Quote
Pilgrim said:
Your first premise is rather "fractured"...Man's natural state does not except him nor include him from the outward calling to repent and believe. Put another way, the extent of the Gospel call isn't dependent upon man's spiritual condition. However, man's spiritual state is directly dependent upon the Gospel; better, the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit through the right preaching of the Gospel.

Perhaps I'm just dense; but what exactly are you objecting to or disagreeing with here? I am speaking here not of how things look from an eternal or biblical (or God's) perspective, but how things are to be done here practically on the ground by the Church. Since we who are called by God to proclaim (and live) the gospel do not know in advance who is written in the book of life of the Lamb (Rev. 13:7-8), we must extend the outward call to all and sundry. Unlike the Arminian, we need not worry that our presentation is "perfect," that we make the gospel "appealing," interesting, etc., since it is the Spirit's work to convict and convert, and all God's elect will be convicted and converted. Our job is simply to be faithful and truthful. "The extent of the" outward or external "gospel call" is "not dependent upon man's spiritual condition" but it is dependent upon or related to our ignorance of any given man's spiritual condition. It is not our preaching of the gospel to all creation under heaven (Col 1:23) that renders men "without excuse," it is their sinful rebellion and supression of the truth about God that they already have that condemns them (Romans 1:18); the gospel call is the means by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and brings to faith and repentance those the Father promised to the Son before the Foundation of the world (John 6:37-40; Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:4-6). The only way we can have any idea whether a person is among God's elect is after they have believed and embraced the gospel once it has been preached to them (1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess 2:13). Paul said, "I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim. 2:10).


Quote
Pilgrim said:
My main concern here is actually that which I have highlighted above; the necessity of making known a sinner's "state" or "condition" before calling one to repentance and faith. I'll have to take your word that MacArthur nor Boice never did/does so, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of the Reformers and Puritans did preach on Original Sin and its dreadful affects, i.e., the doctrine of total depravity/inability. This was the Gospel preached for centuries until Finney came along (of course there were others as well), but he made popular the "dumbed-down gospel" methodology for he adamantly rejected the doctrines of grace and embraced Pelagianism. Today, we don't have so much Arminianism as was the case during the time of Wesley, et al, (an improvement of sorts over Finneyism) but rather the churches and most professing Christians have sunk even lower and have embraced semi-Pelagianism.

I don't deny for a moment "the necessity of making known a sinner's 'state' or 'condition' before calling him to repentance and faith," nor would I deny that MacArthur, Boice, etc. do this. An integral part of the gospel message is that man is hopelessly fallen and lost, that he is "dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), and can do nothing to affect his own salvation. But, I do not think it necessary to preach or understand the imputation of Adam's guilt as opposed to the fact that on account of his sin we inherit a fallen and corrupted nature that is abhorrent to God and that inevitably issues in sinful thoughts and deeds. Now, its fine if someone shows up on a Sunday when that's what the sermon or text is about; but, I do not consider it an essential part or constituent of the gospel. That is to call men to repent of their sins -- not Adam's (seriously, did you or have you confessed or repented to God for Adam's sin?) -- We are to trust in Christ's atoning work for all of our sins, and I believe we do this whether we are conscious of Christ's atoning for Adam's sin or not, and whether or not we are conscious of why we sin. Perhaps you can point out where in Packer's wonderful essay he denies what I am saying or asserts that it is necessary to apprise them of the fact of the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, for I have not found it. In fact, I believe the following quotes are perfectly in keeping with what I have been asserting.

Quote
These invitations are universal; Christ addresses them to sinners, as such, and every man, as he believes God to be true, is bound to treat them as God’s words to him personally and to accept the universal assurance which accompanies them, that all who come to Christ will be received. Again, these invitations are real; Christ genuinely offers Himself to all who hear the gospel, and is in truth a perfect Saviour to all who trust Him. The question of the extent of the atonement does not arise in evangelistic preaching; the message to be delivered is simply this — that Christ Jesus, the sovereign Lord, who died for sinners, now invites sinners freely to Himself. God commands all to repent and believe; Christ promises life and peace to all who do so.

Quote
To the question: what must I do to be saved? the old gospel replies: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. To the further question: what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? its reply is: it means knowing oneself to be a sinner, and Christ to have died for sinners; abandoning all self-righteousness and self-confidence, and casting oneself wholly upon Him for pardon and peace; and exchanging one’s natural enmity and rebellion against God for a spirit of grateful submission to the will of Christ through the renewing of one’s heart by the Holy Ghost.

And to the further question still: how am I to go about believing on Christ and repenting, if I have no natural ability to do these things? it answers: look to Christ, speak to Christ, cry to Christ, just as you are; confess your sin, your impenitence, your unbelief, and cast yourself on His mercy; ask Him to give you a new heart, working in you true repentance and firm faith; ask Him to take away your evil heart of unbelief and to write His law within you, that you may never henceforth stray from Him. Turn to Him and trust Him as best you can, and pray for grace to turn and trust more thoroughly; use the means of grace expectantly, looking to Christ to draw near to you as you seek to draw near to Him; watch, pray, read and hear God’s Word, worship and commune with God’s people, and so continue till you know in yourself beyond doubt that you are indeed a changed being, a penitent believer, and the new heart which you desired has been put within you. The emphasis in this advice is on the need to call upon Christ directly, as the very first step.

This is beautiful and true -- I agree with it 100%. But again, where is the preaching about the imputation of Adam's guilt? And before you respond -- remember that I am speaking of the imputation of guilt -- not the inheritance of a depraved and corrupt nature.

And as to the quote by Pink:

Quote
In twentieth-century evangelism there has been a woeful ignoring of the solemn truth of the total depravity of man. There has been a complete underrating of the desperate case and condition of the sinner. Very few indeed have faced the unpalatable fact that every man is thoroughly corrupt by nature, that he is completely unaware of his own wretchedness, blind and helpless, dead in trespasses and sins. Because such in his case, because his heart is filled with enmity against God, it follows that no man can be saved without the special and immediate intervention of God. According to our view here, so will it be else-where: to qualify and modify the truth of man’s total depravity will inevitably lead to the diluting of collateral truths. The teaching of Holy Writ on this point is unmistakable: man’s plight is such that his salvation is impossible unless God puts forth His mighty power. No stirring of the emotions by anecdotes, no regaling of the senses by music, no oratory of the preacher, no persuasive appeals, are of the slightest avail.

Again, I am in total agreement. But while I see a lot in there about total depravity, I do not see anything about original or imputed guilt. I am fully aware that Owen, Packer, and Pink (and MacArthur, Boice, and Spurgeon) all believe in original guilt; but again, I would like to see evidence that any of them have made this belief integral to their evangelistic preaching or proclamation of the gospel.

[Linked Image]