrance into the individual experience of salvation (Luke 24:47; acts 16:30–31; Rom. 10:9–10; Eph. 1:13). In the gospel, God announces the singular saving work of his son, and as we respond to that announcement in faith and repentance God welcomes us and receives us freely in favor. Thus, it is in this good news and its implicit “offer” that we, by faith, find safe standing before God (1 Cor. 15:1).
Full essay to follow. Because some folks don't like to click links.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/free-offer-gospel/
DEFINITION
The gospel is freely offered to all people, regardless of whether or not they are elect, able to respond in their sin nature, included in the doctrine of the particular atonement, etc.; the free offer of election to man is not at odds with the sovereign election and omniscience of God.
SUMMARY
The good news of the gospel is offered freely to all people without distinction. Some “high” Calvinists have objected to this doctrine on the grounds of God’s sovereign election, the doctrine of the particular atonement, the primacy of divine initiative, and the sinner’s complete inability to respond in faith apart from God’s regenerating grace. However, the reality is that sinners are all called to believe and are judged for their unbelief, not for whether or not they are elect. It is actually within the context of the universal refusal of man to believe that the doctrines of election, the atonement, and the sovereign initiative of God are most needed. These doctrines provide the solution to man’s refusal, not a reason to avoid the offer of the gospel in the first place.
Introduction
The gospel is by definition “good news”—a message about Jesus Christ who accomplished salvation for sinners by his substitutional death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Because of his saving work, repentance and forgiveness of sins must now be proclaimed in his name (Luke 24:47; cf. Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel proclamation entails a call to repentance and faith as the means of entrance into the individual experience of salvation (Luke 24:47; acts 16:30–31; Rom. 10:9–10; Eph. 1:13). In the gospel, God announces the singular saving work of his son, and as we respond to that announcement in faith and repentance God welcomes us and receives us freely in favor. Thus, it is in this good news and its implicit “offer” that we, by faith, find safe standing before God (1 Cor. 15:1).
The Question in Focus
Christians of virtually all stripes have recognized the importance of gospel preaching, but some “high Calvinists” have questioned the legitimacy of offering salvation to the non-elect or unregenerate people. Some make careful distinction between gospel offer and proclamation, arguing that the gospel makes no offer but is a divine command to repent and believe.
The question at issue here is not the formulaic “decisionism” that has characterized so much of contemporary evangelicalism. Nor does the question here concern the divine initiative in salvation—divine election and effectual calling. Nor does this discussion question that the sovereign Spirit alone can persuade the lost to faith in Christ. On these matters, all Calvinists are agreed. The question at issue is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made indiscriminately to the lost.
There are several theological reasons offered for denying the free offer of the gospel. The first stems from the accepted doctrine of total depravity—total inability, to be more specific. If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty? Is the sinner under obligation to repent if he, in fact, cannot repent? Can the sinner be counted responsible to do something he is unable to do? Stated precisely, does inability entail absence of duty? Moreover, is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent knowing that he cannot?
Another objection to the free offer of the gospel stems from the doctrine of election. If only the elect will be saved, shouldn’t the gospel, then, be offered to the elect only? Would it not be insincere to offer salvation to the non-elect? And would it be right for our offer to be broader than God’s saving purpose? Does the sinner have any warrant to come?
Reasoning from the necessity of divine initiative, some have argued that the sinner has no “warrant” to come to Christ for salvation, no reason to think he is invited until he is “sensible” of the Spirit’s work, sensitive of sin and of the Spirit’s drawing. This has often been identified in terms of a verse of Scripture suddenly and powerfully brought to bear on the heart and conscience, or in terms of a sudden and deep awareness of sin and lostness. Then, in that case, the gospel can be offered, but not until.
Some have reasoned from the doctrine of particular redemption (limited atonement). If Christ died only for the elect, is there legitimate ground to offer him to all? And again, would not such an offer be insincere?
Finally, some have argued that a free offer of salvation to those who will never be saved would detract from the majesty of God—that it would be beneath God to make such overtures to people who in fact will only continue to rebel.
Again, the point at issue here is not formulaic decisionism or the necessity of the divine initiative in salvation. On these matters all Calvinists are agreed. The question, simply put, is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made to the lost indiscriminately. Can we say to just anyone, “If you will come to Jesus Christ in faith and in repentance of your sin, God will save you”?
DEFINITION
The gospel is freely offered to all people, regardless of whether or not they are elect, able to respond in their sin nature, included in the doctrine of the particular atonement, etc.; the free offer of election to man is not at odds with the sovereign election and omniscience of God.
SUMMARY
The good news of the gospel is offered freely to all people without distinction. Some “high” Calvinists have objected to this doctrine on the grounds of God’s sovereign election, the doctrine of the particular atonement, the primacy of divine initiative, and the sinner’s complete inability to respond in faith apart from God’s regenerating grace. However, the reality is that sinners are all called to believe and are judged for their unbelief, not for whether or not they are elect. It is actually within the context of the universal refusal of man to believe that the doctrines of election, the atonement, and the sovereign initiative of God are most needed. These doctrines provide the solution to man’s refusal, not a reason to avoid the offer of the gospel in the first place.
Introduction
The gospel is by definition “good news”—a message about Jesus Christ who accomplished salvation for sinners by his substitutional death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Because of his saving work, repentance and forgiveness of sins must now be proclaimed in his name (Luke 24:47; cf. Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel proclamation entails a call to repentance and faith as the means of entrance into the individual experience of salvation (Luke 24:47; acts 16:30–31; Rom. 10:9–10; Eph. 1:13). In the gospel, God announces the singular saving work of his son, and as we respond to that announcement in faith and repentance God welcomes us and receives us freely in favor. Thus, it is in this good news and its implicit “offer” that we, by faith, find safe standing before God (1 Cor. 15:1).
The Question in Focus
Christians of virtually all stripes have recognized the importance of gospel preaching, but some “high Calvinists” have questioned the legitimacy of offering salvation to the non-elect or unregenerate people. Some make careful distinction between gospel offer and proclamation, arguing that the gospel makes no offer but is a divine command to repent and believe.
The question at issue here is not the formulaic “decisionism” that has characterized so much of contemporary evangelicalism. Nor does the question here concern the divine initiative in salvation—divine election and effectual calling. Nor does this discussion question that the sovereign Spirit alone can persuade the lost to faith in Christ. On these matters, all Calvinists are agreed. The question at issue is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made indiscriminately to the lost.
There are several theological reasons offered for denying the free offer of the gospel. The first stems from the accepted doctrine of total depravity—total inability, to be more specific. If the sinner is unable to believe, how can faith be his duty? Is the sinner under obligation to repent if he, in fact, cannot repent? Can the sinner be counted responsible to do something he is unable to do? Stated precisely, does inability entail absence of duty? Moreover, is it inconsistent to exhort a sinner to repent knowing that he cannot?
Another objection to the free offer of the gospel stems from the doctrine of election. If only the elect will be saved, shouldn’t the gospel, then, be offered to the elect only? Would it not be insincere to offer salvation to the non-elect? And would it be right for our offer to be broader than God’s saving purpose? Does the sinner have any warrant to come?
Reasoning from the necessity of divine initiative, some have argued that the sinner has no “warrant” to come to Christ for salvation, no reason to think he is invited until he is “sensible” of the Spirit’s work, sensitive of sin and of the Spirit’s drawing. This has often been identified in terms of a verse of Scripture suddenly and powerfully brought to bear on the heart and conscience, or in terms of a sudden and deep awareness of sin and lostness. Then, in that case, the gospel can be offered, but not until.
Some have reasoned from the doctrine of particular redemption (limited atonement). If Christ died only for the elect, is there legitimate ground to offer him to all? And again, would not such an offer be insincere?
Finally, some have argued that a free offer of salvation to those who will never be saved would detract from the majesty of God—that it would be beneath God to make such overtures to people who in fact will only continue to rebel.
Again, the point at issue here is not formulaic decisionism or the necessity of the divine initiative in salvation. On these matters all Calvinists are agreed. The question, simply put, is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made to the lost indiscriminately. Can we say to just anyone, “If you will come to Jesus Christ in faith and in repentance of your sin, God will save you”?
Some Related Biblical Statements
Before addressing these various theological issues, it will be helpful first to highlight some biblical statements that may be related to the question in some way.
The Warrant of Faith
In 1 John 3:23, the apostle says, “this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ.” Here is the warrant for every person to believe and be saved: God himself commands it. Faith is the stated duty of every person.
The Object of Faith
Repeatedly sinners are called to look to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. They are not called to look to themselves first to see if there are indications of God’s convicting or enlightening work. Their duty is to look to the Savior.
The Responsibility and Duty of the Sinner to Believe and Repent
The notion that inability negates responsibility is just mistaken. Sinners are responsible to believe and are held blameworthy if they do not. We might say this another way: sinners are not blamed for not being elect; they are blamed for their unbelief.
The Free Offer and Divine Love
It is true that God’s love for his own is savingly unique (Eph. 2:4; 1 John 3:1), but this is not to say that God has no love at all for the lost. Scripture abounds with affirmation of God’s love, kindness, and goodness to the lost (e.g., Ps. 145:9). And in fact this “common grace” or “love of complacency” (as it is sometimes called) entails his offer of salvation (Ps. 14:1-3). That is to say, God offers his saving love to all.
Before addressing these various theological issues, it will be helpful first to highlight some biblical statements that may be related to the question in some way.
- God passionately calls rebellious Israel to covenant blessing (Deut. 5:29).
- God pleads longingly for Israel and waits for her to come to him (Isa. 65:2; Rom. 10:21)—an offer that falls on deaf ears.
- God laments the destruction of those who refuse him and pleads for them to return and escape his wrath (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11)—again, a call that goes unheeded.
- God calls rebellious and unbelieving nations to take refuge in him and be blessed (Pss. 2:12; 4:5; Prov. 1:20–33).
- God calls the sinful to respond to his offer of forgiveness (Isa. 1:18–20; 45:21–22).
- God pleads—as a peddler on the street—with sinners to come to him for mercy and free pardon (Isa. 55:1–7).
- Jesus offers spiritual rest indiscriminately to all who will come (Matt. 11:28–30).
- Jesus illustrates passionate, indiscriminate call to kingdom blessing (Matt. 22:1–13). The offer is passionate and unrestricted, and it is for salvation.
- Jesus mourns over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37).
- Jesus blames the lost for their unbelief (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40).
- Jesus commands his followers to proclaim the gospel to all people everywhere (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47).
- The apostle Peter calls all who hear him to repent (Acts 2:38–40; 3:19).
- The apostle Peter offers forgiveness upon repentance—and this for a man who, it turns out, never repents (Acts 8:22).
- The apostle Paul offers forgiveness in Christ to some who continued to refuse (Acts 13:38–41, 46).
- God commands all people to faith in Christ for salvation (1 John 3:23).
- Paul’s gospel ministry is characterized by pleading with sinners, begging them to be saved, reasoning with them, and persuading them (Acts 17:17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 26; 26:28; 28:23; 1 Cor. 9:19; 2 Cor. 5:11, 20). To be sure, this terminology does not indicate that the apostle reduced conversion to a mere formulaic decisionism. Indeed, he would not cheapen the gospel in order to make it more palatable to sinners (2 Cor. 2:17). But he would offer the gospel indiscriminately, even passionately and without hesitation, to all who would hear him.
The Warrant of Faith
In 1 John 3:23, the apostle says, “this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ.” Here is the warrant for every person to believe and be saved: God himself commands it. Faith is the stated duty of every person.
The Object of Faith
Repeatedly sinners are called to look to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. They are not called to look to themselves first to see if there are indications of God’s convicting or enlightening work. Their duty is to look to the Savior.
The Responsibility and Duty of the Sinner to Believe and Repent
The notion that inability negates responsibility is just mistaken. Sinners are responsible to believe and are held blameworthy if they do not. We might say this another way: sinners are not blamed for not being elect; they are blamed for their unbelief.
The Free Offer and Divine Love
It is true that God’s love for his own is savingly unique (Eph. 2:4; 1 John 3:1), but this is not to say that God has no love at all for the lost. Scripture abounds with affirmation of God’s love, kindness, and goodness to the lost (e.g., Ps. 145:9). And in fact this “common grace” or “love of complacency” (as it is sometimes called) entails his offer of salvation (Ps. 14:1-3). That is to say, God offers his saving love to all.
The Free Offer and Sovereign Election
It is within the context of the universal offer—and refusal—of salvation (Ps. 14:1–3; John 6:27–36) that we learn of sovereign election (John 6:37–40). It is the world’s unanimous refusal of the offer than makes election necessary. Indeed, it is the free proclamation of the that God uses to save those whom he has chosen (1 Cor. 1:18–31; 3:6; 2 Cor. 2:14–16; cf. Matt. 11:25–30; Acts 13:48). As J.I. Packer summarizes,
Calvin, with Luther, and Paul in Romans, and Jesus in John, made the universal gospel invitation the frame and context within which we are introduced to election as the divine decisions which explain why believers have believed and why their security is guaranteed. Reformed theology after Beza made God’s decree of election, reprobation and providential events the frame and context within which we are introduced to the gospel as a statement (for which see Westminster Confession 3 and 10): this creates problems by making the indiscriminate gospel invitation seem a sham to all except for the elect. The former statement, which sees God’s love as going a second mile in order to save (not only does he provide a Saviour and a salvation, but he also draws folks who would not otherwise respond to receive his gifts), is far preferable; the latter far commoner (Systematic Theology Overview, unpublished notes, p.107).
The Free Offer and Particular Redemption
Luke 24:47 explicitly links the universal offer of the gospel of forgiveness to the finished saving work of Christ. In context, Matthew 28:18–20 makes the same link: Christ’s universal authority to save is grounded in his finished work. That is to say, Christ’s atoning work is the ground of universal mission. What is offered in the gospel, precisely, is Jesus Christ in whom all the saving benefits of the gospel have been procured. Salvation is offered in Christ. John Murray makes the point here that the only doctrine of atonement that will ground such an offer is that of a definite, fully successful atonement – an atonement that provides not merely the possibility of salvation but actual, accomplished salvation (Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol.1: Studies in Theology, 59–85):
It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction…. The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus (John Murray, “Arminianism and the Atonement”).
The Free Offer and Human Inability
The lost are free to do whatever they want to do, but therein lies the problem: the “want to” of sinners is sinful and therefore disinclined from God. The “inability” of the lost to respond to the gospel lies in their own will – they do not come to Christ simply because they won’t. And because they “refuse to come to me” they are held responsible (John 5:40). Simply put, depravity and inability does not preclude responsibility. The universal responsibility to believe and be saved remains.
Moreover, as Warfield insightfully observes (Selected Shorter Writings, p.725–728), no sinner can know that he or she is unable except by trying to come. And the doctrine of total inability is not, “You cannot come”; it is, rather, “You cannot come apart from divine aid.” This is how Jesus himself defined the matter:
And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:26–27).
The responsibility remains: a person concerned for his or her soul is not told to “wait” but to “come.” And all who do come, he receives (John 6:37). A recognition of helplessness is no excuse for continued unbelief, nor is it a barrier to the universal offer of salvation.
Command vs. Offer
The distinction between God’s command to believe and his offer of salvation must not be overdrawn. To be sure, God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), but this commanded repentance is a “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47). The command to repent and believe is itself an offer of grace.
The Free Offer and Divine Majesty
We may agree with those who argue that there is no necessity for the God of infinite majesty to make overtures of grace to those who will only continue to rebel. Indeed, we might as well say that it would be beneath God to offer salvation to anyone, irrespective of their eventual response. But the fact is, he does, and he tells us so repeatedly. He commands, he implores, he pleads, he stands longingly with outstretched arms—all this is the biblical language. More to the point, we must recognize that this compassionate stance is part of God’s self-revelation to be understood as one aspect of his glory. We do not adore God rightly until we recognize his great heart of love. And we do not proclaim the gospel rightly until we reflect this stance ourselves.
Conclusion
The indiscriminate call and free offer of the gospel has strong and explicit Biblical warrant, and the traditional Reformed position has rightly maintained it. The concern of some high Calvinists that a free offer of the gospel implies Arminian notions is simply mistaken. God positions himself toward the wicked as willing to save, and he pleads with them accordingly through his spokesmen. This universal appeal of the gospel is the external means by which God, in his own time, sovereignly calls his elect individually into the fellowship of Christ. If in the gospel God is freely offering Christ to the world, the Christians must make the same offer. If it is the duty of all to believe, then it is the duty of Christians to offer Christ. We can say to anyone, anywhere—and we must not hesitate—“If you will come to Jesus Christ, he will save you.”
