All the promises in the gospel are for awakened sinners

[Afgewezen]

Permission to come to Christ. Before I want to consider this, we must define what it means to come to Christ.

Nee, even bij de zaak blijven. Ik antwoordde op jouw tegenwerping: “Dead people having a right to come to God?” Dus zeg ik , gebruik dan het woord ‘permissie’.

I've done this repeatedly, and think I differ fundamentally with most posters. It means having Him revealed to the soul, by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel. It is not an exercise in logic. Else, presumption.

Waarom moet iemand die al in Christus is (naar jouw mening) nog tot Christus komen? Hij is toch al in Hem vanaf het moment van zijn regeneration? Wat zeg ik? Hij is al in Christus van eeuwigheid!

But none will believe unless they have spiritual life given first.

Niet ‘first’, but at the same time! Wanneer de Heilige Geest Christus in ons openbaart (= ons ogen geeft om te zien wat het Evangelie ons belooft), dan wekt Hij te zelfder tijd het geloof in ons. Of beter nog: dat zien ís geloven.

My mind is not in the way. I like to give it a proper place however. Reason should control emotion, not vice versa. We have a reasonable service. You can disagree with qualifications, but then you disagree with the Bible. Christ came to seek and save those who were lost. In a sense all are lost. But He didnt come for all. In another sense (the right reading of this passage), only those are lost who have been shown by the Holy Spirit that they are lost. He came for them, and is presented by the Holy Spirit to them. I've held your point of view, but objectively considered alternatives. I was willing to change my mind when I saw the Bible supported the hypercalvinist point of view. These are hard decisions to make, require courage, but are necessary to be honest with oneself. Do not reject an argument out of hand because it contradicts what you have always believed or because it requires self-sacrifice.

Het ging over Johannes 6. Daar staat dat Mozes het brood heeft gegeven aan de vaderen in de woestijn. En Jezus zegt tot het huidige volk Israël: “Mozes heeft u niet gegeven het brood uit de hemel, maar Mijn Vader geeft u dat ware Brood uit de hemel.”
Gebruikt Jezus hier ‘u’ in twee verschillende betekenissen? Dat lijkt uit het tekstverband toch niet waarschijnlijk. Maar in jouw visie moet dat wel, want anders…. Maar ik zeg toch niet dat Jezus al die joden daadwerkelijk verlost? Dat is één conclusie te veel.
Wat de Bijbel ons leert (against your mind), is dat God geeft en dat dit geven toch niet betekent daadwerkelijk verlossen. En of wij dat nou snappen of logisch vinden of niet, daar trekt de Schrift zich helemaal niets van aan. Zó staat het in het Woord en zó hebben wij daarvoor te buigen.

That is fundamentally different from preaching that all must and can come to him. In the former the word is used by the Holy Spirit, in the latter the word is used by a person himself, while Christ's beauty is not seen.

Ik heb niet éénmaal gezegd dat iemand tot Christus komen kan. Maar dit gegeven, dat wij niet kunnen, is een beperking aan onze kant, niet een beperking aan de kant van het Evangelie.
Daarbij: is Christus eerst of het geloof, is het woord eerst of het geloof? Vanuit jouw visie is er eerst geloof en dan Christus, en eerst geloof en dan het woord. Heeft de Heilige Geest dan al het geloof in iemand gewerkt (first) buiten het woord om?

Repentance is a gift of God. We will only repent truly if we have spiritual life. Repentance means that we love God with all our hearts, etc., and this was our duty since creation. This duty has been maintained. It was part of the Covenant of Works that we broke, but whose demands remain.

Ik begrjjp dus nog steeds niet dat bekering een plicht is en geloof niet. Bekering, ‘omkeer’, was in het Paradijs toch niet nodig? En die bekering moet ons toch ook gegeven worden, net als het geloof?

We are both trying to understand Scripture. So we both are using our reason. When you see an inconsistency, you say that there is no solution and say it is hidden from us. I look for an answer in Scripture, and find one.

Ik heb niet het idee dat jij iets vindt in de Bijbel wat ik er niet in gevonden heb. Wat jij doet is het volgende: de Bijbel zegt dit, dus dat…. dus dat….. dus dat ……….. etc. Dan is dan jouw ‘answer in Scripture’. En als je dan in strijd komt met andere bijbelse gegevens na al dat geredeneer, ga je die laatste gegevens net zo lang veranderen en interpreteren tot ze in het door jou geconcludeerde systeem passen. Maar dan is het geen 'answer in Scripture' meer.

[cannabis]

Some of the discussions here are overlapping with the other English topic. I must be brief. We are running into a lot or repetition.

Afgewezen:

You can give the unregenerate "permision" to come, but what does this really mean if they do not want to come (unless regenerated), nor are able to come. It is a moot point.

Must all come to Christ during their life to be saved? What of infants who die without this experience? As long as they were justified from eternity, it does not matter that they never exercised faith or had Christ revealed to them. So with the mentally disabled. I believe there are God's people among them too. This makes hypercalvinism less austere than you may at first have supposed.
So, though this may not be necessary, it is still the way God has chosen to lead His people. They shall come with weeping. God deals with people as moral, intelligent, feeling creatures. They will be conscious of what sin truly is, what Christ has done for them, will be shown the evil to sin and will weep for it. Is it absolutely necessary? The Bible does not say we must experience x amount of grief, etc. But both Scripture and biography teaches us that none will be saved without it.

No, spiritual life does not mean that a person believes in Christ immediately. Kersten also speaks out strongly against this (in Voetspoor). Your confusion comes, again, from mixing faith with believing. Faith = spiritual sight. Believing = sprititual seeing. My (natural) eye can see everything that is revealed to it. It requires revelation and can see nothing without it. In conversion, God reveals His justice first, then His mercy. I am not stating this as a formula. Owen, Brakel, Edwards, Philpot, Mallan, etc. all say that God is not bound to a formula.

Did God give His Son for those who are reprobated? What a dishonour to Christ!

You write "is Christus eerst of het geloof, is het woord eerst of het geloof?" This is faulty logic. Though I believe that faith precedes the revelation of Christ to the soul, that does not at all imply that the word does not come at the same time as regeneration/inward calling. The entrance of God's words give light, and life, and faith, and love.

I did not say it was our duty to repent in Paradise. It was not necessary. Our duty there was to love God perfectly. That is still our duty now. If we dont (and none does), it is still our duty. Hence, we must depart from our proud, evil, selfish way and love God perfectly, in everything. That is all i argued. Further, all God revealed to us in Paradise was our duty to believe, and is still our duty to believe. Christ was not then revealed as our Saviour, for we did not need one. Hence is it not the duty of the unregenerated today to believe. However, the proclamation of the gospel tells us that Christ is the Saviour. And this further revelation (though only outward) makes it our duty to believe this. This is not the same as believing that He is our personal Saviour.

I cannot help but find your assessment of my beliefs somewhat bitter, and that is not the spirit of Christian charity I would expect. I certainly hope such a spirit is not evident in my postings. Were it so, my apologies. I also regret that I do not have the time to show how Scripture supports what I write. If you want to objectively consider what I write, as I do your position, and as a scholar is expected to do if s/he wants to lay claim to reason at all, read Gill's Cause of God and Truth, Doctrine of Everlasting Love, Body of Divinity, or Booth or Brine. These people are not sophists. They start with Scripture, support all they write with Scripture. All I do here is present, weakly and poorly, some of their points of view.

[cannabis]

Hi Arrow:

I must be brief:

"I'm not going to comment on everything you wrote, these posts are growing way too long. Every answer wil raise new subtopics we have different opinions on."

I agree.

"in my opinion it is not possible for the sinner to be able to verify it is the work of the Spirit. The sinners judgment will be earthly and subject to personal interpretations. So you'll never know for sure you have the right to embrace Christ, if you keep searching inside for promising signs. You're always and in every circumstance welcome to Christ."

Regenerated people doubt until God gives a token of His love whereby they can believe Christ died for them. If they have to find evidence in themselves, they would find sin and unbelief. The whole reflex act of faith doctrine is dangerous if people believe that they are saved based only on marks in themselves, experiences, etc, and deduce from this that they are saved. It borders presumption. Christ cannot be embraced until revealed.

"Regenerated sinner" Paul was still a sinner after rebirth. Calls himself the chief of sinners. Says he is chief, not that he was chief. The new nature is holy and cannot sin, the old man cannot but sin. Did he want to sin? No. Did he sin? Yes. Therefore he was a sinner. How did God see him? As justified in Christ but a sinner in himself. Already before his regeneration.

"Someone who is regenerated will still be a sinner in his own eyes, not in God's." I agree.

"The sins of the regenerated are already paid for, the moment they are committed." No, from eternity.

"Do you still read the Bible?" Yes. Low blow, Arrow. I also read the commentaries. I think these people had a better understanding of the Bible than poor cannabis. So I read the Bible and then how others interpret it.

"How do I know I'm a regenerated, sensibly lost sinner? When do I know for sure that Christ is revealed to my soul? What do I have to feel, what are the words to describe my feelings, so people like you will pronounce me a sensibly lost sinner? Isn't the Word of God sufficient? Doesn't Christ reveal Himself when He says: John 6, 48:I am that bread of life. If that isn't a revelation, what do you call it?"

I call that a proclamation. Your questions are valid. I struggled with them long myself. My love of the works of Edwards stems from this, that he describes in his Affections what a revelation from Christ is. And what it is not. I can only do injustice to his description by attempting to quote it. Read the 3rd and 4th marks in Part 3. The book is online, from http://www.ccel.org.
"People like me..." I do not go around judging people. I have my hands full with myself. When is a person lost? When he has no more hope. I think Rev. Roos describes the lost condition of a sinner well. But if people listen to him, they may argue (wrongly) that he is trying to set down a standard based only on his own experience, and so reject his message. If we are going to dismiss the criteria of others as based on their own experience, there is no sense even asking about their criteria.


"All hearers are ungenerated at first, even those who will eventually be regenerated. So, what you're saying here, the gospel message isn't directed to anyone. Another inconsistency."

Cute, but no cigar. As I stated before, I believe regeneration comes before the revelation of Christ to the soul. Hence, no inconsistency.

Christian Reformed is not the same as CGK. CGK is much more conservative. What we call the CRC is equivalent to GKN I think. Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and cronies.

"when I read the Bible, Jesus Christ calls me to believe unto Him."
Christ tells all to believe that He is the Saviour and Son of God. That is not the same as believing that He is our personal Saviour.

God can justly ask of us that which is impossible for us to do. He can (and does) ask for perfect love, because we could in Paradise. Does He ask the reprobate to accept Him as their Saviour? No, for then He would mock them by withholding something He pretends to want to give. You would be a cruel dad if you show your toddler a cookie and offer it to him, but then, as he reaches for it, to pull it away because you never intended to give it. Not the best analogy, but you get the point.

"I'll still try to reach Him, because He invites, even commands me."
How can you try with a heart full of hate to God. No man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Drawn with cords of love. Divine love. That means there must be spiritual life first.

"If I can't do it in my own power, He will give me power to do it."
So, if we start, He'll help."

Thus spoke Mr. van Harmin too. (arminius)

[Afgewezen]

Must all come to Christ during their life to be saved? What of infants who die without this experience? As long as they were justified from eternity, it does not matter that they never exercised faith or had Christ revealed to them. So with the mentally disabled. I believe there are God's people among them too. This makes hypercalvinism less austere than you may at first have supposed.

Je geeft zelf al het antwoord hierop in wat je hierop aansluitend schrijft:

So, though this may not be necessary, it is still the way God has chosen to lead His people. They shall come with weeping. God deals with people as moral, intelligent, feeling creatures. They will be conscious of what sin truly is, what Christ has done for them, will be shown the evil to sin and will weep for it. Is it absolutely necessary? The Bible does not say we must experience x amount of grief, etc. But both Scripture and biography teaches us that none will be saved without it.

Natuurlijk kunnen kleine kinderen en the ‘mentally disabled’ niet worden opgeroepen tot geloof en bekering. Maar dat moet geen uitgangspunt zijn voor Gods normale manier van evangelieverkondiging.

Your confusion comes, again, from mixing faith with believing. Faith = spiritual sight. Believing = sprititual seeing. My (natural) eye can see everything that is revealed to it. It requires revelation and can see nothing without it. In conversion, God reveals His justice first, then His mercy. I am not stating this as a formula. Owen, Brakel, Edwards, Philpot, Mallan, etc. all say that God is not bound to a formula.

Over het onderscheid ‘faith’ en ‘believing’ is inmiddels genoeg gezegd. Zie voorgaande postings.

Did God give His Son for those who are reprobated? What a dishonour to Christ!

Heb ik dat gezegd?

The entrance of God's words give light, and life, and faith, and love.

Juist, die twee moeten dus bij elkaar gehouden worden. Dan hoef je je ook niet meer druk te maken over de vraag of de genade nu wel aan ‘unregenerated’ aangeboden kan worden. Want als Gods woorden het hart binnenkomen, door de werking van de Geest, laat God dat woord Zelf wel doen wat Hem behaagt.

I did not say it was our duty to repent in Paradise. It was not necessary. Our duty there was to love God perfectly. That is still our duty now. If we dont (and none does), it is still our duty. Hence, we must depart from our proud, evil, selfish way and love God perfectly, in everything. That is all i argued. Further, all God revealed to us in Paradise was our duty to believe, and is still our duty to believe. Christ was not then revealed as our Saviour, for we did not need one. Hence is it not the duty of the unregenerated today to believe. However, the proclamation of the gospel tells us that Christ is the Saviour. And this further revelation (though only outward) makes it our duty to believe this. This is not the same as believing that He is our personal Saviour.

Ik verwijs naar wat ik heb gezegd over recht van ‘toegang’ en recht van ‘bezit’.

No, for then He would mock them by withholding something He pretends to want to give. You would be a cruel dad if you show your toddler a cookie and offer it to him, but then, as he reaches for it, to pull it away because you never intended to give it. Not the best analogy, but you get the point.

Nee, het is helemaal geen goede analogie. De belofte van God vraagt om geloof van de mens. Is het geloof er niet, dan vervalt de belofte. Zie Hebr. 4:1,2. Was God niet eerlijk? Hij beloofde het volk in Kanaän te brengen, terwijl Hij het voornemen had het grootste gedeelte van het volk om te brengen in de woestijn. Maar zo mogen wij niet redeneren over God. Het grootste gedeelte van het volk had door zijn ongeloof de belofte ‘krachteloos’ gemaakt. Dát is de werkelijkheid waar wij mee te maken hebben.

I cannot help but find your assessment of my beliefs somewhat bitter, and that is not the spirit of Christian charity I would expect.

Ik val niet jou aan, maar je opvattingen en misschien doe ik dat wat emotioneel. Maar dat is geen gebrek aan ‘spirit of Christian charity’. Wees voorzichtig met die persoonlijke opmerkingen, er zit gauw iets arrogants in, zo van: ik ben zachtmoediger dan jij.

[Arrow]

Regenerated people doubt until God gives a token of His love whereby they can believe Christ died for them. (...) Christ cannot be embraced until revealed.

So, 'doubt' is the first sign someone is regenerated? Waiting for a token of His love? Be more specific. What kind of token will it be? How do I recognize it? Again, Christ reveals Himself in Scripture, no need to wait.

The sins of the regenerated are already paid for, the moment they are committed.

No, from eternity.

So Christ's death on a Roman cross was just a show?

Do you still read the Bible?

Yes. Low blow, Arrow.

Not intended as such. I was genuinely wondering.

Christ tells all to believe that He is the Saviour and Son of God. That is not the same as believing that He is our personal Saviour.

A personal Saviour. Are you that important? I thought He is the Saviour of His people (plural).

If I can't do it in my own power, He will give me power to do it.

So, if we start, He'll help.

No. He helps us start. But: in our view, we do it ourselves. At first we don't know God. How can we say of The Holy Spirit, Whom we don't know at the moment: 'He quickened us.' It is a matter of perspective, as I explained in my last post. Maybe you should reread that, and comment on it. In my view it's crucial in understanding what I try to say.

[cannabis]

I want to throw out another, related idea. It will shed light on our discussion. What do you think, does God want all men to be saved? Many people say yes, some say this question may not even be asked. I enter this topic with hesitation, but know that the answer has been revealed plainly in the Bible and is there for us to see. Notice that I am not asking why God decreed what He did, for that is never permitted. "Nay but O man..." (Rom 9)

If God wanted all to be saved, why then are they not all saved? Can man thwart God's will? "Who has resisted His will?" (Rom 9.19). Some people turn to the distinction between God's hidden and revealed will, but that argument cannot be used here, as God cannot contradict Himself, is not changeable, is not a man that He should lie, etc. He does not declare that He wants all men to be saved, but that He wants all the elect to be saved. God does not say one thing and decree the opposite.

I read in 2 Peter 3.9 that God does not want that any should perish. Why then do many perish? The answer is in John 18.9. Christ does not want that any whom the Father gave to Him in eternity should perish. See John 17.2, Hebrews 2.13 regarding this.

This example shows that the words like "all" and "any" do not necessarily mean every last human being, but often refer to the elect. In John 12.32 I read that Christ will draw all men to Him. You will agree if "all" meant literally everyone and not just the elect, then literally all people would be saved and the doctrine of election would not make sense, or even be true.

The limitation of the words "all" and "any" applies to the promises as well. But in the promises the limitation is made even more clearly. "All that mourn" means literally each and everyone that truly mourns for sin.

There has been quite some talk of man's coming to Christ. It seems to be forgotten that Christ was found of them that did not seek Him (Rom 10). Man is passive in regeneration, for he is spiritually dead. Not of him that willeth... There is a great example of regeneration is in Ezekiel 16. In vs 6 we read how God commanded the orphan to live, but in vs 8, after much time had passed, was it the time of love. Some of the people posting here seem to think there was no spiritual life before vs. 8.

[cannabis]

Afgewezen: I have already shown that your distinction between "recht van ‘toegang’ en recht van ‘bezit’" makes no sense.

Did God give His Son for the whole world? Is that what John 3.16 means? Then it means He gave Christ for all men, elect or not.

"Juist, die twee moeten dus bij elkaar gehouden worden. Dan hoef je je ook niet meer druk te maken over de vraag of de genade nu wel aan ‘unregenerated’ aangeboden kan worden."

If there is logic in here, it must be far above me.

"De belofte van God vraagt om geloof van de mens. Is het geloof er niet, dan vervalt de belofte. Zie Hebr. 4:1,2. Was God niet eerlijk? Hij beloofde het volk in Kanaän te brengen, terwijl Hij het voornemen had het grootste gedeelte van het volk om te brengen in de woestijn. Maar zo mogen wij niet redeneren over God. Het grootste gedeelte van het volk had door zijn ongeloof de belofte ‘krachteloos’ gemaakt. Dát is de werkelijkheid waar wij mee te maken hebben."

If this is true, God's promise is not sincere or effective until we believe it. This means we save ourselves, and that God depends on our believing. Shocking!

Arrow:
See my posting on presumption. Many will come to God at the last day, saying they have prophesied in His name, etc. There were many stony ground hearers who received the word anon with joy. We do well to discern between a true and false coming to Christ. As I said, read Edwards for a good description.

The sins of the elect were covered when they were elected, but the suffering for sin and perfect keeping of the law had to be accomplished by Christ in time.

Personal Saviour. God reveals himself in the Bible as a personal God for His people.

I've reread your last post, but found nothing convincing in it. Your explanation is still after the fact reasoning.

[cannabis]

I cannot help but wonder how many of the people posting here write out of sincere love for God and the truth, and how many write but to win an argument and to let their own "dim light shine." I know how very badly I fare in this...

[Afgewezen]

I cannot help but wonder how many of the people posting here write out of sincere love for God and the truth, and how many write but to win an argument and to let their own "dim light shine." I know how very badly I fare in this...

Waarom schrijf je dit, Cannabis? Ik proef hier een impliciete beschuldiging in.

If this is true, God's promise is not sincere or effective until we believe it. This means we save ourselves, and that God depends on our believing. Shocking!

Hebr. 4:2"... maar het woord der prediking deed hun geen nut, dewijl het met het geloof niet gemengd was in degenen die het gehoord hebben." Shocking?

[Afgewezen]

I want to throw out another, related idea. It will shed light on our discussion. What do you think, does God want all men to be saved? Many people say yes, some say this question may not even be asked. I enter this topic with hesitation, but know that the answer has been revealed plainly in the Bible and is there for us to see. Notice that I am not asking why God decreed what He did, for that is never permitted. "Nay but O man..." (Rom 9)

Is het verstandig om hier een discussie over aan te gaan? Ook hier is een spanning: God heeft niet besloten iedereen zalig te maken, dus wil Hij ten diepste niet iedereen zalig maken. Anderzijds zegt God in het Evangelie dat Hij onze zaligheid wil, en weent Jezus over Jeruzalem, omdat zij de tijd van hun bezoeking niet bekend hebben.
Ik verkies deze spanning niet op te lossen door mijn verstand daar op los te laten en ik ga er dan ook verder niet over in discussie.

[Arrow]

I cannot help but wonder how many of the people posting here write out of sincere love for God and the truth, and how many write but to win an argument and to let their own "dim light shine." I know how very badly I fare in this...

Be assured I write out of sincere love for God and the Truth (notice: capital 't'). Sometimes I get the feeling people like you spent too much time and energy to defend their theological systems, and meanwhile ignore Christ's command to spread the Gospel. If you have true love for God, you know who and how He is and you can't keep that under lock and key. Go out, and spread the light, not dimly, because you reflect the dazzling radiation of His love. The Gospel is clear and simple. Let's keep it that way.

My intention is not to win an argument. All arguments will eventually be won by God. We, with our limited intelligence, will never be able to unravel all the mysteries of the Word of God. But rest assured, we don't have to. Luke 10, 21: "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." I'm glad that is in the Bible.

I expect a whole barrage of refutations from you directed at my writings above. Instead, you might use the time you intended to spent on replying to this post, to pray for some loved ones, who don't know Christ yet. Or go out on the street and spread the love of Christ to some passers-by. As for me, I won't reply to any comments of yours on this topic anymore. I think there's a chance we, in spite of our differences of opinion, might meet in heaven.

[cannabis]

No Arrow, I agree with you.

[cannabis]

I did not make my comment with anyone in particular in mind. We should all examine our motives. When I do, I am ashamed and hesitant to post.

[cannabis]

One last posting for me:

There seems to be little attention paid to the important distinction between pardon of sin and justification. The two are often confused, but are not the same.

Christ came to do two things:
1.suffer the punishment for the sins of His elect, who were given Him in eternity, and whose sins were imputed (ascribed) to Him.
2. merit righteousness by keeping God's law blameless, resisting the temptation of the devil, etc., thereby giving His elect a right to eternal life.

Christ suffered for the sins of the elect so their sin could be pardoned. But this does not give them a right to eternal life by itself. Hence He also had to keep the law in the human nature and merit perfect righteousness which was already ascribed (imputed) to the elect when they were chosen in Christ.

When I mentioned justification from eternity, it may have been misinterpreted as making a person just, not ascribing perfect righteousness to them. That they are not just in themselves is obvious by their sins to the end.
Again, it is critical to remember that faith does not make just, but pronounce just. Grace is the cause, faith the effect.

No doubt this will be dismissed as sophistry and a twisting of Scripture by the highly enlightened. But this is not my own view, it is Dr. Gill's, as well as that of Goodwin, Ames, Twisse, Wistius, Maccovius, and others. I believe their interpretation of Scripture is sounder than anything we are likely to come up with ourselves. It places the emphasis of salvation where it belongs: God's sovereign love. This was Steenblok's aim as well. For that, too, I see him as the most consistent and accurate divine of the 20th Century. The opposition his ideas receive is understandable, for it cuts all human volition and involvement away.

cannabis

[Afgewezen]

I believe their interpretation of Scripture is sounder than anything we are likely to come up with ourselves. It places the emphasis of salvation where it belongs: God's sovereign love.

Met het laatste ben ik het helemaal eens. Maar daar zijn geen sofistische onderscheidingen voor nodig. Wij moeten altijd weer terug naar de Bijbel en voorzichtig zijn met onze gevolgtrekkingen. Want dan zijn we misschien wel aan het ijveren voor Gods eer, maar dan is het een ijver zonder verstand.