Featured Don’t Be A Fundamentalist (Calvinist Or Otherwise)

Still no answer, see post #29.

Trying to discuss biblical doctrines with clarity is a good goal.

 

How are you defining coming to Christ?

 

Read post 29 ;and answer the question. The issue is not how I am defining it, but how the author of the article was using it.

 

Perhaps Gill gives the best answer:

Come unto me,.... Christ having signified, that the knowledge of God, and the mysteries of grace, are only to be come at through him; and that he has all things relating to the peace, comfort, happiness, and salvation of men in his hands, kindly invites and encourages souls to come unto him for the same: by which is meant, not a local coming, or a coming to hear him preach; for so his hearers, to whom he more immediately directed his speech, were come already; and many of them did, as multitudes may, and do, in this sense, come to Christ, who never knew him, nor receive any spiritual benefit by him: nor is it a bare coming under the ordinances of Christ, submission to baptism, or an attendance at the Lord's supper, the latter of which was not yet instituted; and both may be performed by men, who are not yet come to Christ: but it is to be understood of believing in Christ, the going of the soul to him, in the exercise of grace on him, of desire after him, love to him, faith and hope in him: believing in Christ, and coming to him, are terms synonymous, John 6:35. Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds. The persons invited, are not "all" the individuals of mankind, but with a restriction, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden; meaning, not these who are labouring in the service of sin and Satan, are laden with iniquity, and insensible of it: these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with it; not do they want or desire any rest for their souls; but such who groan, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences, and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law, and the load of human traditions; and have been labouring till they are weary, in order to obtain peace of conscience, and rest for their souls, by the observance of these things, but in vain. These are encouraged to come to him, lay down their burdens at his feet, look to, and lay hold by faith on his person, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; when they should enjoy that true spiritual consolation, which could never be attained to by the works of the law.

And I will give you rest; spiritual rest here, peace of conscience, ease of mind, tranquillity of soul, through an application of pardoning grace, a view of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, and full atonement of sin by his sacrifice; and eternal rest hereafter, in Abraham's bosom, in the arms of Jesus, in perfect and uninterrupted communion with Father, Son, and Spirit. The Jews say that , "the law is rest"; and so explain Genesis 49:15 of it: but a truly sensible sinner enjoys no rest, but in Christ; it is like Noah's dove, which could find no rest for the soles of its feet, until it returned to the ark; and they themselves expect perfect rest in the days of the Messiah, and call his world rest.​

Not all come, or even desire to come. But those that do so come "groan, being burdened with the guilt of sin..." and finding no hope in vain under the law, "I will in no wise cast out."

 

Yet ;another change of subject post, this time Gill's view of John 6:35. And of course, his view is totally wrong. But to return to the position of the author of the article, what did he mean by "come to me?"

Here is the snippet again,

The “priority” of God’s work in salvation. The Bible teaches that no person can come to God unless Jesus first works in him. Our own hearts are naturally so dark and hard that they hate God rather than love him. It takes a work of God’s grace in us before we desire to know God. How that happens and what role our cooperation plays in that are things we might disagree on. But we must agree that God’s work must come before we can choose him (John 1:13, John 6:44, Philippians 2:13).​

Now is the author referring to coming to a mental agreement with Jesus, i.e. trusting in Him for salvation, or is the phrase being used to refer to positional sanctification, when God transfers a person into Christ.?

 

Van
What makes you consider that Gill was addressing John 6? Just because he referenced it?

This was taken from Gill's work on Matthew 11, not John 6. He referenced John 6 to a statement he made in addressing Matthew 11.

I also disagree that the "author" is referring to "a mental agreement with Jesus."

Gill states of Matthew 11:

Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds. ...​

 

Care to address the question? See post#45

 

The question doesn’t relate to the OP as the copied statement is merely presenting that Calvinists aren’t or shouldn’t be narrowly focused upon only the Doctrines of Grace.

As far as your quest for an answer to your question, you perhaps didn’t read what I posted from Gill concerning Matthew 11.

Was there a point of your questions that he neglected?

 

The answer is in scripture,

• Ephesians 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
• 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
• 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
• 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
• 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
• 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
• 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
• 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
• 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
• 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
• 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
  

The sequence is plain. God chose us before the foundation of the world. Then we believed after we heard the gospel preached. God sends preachers to those he has chosen.

 

This post questions the first paragraph of the OP in particular.

Is the OP asking that folks not be fundamentalists because he does not consider the typical fundamental views as Scriptural?

Or is his contention concerning some independent fundamentalists who long ago chased after Puritan views of being right with God as evidenced by the ever increasing list of don’ts in the assembly rather then the Godly living?

Fundamentally speaking, he is wrong on both counts.
1) Because he is laying a non-doctrinal issue against fundamentalists.
2) He is embracing something(s) of the world that will eventually be exposed and destroy. The issue isn’t fundamentalism, it is what is right and Godly in all “conversation” (manner of living).

Both of those are opinions, only, and should be taken as opinion, which is the way the OP quote should also be taken.

Would it not have been far more effective to leave out the word “fundamentalism” and stick with the truthfulness of what he was presenting?

 

I think he was just trying to get an argument going and is sitting back watching it.

 

Still no one has even attempted to answer the question!!! To repeat, what did the author of the article mean when he used the phrase "come to Me." Did he mean coming to agree with Jesus, a change in the mental view of the person or did he mean positional sanctification, when a person is placed spiritually into Christ?

Such a simple and basic question. And the answer is very obvious.

Here is the snippet for the third time:

The “priority” of God’s work in salvation. The Bible teaches that no person can come to God unless Jesus first works in him. Our own hearts are naturally so dark and hard that they hate God rather than love him. It takes a work of God’s grace in us before we desire to know God. How that happens and what role our cooperation plays in that are things we might disagree on. But we must agree that God’s work must come before we can choose him (John 1:13, John 6:44, Philippians 2:13).​

 

Hi David, please try to answer the question. The issue is what did the author of snippet mean? We can go from there to discuss whether he was right or off the mark. But we need to start from common ground.

 

If I understand you correctly, I answered that in post #49
My previous post was in answer to agedman.

 

OK David, I thought you addressed what scripture says, not what the author meant.
Goodbye and God bless

 

Author should have meant what scripture says,

Goodnight.

 

Trying to discuss biblical doctrine with those unable to see the author was addressing our reaction to hearing the gospel in the affirmative is a tough row to hoe. If they would have stated the obvious, then we might have moved on to what was meant by "works in him." Our choices would be (1) irresistible grace, (2) prevenient grace or (3) simply the revelatory grace of the gospel.

However, discussion without interaction is pointless. .

 

Yep

 

As none of those phrases are in the scripture, it is pointless discussing them.

 

Agreed David, the author was pushing a false narrative.