When a presentation of the Gospel turns into a discussion of Calvinism

Davidius · #1 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 06:45 PM

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 07:39 PM

I just don't understand how a person would come to the point in a conversation about the Gospel where an unbeliever would complain that God hasn't zapped him. The Gospel requires them to believe and gives them no excuse not to. Whether they have the capacity to is irrelevant to the issue of their wanton rebellion.

armourbearer · #3 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 07:51 PM

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

Davidius · #4 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?

armourbearer · #5 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?

Not necessarily. The willingness to pray in order to find grace shows that the problem of their inability is genuine and not merely an excuse. But I suppose you could be confrontational if you want to press the point; maybe you could ask them if they would believe if it were in their power to do so.

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

armourbearer · #7 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

"Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.

Davidius · #8 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

"Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.

We're talking past each other perhaps. I'm certainly not arguing that a man consider himself capable of pleasing God. I think men need to understand they are dead in sin and trespasses and that nothing in them is acceptable before God and that the Gospel is a call to trust in the righteousness of Christ and not their own.

I'm not trying to distill the Gospel per se but, concerning a very first basic presentation, the discussion of Jacob and Esau is not a prerequisite.

By the time Paul reaches the middle of Romans Chapter 3, the unbeliever possesses sufficient information to understand that no good lies within him and he has a need for a Savior. The presentation that a righteousness exists apart from the Law is sufficient at that point without then explaining why some do not continue in belief.

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

Semper Fidelis · #10 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.

Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.

Davidius · #11 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.

Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.

Thanks, I think that's exactly what I needed to hear (read).

armourbearer · #12 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgement." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgement, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.

armourbearer · #13 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 08:51 PM

Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."

Semper Fidelis · #14 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgement." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgement, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.

I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

It is my experience, limited as it is, that many people understand that God has given them faith without having the ability to articulate it. Most recently, the wife of one of the deacons started asking about why God gives her faith while He doesn't give others the same even though I had never directly dealt with God's particular election directly except to note that our salvation is based on the unmerited favor of God.

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."

I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one must understand predestination to begin discipleship.

armourbearer · #16 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe?