Featured Biblical Assertion

Apparently, Van, you just won't admit, or are blind to seeing, the implications of what you are advocating.

 

Van, you are the one who keeps bring up "your faith" like it is some kind of idol that you won't let go of, not me.

 

You consider sound Biblical teaching that refutes your conditionalist beliefs to be "unBiblical". That is quite clear based on your posts.

 

Generalities are not always true. It is not as you suppose, even if @Van was mistake in some way.

 

You didn't. But yes, a lot of people do. The rich young ruler did. Mr. Pelagius did. Mr. Finney did. A lot of legalists do. It's probably the default most natural way of men to look at getting right with God. It is usually the first thing a lot of us try to do when we first come to the realization that we are not right with God. In Pilgrim's Progress, one of the main characters said that he tried to do that at first.

You are so quick to take offense that you skipped over the first part of that post which agreed with your statement. But do you really believe from what you read in the Bible and from what you see people do in their own lives and from what you know of your own coming to faith in Christ - that people honestly sit down, from a neutral standpoint, and on their own intelligently evaluate the claims of the gospel and then decide to renounce all their own self effort and rely on Christ for salvation? That we really have it in us to figure all this out and to come to Christ on our own? Think of all you have to know about your sin and how offensive it looks to God, how short you fall when you've tried your best to please God, how hard it is to even care about pleasing God compared to the attractions all around you all the time and then can you honestly pretend that we really could do all this without direct action by the Holy Spirit?

 

@DaveXR650 when you say direct action of the Holy Spirit what do you mean? 1] that He convicts man of their sin or 2] that He causes some to believe but not others?

 

I would say conviction, enlightening people to see their true state and to understand things of the spirit. Awakening, so that you really can look at the gospel and understand it and respond to it. Drawing you to Christ in the sense that he then becomes attractive to you. And I think that our natural state and the state of our natural free will is such that this drawing is decisive and so in that sense he causes some to believe and not others.

I'm not sure that the first thing that happens though is that a person is born again. I think the work of the Holy Spirit takes time, works in his own way and is often resisted - even finally and fatally. I don't think scripture gives us all the insight on this. We observe that people develop some level of faith, go along for a while as disciples and fall away for various reasons. Was that the Holy Spirit working on them or was that an unregenerated person showing that you simply cannot do it alone?

Because I think the Holy Spirit works to enable our hearts and wills I have no problem warning people to repent and believe the gospel. At some level we do come to Christ and believe. So while I believe you cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit's involvement I don't get mad at those who jump right in and preach repentance and belief because that really is where we come in.

 

QUOTE="DaveXR650, post: 2831124, member: 20542"]even finally and fatally[/QUOTE]

Wow! You might want to reconsider that phrase, lest you end up sounding like Noel Smith:

"What is hell? It is infinite negation. It is infinite chaos. And it is more than that. I tell you, and I say it with profound reverence, hell is a ghastly monument to the failure of God to save the multitudes that are there. I say it reverently, I say it with every nerve in my body tense; sinners go to hell because God Himself cannot save them. He did all He could. He failed."

 

I don't know Noel Smith. I like Richard Baxter: " As sinners you are far more vile than toads. Yet Christ was so far from making light of you, and of your happiness, that he humbled himself to put on mortal flesh, lived a life of suffering, and offered himself a sacrifice to the justice which you had provoked, that your miserable souls might have a remedy. No less hath he showed to us miracles of love and mercy, and yet shall we slight them? Angels, whom they less concern, desire to look into them; and shall redeemed sinners make light of them? What more than devilish ingratitude is this? The devils never had a savior offered to them, but you have; and do you yet make light of him."

This kind of direct appeal to reason and understanding is what needs to be done. When the Holy Spirit works on us it is always through the use of our reason and understanding. So as Baxter complains above, we have a tendency to make light of Christ and his real offer of salvation. And it is possible that God will decide at some point to allow us to go on our way "finally and fatally".

 

The gospel is not offer. It is a declaration of Christ saving His people, God’s elect.

I reject Richard Baxter and his neonomianism.

 

Not an offer? Tell Owen: "Wherefore, that which is now proposed under consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto him. And hereof we have the highest evidences that divine wisdom and grace can give unto us. This is the language of the Gospel, of all the the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; this is the divine testimony of the 'three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'; 'and of the three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood:' all give their joint testimony, that the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him. They who receive not this testimony make God a liar,- both Father, Son, and Spirit."

God's call is sovereign, and this makes the importance of accepting the offer without delay even more important.

 

No, not an offer. God does not put Himself forward like some politician looking for favorable votes.

The command is to "Come." (Revelation 22:17)

It is not an offer. God is not saying, "Please come? Won't you please come? Pretty please, won't you come? Pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top?"

Away with the implications that some put forward, regardless of who they are or what kind of name or standing they may have among men, that the Creator of the universe is like the gods of Greek mythology, nothing more than what is called in cinema today - superheroes.

Who will come? All of those whom God has given to God the Son before the world began. Every last single one of them.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. - John 6:37

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. - John 6:39

 

Interesting post there Dave. From what you wrote I see that we agree on the HS convicting people which I agree means that He awakens them to the point that they can understand the gospel message and thus make real choices. This you equate to man having a free will. But then you added that the Holy Spirits drawing is decisive and in that sense He causes some to believe and others not. If the HS is the one causing one to believe and another to not believe that is determinism.

You then wrote that the HS can be and sometimes is resisted, but this speaks against what you just wrote where the HS causes the belief or unbelief. I believe that God really does want all to come to repentance and has provided the means for them to know God. That could be the HS convicting them, creation or hearing the gospel message. But, and this is the critical point, man must respond. He can accept or reject the information that is presented.

 

Jesus appears to be the speaker and now announces that the response to his words comes from two sources, namely, the Holy Spirit and the church on earth. These two continue to utter their appeal for Jesus' return with a request in the present tense that signifies “Carry out your plan in history with a view toward your coming.” The call for the coming of the Lord is repeated in verse Rev_22:20 as the last petition in the Apocalypse, “Amen, come Lord Jesus.” The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of the bridegroom; and this Spirit has his abode in the bride, that is, the church. Hence, at the powerful urging of the Spirit, the church expresses her longing for the return of Christ, her bridegroom. Not only the organic body of the church but also every individual believer who obediently responds to the prompting of the Spirit articulates this yearning. The invitation “Come!” occurs twice to stress urgency.
However, the third invitation, “Let the one who is thirsty come,” is not addressed to Christ but to the people as a call to come to him. This causes confusion, especially as the last exhortation, “Let the one who desires take freely of the water of life,” is also an evangelistic address. This inconsistency can be solved when we interpret the double meaning of the verb to come. First, the church at worship and at the celebration of the Lord's Supper petitions Christ to return (Maranatha; see Didache 10.6). Next, at the same time the church extends to everyone the invitation to come to Christ. Baker's New Testament Commentary

 

@Silverhair . Yes. You did not misrepresent anything I said. I think plenty of scripture supports both concepts. I read a lot of Puritan Calvinists and they do the same thing. They are mostly 5 point Calvinists but they preach with "offers" and invitations to come to Christ and warn you not to delay coming to Christ or trifle with the offer because Jesus may decide to withdraw his offer and leave you unable to come. So both things are true, man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. I am unable to shoehorn them into a theological system. Look up any of the Calvinist Puritans and you see sermons about pushing into the kingdom, or Heaven taken by storm, or strive to enter in at the strait gate. Yet they said they believed salvation is all of God. So I guess the best way to handle this would be if you visit a church and they have ESV Bibles in the pews then you are a Calvinist. If they have KJV's you are not a Calvinist. If they have "The Message" I guess just turn around and run.

 

Laughed out loud at the last line. They believed salvation is all of God which is biblical. Man can not save himself but on the other hand God will not force anyone to come to Him. Not sure how they would reconcile what they preach with the TULIP but since I am not a calvinist I do not have try and work that one out.

 

No, but you have your own to work out. If God "helps" or convicts, why doesn't he help enough to effect salvation in everyone he helps? Why does he stop short sometimes? I mean, if it's our choice then leave it to us, if we need help then help enough to achieve salvation. If he leaves it to our choice, what are we doing when we pray for someone's salvation - isn't it their choice? If it is their choice is it fair the way some hear the gospel 100 times a year and some never hear it? Why do 90% of Baptists believe it's all up to you getting saved but after that you couldn't leave if you wanted to?

Logically, the strict determinists and the complete Pelagians are most consistent. The only problem is there are tons of Bible verses against them. These confessions and systematic theologies are man made and flawed. But I will say this, the WCF and the London Baptist 1689 confessions are brilliant and the more I look at them the more I am convinced that they are the best men will ever come up with as far as attempts at confessions. It's interesting though, some of the more deterministic Calvinists on here don't like them and they don't like the Puritans.

 

So to accept the free gift of salvation is to be regarded as some kind of an achivment?