This topic should have its own thread I think, as it spans over several important matters of interest for all, thus I post it here. In the Bible Discussion thread "DEPRAVITY OF MAN", the user Forest addressed me thus.
This is not true. While I concur that some of the scriptures you have cited deals with timely salvation, such as healing and deliverances etc, it is to go way too far to say that all instances in scripture, when something that could be considered a requirement of man to receive (notice receive, not earn) salvation, always only applies to timely salvation. This would be to deny the calling of the elect to repent and believe, which they are enabled to do, by the Spirit. Clearly, this is not to say that the gospel is any law, it certainly is not, but it is to say that the calling of sinners is to the gospel, where there is rest from the burden of sin and from the labor of attaining to one's own righteousness.
The Bible says that God calls His people to repent and believe the gospel. And this is evidently not about timely salvation only. Of course, God knows that they while being natural men are fully unable and incapable of doing this of their own strength or at their own wills. Still, this commandment to repent and believe, is actually aimed at all natural and unregenerate people, which includes the elect, prior to their regeneration. Sometimes this is called gospel repentance, which should not be confused with repentance from all sin. The former is something that the regenerate experiences upon conversion, the latter is a process that lasts throughout his whole life.
A very subtle way of denying this call is to say that while applying these scriptures said way it would imply a belief in any kind of ability in the unregenerate to positively respond to this calling while still being a natural man. Or, to make this response conditional. Here no distinction is made between the elect, who are quickened by God and as a result repents and believes the gospel, and the reprobate, who will not repent and believe the gospel. So, it is being denied then that this command is aimed at the unregenerate, and instead these scriptures are aimed at the regenerate. Because it is said that it is not natural man's duty (who ever this natural man is) to repent and believe and thus natural man should not be commanded to repent and believe.
Think about the harmful implications of this absurd reasoning for a while. If no one is to be commanded to do what he is unable to do, what do those who believe so say about the many commands that God gave to keep the law perfectly? When God gave the Ten Commandments, was He implying that those to whom the commandments were given to that they were able to keep them perfectly? Would those who deny the call to repentance and belief in the gospel say that perfect obedience is not what God commanded? Well, He did command this. There are plenty of scriptures in the law and elsewhere in the OT that clearly shows this. Such would be Lev. 9:37, 22:31, Deut. 5:32, 11:1,32, 13:4, 18:13, 26:16-17, 27:10,26, Jos. 22:5, 23:6, 1Kngs.8:61, Ecc.12:13 and etc. We find the same pattern also in the NT. Like in Matt.5:48, 19:17 and Jam.2:10 and etc.
When God gives a command to be perfect as He is perfect, does it imply that the recipients of that command are able to be perfect as God is perfect? When God gives a command to keep the law perfectly, does it imply that the recipients of that command are able to keep the law perfectly? If not, then, using the logic of those who deny this, God should not have demanded perfect obedience of those who were unable to perform perfect obedience. And if those who deny this are consistent, they would have to say that by commanding perfect obedience, God was implying ability among the addressed, that they actually were able to be perfect as He is perfect or to keep the law perfectly - or to repent and believe the gospel. But is this the case? No.
God clearly shows that one of the purposes of the law is to show those to whom the law was given that they are not able to obey it perfectly. And to show that justification is not by the works of the law (or any other works or conditions in man) but by the work of Christ alone (Rom.3:19-20, Gal.3:10-12), which the elect person receives through his own faith (Rom.4.5). And what of repenting and believing the gospel? When Isaiah preached repentance to apostate Israel, did this imply that they had ability to repent and believe? No. In fact, the very purpose of this preaching, which included commands to repent and believe, was to harden them so that they would not repent and believe (Isa.6:9-10). When Ezekiel preached repentance to apostate Israel (Ezek.2:5,7) did that imply that they had the ability to repent and believe? No.
And the pattern is the same also in NT. Did John the Baptist and Christ Himself and His apostles command natural men to repent and believe? Yes. (Matt. 3:1-2, 21:32, Mark 1:4, 14-15, 13:10, 16:15-16, Luke 3:18, 4:43, 8:1, 13:2-5, 20:1, 24:47, John 8:24, 10:38, Acts 3:19, 5:42, 8:4, 25,40, 11:20, 14:14-15, 15:35, 17:30-31, 20:18-21, 26:19-20, 2Cor.5:18-20). Did this mean that natural men had the ability to repent and believe? No.
Since hyper-calvinists cannot deny that there are occasions in which the command to repent and believe really is appropriate, the question is then to whom they say that these commandments are given? As shown, they would imply that the commands to repent and believe can not be given to natural man. Instead they would say that it is given to people who have already repented and believed, the regenerate. Hence they believe that this command to repent and believe is for people who already have repented and believed!
But - let's look closer at these three scriptures:
As seen in these passages, the preaching of the gospel contains something that is to be either obeyed or disobeyed. Which means that not only does there need to be a command in order for it to be obeyed; there also needs to be a command in order for it to be disobeyed. If the elect are not commanded to repent and believe the gospel, which they will do as a fruit of regeneration, the elect cannot obey this command, even if God would enable them to do so. If the reprobate are not commanded to repent and believe the gospel, then they cannot disobey this command. This is why we must conclude that the denial of the duty of the elect to repent and believe is error.
