The Call to Believe is Not Without a Promise

Imagine how sinners would react if the gospel offered no promise of eternal life to those who believe. If there were no amazing grace, no opportunity for forgiveness, no loving heavenly Father to welcome us into His family, no Savior who gave His life to save us, but only a proclamation that God ought to be worshipped for who He is, and that sin must be punished, would anyone come to God in faith? If only hell awaited—even for believers—would any be willing to pray, “Not my will but Thine be done?” No one would come.

Why does God always provide a promise to go with a call to believe? He does not merely command, “Believe in Me because it’s the right thing to do,” but instead, He implores us to “Be reconciled to God!” The promise that reconciliation can be ours is wrapped up in the call to believe. This is the gospel that He wants preached to all men—“… that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

Calvinists teach that the unregenerate man is so averse to God and so unable to do any good that not even God is capable of bringing him to freely surrender in repentant belief without first regenerating him from within. But yet, the gospel’s appeal is not to selfless ones who fully love God already. Rather, the gospel appeals to men by showing how it is in their own best interest to surrender their hearts and lives to God—that heaven and hell hang in the balance, that their sin and misery can be overcome by grace, that the insatiable spiritual hunger within them can be satisfied, and that their conscience can find peace.

Of course, no sinner can realize or comprehend these things on his own, but the question becomes, can the Holy Spirit bring this realization by coming alongside the sinner and speaking to him from without—or is God limited to a coercive regeneration from within? I contend that the conviction, revelation and persuasion of the Holy Spirit as He speaks to the sinner from without, in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel, can be sufficient to enlighten his mind and move his heart to do what is simultaneously the right thing and the thing that is in his own best interest.

When you do God’s will at the expense of your own self-interests, you do the right thing meritoriously. When you do your will at the expense of God’s will, then you sin. But when you do God’s will to the benefit of your own self-interests, you simply do the right thing unmeritoriously.

(Also posted here.)

 

Well, Dave, I see you've been busy. I'll consider what you have offered, and try to be back here tonight with a reply.

 

Your claim that God's message imploring men to be reconciled to Him was intended for believers was refuted in that same thread. Nevertheless, I'm happy to go over it again in more detail.

The logic of a one-sided reconciliation, in which God is reconciled to us but we are not yet reconciled to Him, is like the sound of one hand clapping. Reconciliation is mutual or there is no reconciliation. God is not reconciled to us until we believe. This is why elect unbelievers remain under God’s wrath:

Eph. 2:3 ESV
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

All of us were once under wrath like the rest of mankind, due to our nature causing us to "live in the passions of our flesh..." Being under wrath is not consistent with reconciliation.

John 3:36 ESV
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Think back to the days when you were an unbeliever. Those were days when the wrath of God remained on you.

Rom. 1:18 ESV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Before you were saved, did you ever suppress the truth by your unrighteousness? If so, then the wrath of God was against your unrighteousness.

Rom. 2:4-5 ESV
Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

In this verse, Paul reveals not only that by a hard and impenitent heart one stores up wrath for oneself on Judgment Day, but also that the impenitent ones to whom he was speaking were the very ones whom God meant to lead to repentance through His kindness and forbearance and patience. And some of them (myself included) reading Paul's words, who were of a hard and impenitent heart, eventually repented and believed--but that does not falsify the fact mentioned by Paul that God had been storing up wrath against them until they repented.

Rom. 4:15 ESV
For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Notice that it does not say that the law brings wrath only on the unelect. God’s wrath is not removed from us until our sin is removed, and we remain in sin until we believe in Christ and His blood-sacrifice is applied to us. The world is reconciled to God one sinner at a time, as each one comes to faith. No one is reconciled until they are reconciled.
More to follow...

 

2 Cor. 5:18-20 ESV
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

God reconciled us to Himself at the same time that He gave us the ministry of reconciliation—at our point of saving faith. God’s acts of “reconciling the world to himself,” and, “not counting their trespasses against them,” and, “entrusting to us the message of reconciliation,” are not spoken of here as past, finished actions, but as ongoing actions. This is further shown by the fact that we are still making God’s appeal, and imploring men, “Be reconciled to God!” From the first moment of Christ’s incarnation, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself—and He has continued to do so even up to today. He is even now reconciling the world to Himself, and He does so through the combination of what Christ did on the cross and the ministry of reconciliation given to believers, whereby we implore men, “Be reconciled to God!”

You state:

You are incorrect. "18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;" Did He give the whole world the ministry of reconciliation? No. Did He even give all the elect who did not yet believe the ministry of reconciliation? No. Verse 18 speaks of Paul and of those who already believe. Paul is looking back at his own conversion, by which he was reconciled to God and given the ministry of reconciliation. He then continues, "19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." God, in Christ, was in the process of reconciling the world to himself (one believer at a time)--as each comes to faith, God stops counting their trespasses against them. This message of reconciliation, which is the gospel of Christ, God entrusted to Paul (and all believers by extension).

You continue:

Eph 2:1-3 ESV
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Col. 1:21 ESV
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,

You who were once alienated and hostile in mind, a child of wrath—when were you reconciled to God? When was God’s wrath against your sins propitiated?

Col. 1:21-22 ESV
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

We are now reconciled, now that we have been saved through faith. How is it that we are now reconciled? —Through “his body of flesh by his death.” It is His death then that reconciles us now.

Col. 2:13-14 ESV
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

When we were still dead in our trespasses, God made us alive in Christ, “having forgiven all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us…” How did He cancel this record of our debt? By nailing it to the cross! Had He nailed it to the cross before we were born it would not need to be further canceled. The language is clear: we were dead in trespasses, and then God made us alive in Christ, and He did so by nailing the record of our debt to the cross. This speaks of our condition when we came to Christ, but does not mean that the two states, dead and alive, were in any way concurrent.

How is it that the record of our sins can be nailed to the cross today? It is by our blessed union with Christ…

Gal. 2:20 ESV
20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Even when we were dead in our trespasses, the children of wrath by nature (“while we were enemies”), He made us alive together with Christ by grace through faith.

Rom. 5:1 ESV
1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:6-11 ESV
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

In verses 6-8, we see that Christ died while all men were still sinners and weak. Paul and his immediate readers did exist at the time of His death, and so the pronoun, “we,” fits doubly for them. But notice the difference for us in v. 9: “…we have now been justified by his blood,…” Now can only refer to the point of faith that is spoken of in v. 1, “justified by faith.” “…much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” This refers to the future “day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (2:5). Verse 10 is held up by many as establishing that Christ’s death was an immediate transaction that reconciled us to God at the time of His death, but in the light of Col. 1-2 and Eph. 2, we see a different meaning. “While we were enemies” refers to our state before God “made us alive together with him.” We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son at our point of faith; and now that we have been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life from the wrath to come. It is now that we have received reconciliation (v. 11). To be reconciled by the death of the Son does not require that the reconciliation happen at the time of that death—and indeed, it cannot happen at the time of death for those who remain under the wrath of God.

 

Are you seeing any Scripture now?

 

You keep making such statements. The problem is that you posted a bunch of prooftexts and then, without waiting for my rebuttal, posted, "This will be my last post in this thread." Now, you claim you established your points in that other thread. I invite the reader to go back and see what you left on the table.

If the Holy Spirit is to regenerate your nature, as Calvinists claim (and you do propagate what is generally their doctrine, whether or not you claim the label), it must be done from within the man. So then, would you say that you, before you were regenerated, wanted the Holy Spirit to come into you and regenerate you? No, for how an unregenerate person want such a thing? Right? Therefore, since the regeneration and indwelling was not wanted, it was forced--accomplished in spite of the wishes of the one to be regenerated. That's what I mean by coercive. But God knows how to cause us to "simply go right along with" His working--and He doesn't need to indwell unbelievers to do it.

Both you and Wesley are wrong. You've taken a truth of Scripture, that faith is all of God and He determines the destinies of men, and taken it farther than Scripture warrants--so far, in fact, that you've trodden over top of another truth of Scripture, which Wesley grasped and took father than Scripture warrants. I like what Fuller said about it:

If I find two doctrines affirmed or implied in the Scriptures, which, to my feeble understanding, may seem to clash, I ought not to embrace the one and to reject the other because of their supposed inconsistency; for, on the same ground, another person might embrace that which I reject, and reject that which I embrace, and have equal Scriptural authority for his faith as I have for mine. Yet in this manner many have acted on both sides: some, taking the general precepts and invitations of Scripture for their standard, have rejected the doctrine of discriminating grace; others, taking the declarations of salvation as being a fruit of electing love for their standard, deny that sinners without distinction are called upon to believe for the salvation of their souls. Hence it is that we hear of Calvinistic and Arminian texts; as though these leaders had agreed to divide the Scriptures between them. The truth is, there are but two ways for us to take: one is to reject them both, and the Bible with them, on account of its inconsistencies; the other is to embrace them both, concluding that, as they are both revealed in the Scriptures, they are both true, and both consistent, and that it is owing to the darkness of our understandings that they do not appear so to us [“The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle, 1988), vol. II, p. 367.]​

I had stated:

You replied:

I was not arguing that believers do meritorious works. I was arguing that a sinner's initial coming to the Lord in faith is not, in itself, to be considered a meritorious work, as some would claim if regeneration follows faith. However, there was one man who gained merit with God by his works, and He did pray, "...not My will, but Thine be done."

 

I see some problems with your arguing from these comparisons. Like many comparisons in the Bible, they speak of the two opposites, but they are not intended to address those in between. There is the sinner who is the natural man and the believer who is the spiritual man. And, of course, the Calvinist insists that one must be regenerated into a spiritual man in order escape the limitations of being a natural man in his understanding (including, supposedly, the ability to understand the gospel). But this overlooks the power of the Holy Spirit to convict and teach and persuade men of the truth (without first indwelling or regenerating them.)

Some spiritual truths will not be understood until after conversion, but the gospel is simple enough to be understood by sinners without first indwelling them with God’s Spirit. God does reveal truth and convict sinners, but He reveals enough to every man to leave him without excuse. Any man who hears the gospel can understand enough to be without excuse for not believing.

The Word of God does require more than a mind—it requires that we engage our spirit in understanding by having a spiritual attitude of seeking truth and the God of that truth. If we do not engage our spirit in the process, we will leave out one of the cogs, so to speak, and the whole thing may seem nonsense. In other words, when it comes to the truth of God, the spirit must be willing to embrace the truth before the mind can understand it. Men build up many defenses in their minds to protect their spirit from the hated truth—and human beings are the sole creatures able to tailor their own perception of reality and to embrace as true what they know down inside are lies, just to keep up their comfort level. But God sees through all that, and all the excuses.

And thank God, that He does, from time to time, cause the power of His Word to pierce “even unto the dividing of soul and spirit”—to pierce our defenses and confront that spirit in our heart with the truth. I believe this is what is described in Acts in two places, the preaching of Peter and the stoning of Stephen. Both crowds were cut to the heart, but with much different results. Confront men with something they really don’t think is true and don’t like it, and they might call you stupid; but confront them with something that they hate but are lying to themselves about, and they will hate you with the same level of hatred toward that truth.

Both of us believe that God unconditionally elected men in eternity past. Both believe that faith is a gift of God, and only those whom God chooses to bring to faith get saved. I just believe that what He overcomes to do that is our unwillingness, whereas you believe that He overcomes an absolute inability. But the results and the ones saved are the same. We both believe that God must reveal His truth to men before they can understand it. I just believe that He does that regeneration is not required--and further, that regeneration is rebirth, and is the essence of salvation itself--and that this great saving gift of the Holy Spirit's indwelling (uniting us to Christ) is only given by God to those who truly believe in repentant faith.

 

Dave,

I have other responsibilities that need my attention, but I will return, Lord willing, tomorrow night.

 

Dave,

Perhaps this will better explain my position.
Fuller spoke of a two-sided Biblical truth that neither side can fully accept:

…It appears to be the same controversy, for substance, as that which in all ages has subsisted between God and an apostate world. God has ever maintained these two principles: All that is evil is of the creature, and to him belongs the blame of it; and all that is good is of Himself, and to Him belongs the praise of it. To acquiesce in both these positions is too much for the carnal heart. The advocates for free-will would seem to yield the former, acknowledging themselves blameworthy for the evil; but they cannot admit the latter. Whatever honour they may allow to the general grace of God, they are for ascribing the preponderance in favour of virtue and eternal life to their own good improvement of it. Others, who profess to be advocates for free grace, appear to be willing that God should have all the honour of their salvation, in case they should be saved; but they discover the strongest aversion to take to themselves the blame of their destruction in case they should be lost. To yield both these points to God is to fall under in the grand controversy with him, and to acquiesce in his revealed will; which acquiescence includes “repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” [“The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle, 1988), vol. II, p. 330].​

Unless God graciously intervenes to suppress the evil and effect the good, men would continually be as sinful as possible. Because mankind sinned in Adam, all men are depraved, and there is no good within us apart from God’s intervening grace. Therefore, if there is to be anything good within human events, God must intervene and bring about the good. However, those parts of God’s plan that include allowing sin to occur need no divine intervention, as men are naturally quite willing to sin on their own.

All that happens that is evil is foreseen of God and permitted, while all that happens that is good only happens because God has decided to cause it to happen. All good is caused by God in some way, while all that is evil is of the creatures alone and is not caused by God in the same sense. In both cases, creatures freely choose; but in the case of chosen good, the ultimate credit must go to God, while in the case of chosen evil, the ultimate credit rests with the sinner.

A man is saved only due to God suppressing sin and effecting the good, persuading the man by His grace to come to the cross in repentant faith. God is the author of our faith and the only One to whom credit is due. But the man who perishes has only his own rejection of God’s call to blame. God can suppress evil and effect good, but He is under no obligation to do so. For reasons that only He knows, His plan, which is being perfectly carried out, includes allowing sin and evil to do their damage to an extent. Were this not so, there would have been no betrayal, no cross, no Savior.

God knows everything about every man—every thought before we think it. He knows exactly what persuasions would be necessary to bring any man to his knees in repentant, surrendered faith. No man is too hard for God to convert by mere non-coercive means. And yet, He only provides enough persuasion to result in conversion in the case of some and not all. Since no man will choose God unless and until God brings enough persuasive influence to bear to successfully result in the man choosing God, then it is God alone who decides who will choose Him, through the use of selective disparities between the level of influence that God knows will result in conversion and a level that He knows will not result in conversion. Thus, the Baptist middle position is once again vindicated, as there is no contradiction between the free will of the sinner to respond and the sovereign, selective grace of God in ultimately deciding the destinies of men.

 

You haven't even begun to understand mine or Fuller's position. The fact that you refuse to read my last post because you're "not interested in what Fuller had to say" shows that you were never really interested in my position or what I had to say. So if you're not willing to go more than a few introductory rounds, and not willing to get into it very deeply--and you certainly haven't been willing to go toe-to-toe on any exegesis, since your idea of how this should go is simply for you to post some proof texts, tell me how you think I'm wrong, and then walk away--then why are you here, Dave? Why post at all? When you post your proof texts, but will not substantively engage any detailed rebuttals, then what you're doing amounts to nothing more than spamming and pontificating. You ASSUME you know my position or Fuller's, but you are not willing to read at any length required to honestly investigate in depth. You superficially dismiss based on your assumption that my view (and Fuller's) must be just another version of what you've already encountered. But the fact is that they are not--and I can tell that's the case by your misunderstandings that you won't hang around long enough for me open your eyes to. You've mentioned elsewhere that there's no need for further discussion because you're not going to change your mind. But that's not the real purpose of such discussions. They ought to be for the benefit of those who read here. If your position is the stronger one, then you ought to be able to demonstrate that by such discussions--not to YOUR satisfaction, but to a reasonably objective standard, which you have not done. And if your position cannot be defended, and cannot hold up under such a comparison, then you ought to give serious consideration to changing it. The Church has had a long history of using the tool of debate to ferret out hidden assumptions and weed out false ideas. It is how theology has developed through the centuries. So don't think that your own view is somehow above such things, so that you're able to pass judgment on another view, throw some proof texts at it, and leave without having to substantively engage.

I'm not saying you've avoided all substantive engagement, but you're certainly in too much of a hurry to exit.

I believe your ideas of exhausted and thorough are superficial and convenient.