It is within the context of the universal offer—and refusal—of salvation (Ps. 14:1–3; John 6:27–36) that we learn of sovereign election (John 6:37–40). It is the world’s unanimous refusal of the offer than makes election necessary. Indeed, it is the free proclamation of the that God uses to save those whom he has chosen (1 Cor. 1:18–31; 3:6; 2 Cor. 2:14–16; cf. Matt. 11:25–30; Acts 13:48). As J.I. Packer summarizes,
Calvin, with Luther, and Paul in Romans, and Jesus in John, made the universal gospel invitation the frame and context within which we are introduced to election as the divine decisions which explain why believers have believed and why their security is guaranteed. Reformed theology after Beza made God’s decree of election, reprobation and providential events the frame and context within which we are introduced to the gospel as a statement (for which see Westminster Confession 3 and 10): this creates problems by making the indiscriminate gospel invitation seem a sham to all except for the elect. The former statement, which sees God’s love as going a second mile in order to save (not only does he provide a Saviour and a salvation, but he also draws folks who would not otherwise respond to receive his gifts), is far preferable; the latter far commoner (Systematic Theology Overview, unpublished notes, p.107).
The Free Offer and Particular Redemption
Luke 24:47 explicitly links the universal offer of the gospel of forgiveness to the finished saving work of Christ. In context, Matthew 28:18–20 makes the same link: Christ’s universal authority to save is grounded in his finished work. That is to say, Christ’s atoning work is the ground of universal mission. What is offered in the gospel, precisely, is Jesus Christ in whom all the saving benefits of the gospel have been procured. Salvation is offered in Christ. John Murray makes the point here that the only doctrine of atonement that will ground such an offer is that of a definite, fully successful atonement – an atonement that provides not merely the possibility of salvation but actual, accomplished salvation (Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol.1: Studies in Theology, 59–85):
It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction…. The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus (John Murray, “Arminianism and the Atonement”).
The Free Offer and Human Inability
The lost are free to do whatever they want to do, but therein lies the problem: the “want to” of sinners is sinful and therefore disinclined from God. The “inability” of the lost to respond to the gospel lies in their own will – they do not come to Christ simply because they won’t. And because they “refuse to come to me” they are held responsible (John 5:40). Simply put, depravity and inability does not preclude responsibility. The universal responsibility to believe and be saved remains.
Moreover, as Warfield insightfully observes (Selected Shorter Writings, p.725–728), no sinner can know that he or she is unable except by trying to come. And the doctrine of total inability is not, “You cannot come”; it is, rather, “You cannot come apart from divine aid.” This is how Jesus himself defined the matter:
And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:26–27).
The responsibility remains: a person concerned for his or her soul is not told to “wait” but to “come.” And all who do come, he receives (John 6:37). A recognition of helplessness is no excuse for continued unbelief, nor is it a barrier to the universal offer of salvation.
Command vs. Offer
The distinction between God’s command to believe and his offer of salvation must not be overdrawn. To be sure, God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), but this commanded repentance is a “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47). The command to repent and believe is itself an offer of grace.
The Free Offer and Divine Majesty
We may agree with those who argue that there is no necessity for the God of infinite majesty to make overtures of grace to those who will only continue to rebel. Indeed, we might as well say that it would be beneath God to offer salvation to anyone, irrespective of their eventual response. But the fact is, he does, and he tells us so repeatedly. He commands, he implores, he pleads, he stands longingly with outstretched arms—all this is the biblical language. More to the point, we must recognize that this compassionate stance is part of God’s self-revelation to be understood as one aspect of his glory. We do not adore God rightly until we recognize his great heart of love. And we do not proclaim the gospel rightly until we reflect this stance ourselves.
Conclusion
The indiscriminate call and free offer of the gospel has strong and explicit Biblical warrant, and the traditional Reformed position has rightly maintained it. The concern of some high Calvinists that a free offer of the gospel implies Arminian notions is simply mistaken. God positions himself toward the wicked as willing to save, and he pleads with them accordingly through his spokesmen. This universal appeal of the gospel is the external means by which God, in his own time, sovereignly calls his elect individually into the fellowship of Christ. If in the gospel God is freely offering Christ to the world, the Christians must make the same offer. If it is the duty of all to believe, then it is the duty of Christians to offer Christ. We can say to anyone, anywhere—and we must not hesitate—“If you will come to Jesus Christ, he will save you.”
E
@soggykitten i hope you realize most people do not read long posts. They would rather talk to you about your view and ignore long post which are too hard to read
E
@soggykitten i am still waiting on you to show me how I added to a verse. Especially since I never quoted a verse. Can you share?
E
This is my post in question
It was in response to @soggykitten saying God did not reach out to us
Lets look at it
My response was that the tax collector did not reach out. This is true he got on his knees
But God reached out by drawing the tax collector To him (see John 6 with John 12)
As you can see I just made a statement based on multiple verses I did not add anything
It was in response to @soggykitten saying God did not reach out to us
Lets look at it
My response was that the tax collector did not reach out. This is true he got on his knees
But God reached out by drawing the tax collector To him (see John 6 with John 12)
As you can see I just made a statement based on multiple verses I did not add anything
I agree with much you have posted here. I also thank you for a well presented message and the time it takes to do it.
Yes! God is Sovereign in his election of those He will bring to salvation and,
Yes! His offer to all in the Gospel, is just as genuine.
Unfortunately, those who proclaim the former, God's election, are forced to argue their point to such a degree, that often the offer of the Gospel to all, gets trampled. This offer is genuine, so one then must determine why it is so often rejected. In like vain, why so many religionist except this offer in an ingenious way. You can not just simply walk the isle and say you believe in Christ and be baptized and it be genuine. Often what one proclaims today, he/she will forget tomorrow. How often we watched someone from church that sits there piously and then goes home and lives like hell. Where is the fruit?
Much is made about "T" for Tulip, or total depravity. MAN IS NOT TOTALLY DEPRAVED!
Depravity should only go as far as to what man lost in the fall. He lost his original uprightnous and His spiritual communion with God. God clothed man with a symbol of temporary righteousness. But this left man with a spirit that is described as being dead. It does not mean that man went from a tripartite being (flesh, spirit and soul), to a bipartite being (flesh and soul), it simply means that because of the fall, the spirit of a man can only discern natural things. If you will, it became tainted and no longer functioned. This malfunctioning spirit is renewed in the New Birth.
This is the reason why the natural man does not answer to the Gospel. There has to be a reason and this is as far as we need go to understand it.
If every single person in the world, was on equal footing and could discern spiritual things the same, we would all come to the same conclusion, a need for salvation. But we are not! Man's desire for the things of himself/herself are so strong, they see no reason for the Gospel. Churches have dropped in there spirituality so much, they are full of unbelieving people. Because these churches do not proclaim the God of the Bible. They proclaim a god, that reasons and does much like themselves.
God must do something powerful upon the sinner, to overcome the defective spirit in a man and draw him/her away from the lures of this materialistic world.
Yes! God is Sovereign in his election of those He will bring to salvation and,
Yes! His offer to all in the Gospel, is just as genuine.
Unfortunately, those who proclaim the former, God's election, are forced to argue their point to such a degree, that often the offer of the Gospel to all, gets trampled. This offer is genuine, so one then must determine why it is so often rejected. In like vain, why so many religionist except this offer in an ingenious way. You can not just simply walk the isle and say you believe in Christ and be baptized and it be genuine. Often what one proclaims today, he/she will forget tomorrow. How often we watched someone from church that sits there piously and then goes home and lives like hell. Where is the fruit?
Much is made about "T" for Tulip, or total depravity. MAN IS NOT TOTALLY DEPRAVED!
Depravity should only go as far as to what man lost in the fall. He lost his original uprightnous and His spiritual communion with God. God clothed man with a symbol of temporary righteousness. But this left man with a spirit that is described as being dead. It does not mean that man went from a tripartite being (flesh, spirit and soul), to a bipartite being (flesh and soul), it simply means that because of the fall, the spirit of a man can only discern natural things. If you will, it became tainted and no longer functioned. This malfunctioning spirit is renewed in the New Birth.
This is the reason why the natural man does not answer to the Gospel. There has to be a reason and this is as far as we need go to understand it.