This is not true. While I concur that some of the scriptures you have cited deals with timely salvation, such as healing and deliverances etc, it is to go way too far to say that all instances in scripture, when something that could be considered a requirement of man to receive (notice receive, not earn) salvation, always only applies to timely salvation. This would be to deny the calling of the elect to repent and believe, which they are enabled to do, by the Spirit. Clearly, this is not to say that the gospel is any law, it certainly is not, but it is to say that the calling of sinners is to the gospel, where there is rest from the burden of sin and from the labor of attaining to one's own righteousness.
The Bible says that God calls His people to repent and believe the gospel. And this is evidently not about timely salvation only. Of course, God knows that they while being natural men are fully unable and incapable of doing this of their own strength or at their own wills. Still, this commandment to repent and believe, is actually aimed at all natural and unregenerate people, which includes the elect, prior to their regeneration. Sometimes this is called gospel repentance, which should not be confused with repentance from all sin. The former is something that the regenerate experiences upon conversion, the latter is a process that lasts throughout his whole life.
A very subtle way of denying this call is to say that while applying these scriptures said way it would imply a belief in any kind of ability in the unregenerate to positively respond to this calling while still being a natural man. Or, to make this response conditional. Here no distinction is made between the elect, who are quickened by God and as a result repents and believes the gospel, and the reprobate, who will not repent and believe the gospel. So, it is being denied then that this command is aimed at the unregenerate, and instead these scriptures are aimed at the regenerate. Because it is said that it is not natural man's duty (who ever this natural man is) to repent and believe and thus natural man should not be commanded to repent and believe.
Think about the harmful implications of this absurd reasoning for a while. If no one is to be commanded to do what he is unable to do, what do those who believe so say about the many commands that God gave to keep the law perfectly? When God gave the Ten Commandments, was He implying that those to whom the commandments were given to that they were able to keep them perfectly? Would those who deny the call to repentance and belief in the gospel say that perfect obedience is not what God commanded? Well, He did command this. There are plenty of scriptures in the law and elsewhere in the OT that clearly shows this. Such would be Lev. 9:37, 22:31, Deut. 5:32, 11:1,32, 13:4, 18:13, 26:16-17, 27:10,26, Jos. 22:5, 23:6, 1Kngs.8:61, Ecc.12:13 and etc. We find the same pattern also in the NT. Like in Matt.5:48, 19:17 and Jam.2:10 and etc.
When God gives a command to be perfect as He is perfect, does it imply that the recipients of that command are able to be perfect as God is perfect? When God gives a command to keep the law perfectly, does it imply that the recipients of that command are able to keep the law perfectly? If not, then, using the logic of those who deny this, God should not have demanded perfect obedience of those who were unable to perform perfect obedience. And if those who deny this are consistent, they would have to say that by commanding perfect obedience, God was implying ability among the addressed, that they actually were able to be perfect as He is perfect or to keep the law perfectly - or to repent and believe the gospel. But is this the case? No.
God clearly shows that one of the purposes of the law is to show those to whom the law was given that they are not able to obey it perfectly. And to show that justification is not by the works of the law (or any other works or conditions in man) but by the work of Christ alone (Rom.3:19-20, Gal.3:10-12), which the elect person receives through his own faith (Rom.4.5). And what of repenting and believing the gospel? When Isaiah preached repentance to apostate Israel, did this imply that they had ability to repent and believe? No. In fact, the very purpose of this preaching, which included commands to repent and believe, was to harden them so that they would not repent and believe (Isa.6:9-10). When Ezekiel preached repentance to apostate Israel (Ezek.2:5,7) did that imply that they had the ability to repent and believe? No.
And the pattern is the same also in NT. Did John the Baptist and Christ Himself and His apostles command natural men to repent and believe? Yes. (Matt. 3:1-2, 21:32, Mark 1:4, 14-15, 13:10, 16:15-16, Luke 3:18, 4:43, 8:1, 13:2-5, 20:1, 24:47, John 8:24, 10:38, Acts 3:19, 5:42, 8:4, 25,40, 11:20, 14:14-15, 15:35, 17:30-31, 20:18-21, 26:19-20, 2Cor.5:18-20). Did this mean that natural men had the ability to repent and believe? No.
Since hyper-calvinists cannot deny that there are occasions in which the command to repent and believe really is appropriate, the question is then to whom they say that these commandments are given? As shown, they would imply that the commands to repent and believe can not be given to natural man. Instead they would say that it is given to people who have already repented and believed, the regenerate. Hence they believe that this command to repent and believe is for people who already have repented and believed!
But - let's look closer at these three scriptures:
As seen in these passages, the preaching of the gospel contains something that is to be either obeyed or disobeyed. Which means that not only does there need to be a command in order for it to be obeyed; there also needs to be a command in order for it to be disobeyed. If the elect are not commanded to repent and believe the gospel, which they will do as a fruit of regeneration, the elect cannot obey this command, even if God would enable them to do so. If the reprobate are not commanded to repent and believe the gospel, then they cannot disobey this command. This is why we must conclude that the denial of the duty of the elect to repent and believe is error.
Last edited:
