Featured The APPEAL to be reconciled to God

In another thread which has been closed Biblicist (and other Calvinists) argued that the gospel call to reconciliation with God was NOT an appeal, but a command. I quoted this text, which clearly references the appeal (made by God through his ministers) to the world, "be reconciled to God."

2 Cor. 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.​

What is the believers ministry of reconciliation according to this text? What are the ministers of reconciliation to do?

Answer:
"He has committed to us (believers) the message of reconciliation. We (the believers) are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

 

Hyper Calvinism

Many Calvinistic scholars believe this is a tendency of the young neo-Calvinism that is on the rise today and tends toward the heresy of "Hyper-Calvinism," which is actually a denial of historical reformed teaching...

It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]​

...take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists' "denial of the use of the word 'offer' (or appeal) in relation to the preaching of the gospel." This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

• Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
• Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
• Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
• Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
• Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.

 

Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both/and?

Could God appeal for the lost to obey a command? Can God 'long to gather' rebellious men? Can God 'hold out his hands' with long-suffering to those who are unwilling to obey?

I disagree. It speaks to human response-ability, for how does one rightly hold another responsible if they are not response-able?

Ok, and for that they are held responsible. But this is also an appeal to reconciliation, for it is by obeying this command that one is reconciled to God, right?

I get that, but the text actually says that God is making his appeal through the ministers, so it would not be incorrect to suggest that it is God's appeal, not just mans. Also, the concept of foreknowledge of man's response is another much more complex topic, but I do not feel it is appropriate to put God on the linear timeline to suggest that at some point in time he looked through the corridors of time to see how one would respond and thus makes decisions based upon that foresight. I think that is a very finite and limited view of divine knowledge...but much more could be said on that topic.

 

And as ministers of reconciliation to lost men what would be their task? God would make His appeal THROUGH them: Be reconciled to God.

You know, I was thinking about this the other day and for the determinist, an appeal from God NEVER makes much sense whether its an appeal toward the lost to be reconciled to God or an appeal for a believer to be reconciled with his brethren, because in both cases God, not the man, is RESPONSE-ABLE for the man's nature/desires and thus choices. It's not as if the bickering man has control over his desires or nature. God has to effectually change that for them to be reconciled in EITHER case, so even if I were to concede your point is doesn't help your case.

Oh, and did you see my thread on Hyperism, because your approach certainly seems to be heading that way by removing the 'offer' or 'appeal' aspects of God's calling to the world.

 

Just because we are not convincing you with our replies doesn't mean it hasn't been 'dealt' with my friend.

No one is denying the inability of man if left alone...but we aren't left alone and you've yet to address the enabling power of the Word of God. You merely presume it isn't powerful enough apart from the 'irresistible calling' to enable a response. So, why would we waste time attempting to denounce inability, when we affirm it? Instead, I've attempted for the up-tenth time to refocus our debate on an actual point of contention...the enabling power of God's Word.

You know what, I feel for you on this one... appeals don't work for your system so you think you have to do whatever you can to explain them away, I get it. But as we already showed, regardless of who the appeal is being made by and to, it is an 'appeal' of the Lord and that simply doesn't fit your model.

 

Good point.

I guess, according to this particular argument, God "zaps" his enemies to make them reconcile to Him, but once we become reconciled with God He then just appeals to us to make us reconcile with each other? And I'm still confused as to why He would appeal "be reconciled to God" when he really is just appealing for them to be reconciled to each other? Either way, He isn't zapping them anymore, he just appealing to them. Funny...God is willing to zap them the first time, but not the second. I guess He has to work in human responsibility somewhere? :laugh:

 

Last time then you go on my "ignore list" as one not willing to engage in honest discussions...

We are all expressing our PERSONAL OPINIONS about what God's Word is saying. My views are a much based on what I believe the scripture is teaching as yours are. To suggest otherwise is fruitless and divisive in nature. I've explained to you countless times that we do not deny your specific claims regarding the inability of man IF LEFT TO HIMSELF. Now, if you'd like to make a case for how God's Word, His Gospel, is not powerful enough to enable that fallen nature to respond, I'll be glad to address that.

 

Actually I think it is absurd to keep saying that we aren't responding when we are...and even more absurd to accuse US of resorting to our "personal opinions" as if his replies are the sacred texts, or something?