If every single person in the world, was on equal footing and could discern spiritual things the same, we would all come to the same conclusion, a need for salvation. But we are not! Man's desire for the things of himself/herself are so strong, they see no reason for the Gospel. Churches have dropped in there spirituality so much, they are full of unbelieving people. Because these churches do not proclaim the God of the Bible. They proclaim a god, that reasons and does much like themselves.
God must do something powerful upon the sinner, to overcome the defective spirit in a man and draw him/her away from the lures of this materialistic world.
-
1
- Show all
Thank you for the time it took to construct that information.
I think back to the veil in the temple at the time of Christ and during his crucifixion. Therein those who had formerly condemned him to death for blasphemy of all things were assured they'd secured their station as elders by having Rome do their dirty work for them. And prior to Passover. And yet, when that veil between the common area and the holy of hollies ripped asunder and the temple shook from its foundation stones throughout and at the time of Jesus last breath on the cross, I wonder what those pious elders thought then?
The temple shall be brought down from its foundation and in three days shall be risen again. Those arrogant men imagined Jesus was referring to stones and mortar. But he was referring to himself. And it was so.
In that regard, the veil that separated God from man in the temple and that was torn in twain when Jesus drew his last breath is for me the message, the symbolic assurance or seal if you will, that what separated our spirit from God as fallen people, that illusion, was itself rent in twain. (torn in two).
We are then able to respond to the Gospel good news because that former separation between what is holy and seeking to be reunited with itself is now gone. And just as a thirsty person will be parched and starved to quench that implacable thirst and shall seek until they find a stream or fresh water, so too is that spirit that is thirsty for its way home.
How many who thirst found themselves quenched in a hotel or motel room? Simply by opening the nightstand drawer perhaps just out of curiosity and there found the Bible. How many then dropped to their knees in that room and repented of their sins and asked Christ into their life?
A number you nor I shall never know. But God does.
And I agree with you that humanity is not totally depraved. But we are lost. If nothing but just the world itself and how things are show us proof of this. And true, as you observed, simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" , doesn't make someone that person who is in Christ.
How many celebrities and other public figures do we see wearing crosses, some layered in diamonds? And yet, when they make news it is horrific stuff. Adultery, assault, drug charges, even murder.
At that point do they know Christ? Does he know them? Or is that pendant they wore in all those pictures published in the news and magazines just another piece of jewelry and nothing more?
For God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten son
that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish in their sins
but shall have immortal life. (Salvation)
The prophecy as pertains to the herald of Christ and the why of his birth. The original texts are lost to us but even so, I don't think they would have differed much at all. Whosoever, pretty much says it all.
As for those who reject the Gospel, or for whom it does not call or seem true, the lord of this world has his disciples too. And as we know, the one thing about the human ego is that we demonstrate a propensity , a need, to worship something.
Those who reject the Gospel worship the flesh, the carnal satisfactions of living and indulging the senses. Anything goes. If it feels good do it.
While the Gospel road is mapped with discipline and self control and change of the carnal unto the spiritual. A rebirth away from the trappings and hungers of the flesh and into higher realms, awareness, and rewards.
Some people just don't like that idea.
Same as with the criminal element. Who would knowingly break the law and risk prison knowing prison is likely their destiny if they break the law? And yet, our prisons in America are overcrowded. The risk was worth the reward.
That's I think the answer for those who reject the Gospel. They believe the risk is worth the reward. Because after all, they may reason to themselves, it's all faith and hope that lead one to live as if it's true. When living now in the hungry flesh affords instant gratification.
I think back to the veil in the temple at the time of Christ and during his crucifixion. Therein those who had formerly condemned him to death for blasphemy of all things were assured they'd secured their station as elders by having Rome do their dirty work for them. And prior to Passover. And yet, when that veil between the common area and the holy of hollies ripped asunder and the temple shook from its foundation stones throughout and at the time of Jesus last breath on the cross, I wonder what those pious elders thought then?
The temple shall be brought down from its foundation and in three days shall be risen again. Those arrogant men imagined Jesus was referring to stones and mortar. But he was referring to himself. And it was so.
In that regard, the veil that separated God from man in the temple and that was torn in twain when Jesus drew his last breath is for me the message, the symbolic assurance or seal if you will, that what separated our spirit from God as fallen people, that illusion, was itself rent in twain. (torn in two).
We are then able to respond to the Gospel good news because that former separation between what is holy and seeking to be reunited with itself is now gone. And just as a thirsty person will be parched and starved to quench that implacable thirst and shall seek until they find a stream or fresh water, so too is that spirit that is thirsty for its way home.
How many who thirst found themselves quenched in a hotel or motel room? Simply by opening the nightstand drawer perhaps just out of curiosity and there found the Bible. How many then dropped to their knees in that room and repented of their sins and asked Christ into their life?
A number you nor I shall never know. But God does.
And I agree with you that humanity is not totally depraved. But we are lost. If nothing but just the world itself and how things are show us proof of this. And true, as you observed, simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" , doesn't make someone that person who is in Christ.
How many celebrities and other public figures do we see wearing crosses, some layered in diamonds? And yet, when they make news it is horrific stuff. Adultery, assault, drug charges, even murder.
At that point do they know Christ? Does he know them? Or is that pendant they wore in all those pictures published in the news and magazines just another piece of jewelry and nothing more?
For God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten son
that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish in their sins
but shall have immortal life. (Salvation)
The prophecy as pertains to the herald of Christ and the why of his birth. The original texts are lost to us but even so, I don't think they would have differed much at all. Whosoever, pretty much says it all.
As for those who reject the Gospel, or for whom it does not call or seem true, the lord of this world has his disciples too. And as we know, the one thing about the human ego is that we demonstrate a propensity , a need, to worship something.
Those who reject the Gospel worship the flesh, the carnal satisfactions of living and indulging the senses. Anything goes. If it feels good do it.
While the Gospel road is mapped with discipline and self control and change of the carnal unto the spiritual. A rebirth away from the trappings and hungers of the flesh and into higher realms, awareness, and rewards.
Some people just don't like that idea.
Same as with the criminal element. Who would knowingly break the law and risk prison knowing prison is likely their destiny if they break the law? And yet, our prisons in America are overcrowded. The risk was worth the reward.
That's I think the answer for those who reject the Gospel. They believe the risk is worth the reward. Because after all, they may reason to themselves, it's all faith and hope that lead one to live as if it's true. When living now in the hungry flesh affords instant gratification.
I've read many of their remarks in just this thread. Perhaps it isn't stupidity. Perhaps, think of their identity in their name, they've just been following the wrong teaching for such a long time that when the truth of God in the Gospel is outlined properly, they cannot comprehend it. Because for so long they've been led to believe the wrong thing.
How many Calvinist members were brought into the church as children, grew old and died ever being a Calvinist? Think about that one.
Very sad indeed.
Maybe that's the case. It isn't stupidity. It's obstinate rejection of right teaching due to prolonged submersion into the wrong one.
I always say, as long as a person has breath they are able to change their mind. Pray that Christ removes the blocks man has put on people who follow false teachings. As long as they have breath...
How many Calvinist members were brought into the church as children, grew old and died ever being a Calvinist? Think about that one.
Very sad indeed. Maybe that's the case. It isn't stupidity. It's obstinate rejection of right teaching due to prolonged submersion into the wrong one.
I always say, as long as a person has breath they are able to change their mind. Pray that Christ removes the blocks man has put on people who follow false teachings. As long as they have breath...
I've read many of their remarks in just this thread. Perhaps it isn't stupidity. Perhaps, think of their identity in their name, they've just been following the wrong teaching for such a long time that when the truth of God in the Gospel is outlined properly, they cannot comprehend it. Because for so long they've been led to believe the wrong thing.
How many Calvinist members were brought into the church as children, grew old and died ever being a Calvinist? Think about that one.
Very sad indeed.
Maybe that's the case. It isn't stupidity. It's obstinate rejection of right teaching due to prolonged submersion into the wrong one.
I always say, as long as a person has breath they are able to change their mind. Pray that Christ removes the blocks man has put on people who follow false teachings. As long as they have breath...
How many Calvinist members were brought into the church as children, grew old and died ever being a Calvinist? Think about that one.
Very sad indeed.Maybe that's the case. It isn't stupidity. It's obstinate rejection of right teaching due to prolonged submersion into the wrong one.
I always say, as long as a person has breath they are able to change their mind. Pray that Christ removes the blocks man has put on people who follow false teachings. As long as they have breath...
-
2
-
1
- Show all