Featured Sought After God

Your characterization of your conversion is not at odds with Calvinist doctrine. According to most every form of non-Arminian Protestantism, every sinner resists the call of the gospel until God quickens the chosen, making them willing.

It's referred to as the outward call of the gospel, which every man resists. Then. There is an effectual call which is irresistible. That man is totally passive in this effectual call.

I'm not suggesting you become a Calvinist, because it is erroneous. But, if your own conversion is all that would keep you from embracing Calvinism, you have little grounds to do so

 

Romans 3:1-3 is a restatement of Psalm 14:1-3. It WAS true when Psalms was written that men did not seek God. Nowadays it's quite obvious people seek after God, just look at all the churches that exist.

Along with the examples PreachTony gave from the New Testament you also have the Magi, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Centurion in Matthew 8, Nicodemus, the two blind men in Matthew 9, the people that brought their children to Jesus, the thousands of people that followed him around, the people on Palm Sunday, the onlookers on the day of Pentecost, Cornelius, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13), Lydia at Phillipi , the Philippian jailer, the Bereans, Titius Justice (Acts 18), Felix and Drusilla, King Agrippa, etc., etc.

So it is patently erroneous to quote Romans 3, which is itself a quote of Psalm 14, saying no one seeks after God, written some 2,500 years ago as if it still applies today.

 

Not Really! You admit in your previous post:

So was His grace irresistible?

Were you really trying to please God, or yourself and your fellow members?

 

My personal opinion is that you have aptly described Sapper Woody's salvation experience.

 

I agree. These statements, especially between 3:10-12, are generalities--a general description of mankind. They were not intended to be written as absolutes with no exceptions.

For example:
Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

A mother nurses her infant child does good.
A brother takes care of his younger sister does good.
A father provides for his family with honest work does good.
Someone rescues a child from a burning house is a good deed.

But there is none that doeth good, no not one.
The statement is a general statement, a statement that we could say about the general state of affairs of our world. Our world lies in iniquity. Everyone is doing evil.

 

You are in unbelief on the authority of scripture...It is relevant for all time.

dhk

you are wrong once again...shocking

 

I believe if he investigated Calvinist doctrine, he would find he's misunderstood the notion of irresistible grace.

It's easy to do when one is peripherally familiar, bullet point style

 

Well, irresistible means can't be resisted. I resisted for almost 18 years. If it was truly irresistible, I couldn't have resisted it at all, much less for 18 years.

I can honestly say I was trying to please God. I was doing what I knew God commanded, in an attempt to earn His favor.

 

Irresistible has been portrayed as God dragging His elect kicking and screaming to Him! I believe that God quickens, regenerates, or "new births" the sinner whereby he willing responds to the Gospel Call which is then the Effectual Call!

 

The truth is you eventually reached a point in your life where you could not resist. Who brought you to that point, God! His grace was irresistible!

Scripture tells us we cannot earn His favor.

 

Though I have disagreement with how irresistible grace works in Calvinist doctrine, I do not disagree with the notion in its entirety. Explanation:

In Calvinist thought, embracing Christ amounts to deciding to trust Christ, turning from wickedness, and committing oneself to following Christ in obedience. Most would call it faith and repentance.

Even the Arminian subscribes to this notion.

Their disagreement hangs on Monergism vs. Synergism. All God, or cooperative effort. If those were the only two options, Calvinism would get the nod, imho.

Scripture is abundantly clear that salvation is a work of God. The Father purposed it, the Son suffered for it, and the Holy Spirit brings it to a man.

If it were incumbent upon a man to commit himself to obedience as an aspect of conversion, then the Calvinist position of regeneration preceding faith would be an absolute necessity. The unregenerate man has not the capacity to perceive the Kingdom of God, nor the wherewithal to work toward it. Paul said "not by works of righteousness which we have done..."

However, I disagree with Calvinists and Arminians on two points. I am convinced that faith is the substance of things hoped for. Faith is not tantamount to making a commitment, rather it is , according to Paul "fully assured that what God has promised, He is also able to perform."

So faith is a condition of being convinced. That's it. I believe this is what is meant by enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. He draws us, He convicts us of sin, and righteousness, and judgment. And in this enlightenment, we become convinced of the gospel.

I like the NRSV going through Acts, reading the conversion accounts. Instead of a perfect tense of "believed" or an imperfect tense of "were believing", the Greek uses the aorist - neither perfect nor imperfect. The NRSV renders it "became believers"

And that's what i believe to be true. I simply became a believer. And it was 100% a work of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't resisting, I was flatly rejecting the gospel. But God's grace was irresistible after all.

He convicted me, and He enlightened me, and I became a believer.

I see myself before my conversion, how self righteous I was. I see myself like Saul of Tarsus, how God totally disrupted his very existence, and he became a believer - irresistibly

 

I do not mean this disrespectfully, but this is making God sound a lot more like Steve Urcle than a loving, patient God. "I'm wearing you down!"

I understand this. But it doesn't change the fact that I tried. I was trying to live a good christian life. And I was succeeding. I just wasn't saved. No one could tell I wasn't. But I wasn't. How is that possible with total depravity?

 

The TULIP is quite rudimentary, and lacks much of the clarity of a full Calvinist explanation. And you're right. It's done by both camps

 

I am only using your own words from your post#18!

 

A very insightful post in my opinion JamesL.

I am a firm believer in the truth that God does not save Arminians or Calvinists or anyone in between; He saves His elect. Because God saves individuals, and all individuals are different, the means by which He brings them to salvation cannot be written down like a recipe, i.e. the Roman Road. I attempted to start a thread where Salvation could be discussed in a rational manner and presented the following Scripture:

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

This thread was mercifully closed at my request because it had deteriorated into a senseless squabble between two individuals.

I am a firm believer in what I consider the Biblical Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace but I firmly reject the label, Calvinist. I also reject the idea that TULIP represents the sum total of these doctrines. I came to this position after a number of years as a Christian. I posted a little of my experience on Skandelon's thread on why he left the Calvinist doctrine {post#68}.

I have frequently stated on this Forum that repentance and Faith are essential aspects of Salvation. There is disagreement among those who hold to the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace whether regeneration, the New Birth, produces Faith or whether Faith produces the New Birth. At the present time i believe the former but I think there are Scripture that can defend either position. In the final analysis I am not sure it makes any difference. I said the following on another thread:

One thing we can all take comfort in:

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

Was Christ 100% successful in seeking and saving those sinners that He came to save as per 1 Tim 1:15; Lk 19:10 Yes or No ?

 

Was He 100% successful in forever perfecting you?

 

Thanks, OR.

I like the objectiveness, that though you're convinced one direction regarding regeneration, you see how the other view can be supported in scripture.

And I offer a hearty AMEN to your closing assessment. Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief

 

That's probably the one aspect of "debate" in Cal-Arm that makes me shake my head the most.

So what if a doctrinal position makes God look this way or that way? The question should always be - what does scripture say? Not what does one bible verse say, either. Scripture, the whole counsel of God.

This makes God sound weak
That makes God sound schizophrenic
This makes God sound vicious
That makes God sound.....fill in the blank

The problem with those is that we create, and only accept, a god of our liking. Even if your view of God is correct, if it came from your own philosophical likes and dislikes, it's still your own fabrication

Scripture addresses this very thing, and Paul would conclude that you were not seeking God. You were seeking to establish your own righteousness - even if it felt like you were seeking God. Paul said the same thing about himself, that he was zealous, yet acting in ignorance.

For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God - Romans 10:2-3

Jesus also said to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. But you were seeking your own.

Regardless of how it felt, you were not seeking God