Can You Come to Christ on Your Own

[DaveXR650]

Well. I think the article you put up is different than what George is meaning in the OP. I think there are three things happening:
1. Fuller, and most of the Puritans and "preaching" Calvinists like Bonar, Spurgeon, Edward, Owen believed that is is a great sin and insult to God not to come to Christ for forgiveness. That the will is involved in faith. It is not just a question of understanding the facts, therefore sin is involved in not believing. It is not the same as you not believing neutral information about some fact or event. Thus at some level, faith is a duty.
2. The free will guys would say that "1" is correct and the fact is there is absolutely sufficient light and natural ability in every person to come to Christ for forgiveness of sin. Whereas Puritans, Fuller and the other Calvinists would say that still, a person requires work by the Holy Spirit before a person can believe or will believe. They vary as to what that entails.
3. The hard core Calvinists are more like what you put above. There is no duty to believe until you are given faith because until you are it's like asking a dead person to do something.

The question is "what is required?" Is it nothing? Or is the word of God being preached sufficient? Or is conviction of the Spirit by use of the word needed? Or do you have to actually be enlightened or quickened by the Spirit or born again first and then you believe in response? That's what we were getting in to and it was overwhelming the previous thread.

 

[kyredneck]

It seems to me that you can go several ways with this.
1. John Rice is correct.
2. The Calvinists who say you have a group of people who are elect and they alone are involved in any call to faith and
repentance.
3. It is legitimate and God does call on everyone to repent and they can properly be held responsible because the problem is
is with the depravity of the person themself and with their affections and will.

"Duty-Faith is a doctrine which asserts that it is the duty of unregenerate sinners to savingly believe on Christ. There are two branches of Duty-Faith: (1) The Arminians (Free-Willers), who hold that it is the ‘spiritual duty’ of the unregenerate to exercise saving faith in order to be born again—they believe faith precedes regeneration; (2) The Moderate-Calvinists (Fullerites), who hold that it is the ‘moral duty’ of the unregenerate to exercise saving faith unto salvation—they believe the unregenerate are unable to exercise saving faith before regeneration, but that it remains their duty to do so.

Whereas the High-Calvinists and Moderate-Calvinists agree the first branch of Duty-Faith is a false doctrine, yet they do not agree on the second branch, as Piper’s comments affirm. High-Calvinists reject both branches of Duty-Faith, believing that saving faith is a spiritual/moral duty binding only upon those who have been regenerated."
The Association of Historic Baptists » 6. It Is The Moral Duty Of All Sinners To Savingly Believe On Christ?

 

[kyredneck]

The question is "what is required?"

For what? To go to heaven?

Is it nothing?

If something is required then it is not a "free gift".

Those believing are already in possession of eternal life.

 

[DaveXR650]

For what? To go to heaven?

No. I mean what is required in order for a person to believe. Does a person have the natural ability to call on the Lord for salvation? Or, if not that, then has enough grace been given when the word is heard or preached to them? Or is conviction and drawing by the Holy Spirit essential but still up to the person? Or is it more than conviction and drawing but actually a quickening or enlightenment? And/or does this mean a person is actually born again before they believe? Or are the elect already justified from eternity or at least from the time Christ died and they will be coming to a knowledge of this fact at the appropriate time.

I think that is the whole range unless I have left out something. That would be the intended discussion. Except for your last statement:

If something is required then it is not a "free gift".

A lot of people insist that simply receiving a free gift cannot by definition mean that is is not a free gift. So if Christ offers eternal life with the condition that you receive the gift by faith it is not fair to make that into a work or to claim that you have destroyed the idea of it being a free gift.

 

[kyredneck]

....I think I'll leave you to it, Dave...

 

[Brightfame52]

@kyredneck . You still have the question Rice brought up, whether it is now including gentiles as well as Jews, as to whether this command by God proves that men can come to Christ for salvation on their own, without the help of the Holy Spirit. Verses like John 6:44 and others seem to indicate that men cannot come to Christ on their own, in their "natural" state.

I tend to believe that in our fallen, natural state we cannot come to Christ for salvation or have saving faith in Christ without a work of the Holy Spirit. I think there are plenty of instances where Jesus talks about spiritual blindness and deafness to where it would be logical to assume this.

The all men commanded in Acts 17 are the regenerated elect, the Spiritual seed of Abraham, throughout the world. God doesnt command the unregenerate to repent, for they are obligated to the law which is no repentance.

 

[DaveXR650]

The all men commanded in Acts 17 are the regenerated elect, the Spiritual seed of Abraham, throughout the world. God doesnt command the unregenerate to repent, for they are obligated to the law which is no repentance.

This is why I guess I have some respect for @George Antonios 's position on this. There are too many instances in scripture in both testaments that clearly indicate genuine conversation with men in general to allow this. Even the WCF talks about a general call which goes out to everyone and those who don't believe are considered guilty. From other threads your view, I think, is extreme and considers every response on the part of an individual a work.

Why would God command the unregenerate to obey the law, which they can't, and not command them to repent, which they can't.

 

[Brightfame52]

This is why I guess I have some respect for @George Antonios 's position on this. There are too many instances in scripture in both testaments that clearly indicate genuine conversation with men in general to allow this. Even the WCF talks about a general call which goes out to everyone and those who don't believe are considered guilty. From other threads your view, I think, is extreme and considers every response on the part of an individual a work.

Why would God command the unregenerate to obey the law, which they can't, and not command them to repent, which they can't.

The Law is the Law from creation. Thats like asking why did God command Adam[man in him] a law He knew Adam couldn't keep. And there isnt any repentance under the Law, you either obey or die. Repentance comes through the Covenant of Grace, which comes by Christ. Jn 1:17
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Now, them Christ died for, and divorced from the Law Rom 7:4

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Now these will be given repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Thats who is commanded to repent, but if Christ didnt die for you, your obligation is to the Law, you havent been made free from it by Christs death.

So repentance is only commanded to the regenerated elect, who have no ties to the Law Covenant as the non elect do.

 

[DaveXR650]

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Thats who is commanded to repent, but if Christ didnt die for you, your obligation is to the Law, you havent been made free from it by Christs death.

So if I understand you right, you believe that as for the OP, you would short circuit everything in that there is no interaction at all between an unregenerate man and God. Those who Christ has died for have never had anything to do with the Law and will repent automatically at the right time. Those who Christ has not died for are out of the loop already and any command to repent or believe does not concern them. Am I stating this correctly?

 

[kyredneck]

"...Moderate-Calvinists believe the High-Calvinists are in error because they have negated the sinner’s responsibility (moral duty) to believe, based on the sinner’s inability (spiritual ability) to believe. They argue, ’The sinner’s inability (spiritual ability) does not nullify the sinner’s responsibility (moral duty) to believe on Christ to the saving of the soul’. On the basis of this argument, Moderate-Calvinists tend to be quite certain they have won the high ground on the issue...."
The Association of Historic Baptists » 6. It Is The Moral Duty Of All Sinners To Savingly Believe On Christ?

 

[DaveXR650]

@kyredneck . Yes. I think that's a fair assessment. "Having eyes full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin". They really can't. It's stronger than a willingness based on a neutral decision. Yet, no rational person believes for a second that such a person is not personally and truly responsible for what they do.

 

[Brightfame52]

So if I understand you right, you believe that as for the OP, you would short circuit everything in that there is no interaction at all between an unregenerate man and God. Those who Christ has died for have never had anything to do with the Law and will repent automatically at the right time. Those who Christ has not died for are out of the loop already and any command to repent or believe does not concern them. Am I stating this correctly?

I believe what I just posted and you read ? Do you need clarification ?

 

[DaveXR650]

Followup on post 31. By the same token, a natural man can view the offer of the gospel, the claims of Christ, and the benefits of following Christ, yet he can't come because he doesn't see any value or worth in doing this. His life of sin seems more appealing to him and there is no reason in his mind to repent and believe the gospel. He really can't in that state but it is because of the way he truly is and the way his own free will leads him. It's totally different than saying he can't jump over the church, which is due to laws of nature, and thus if that were the requirement he would truly have an excuse.

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe what I just posted and you read ? Do you need clarification ?

No. I don't agree with your view but I appreciate your honesty. I started this thread asking for people's views on coming to Christ and I respect your opinion. I'd say you are at the opposite of George.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

...the father of 'duty-faith'. Go figure.

For heaven’s sake, How can the blind see, 2Cor. 4:1-6? How can the ignorant Hear, Rev. 3:20? How can the dead/inert respond to the message and be free from Satan’s slavery, 2Tim. 2:19-26? We need a Savior; not a choice! But remember that only the elect will not be deceived, 2 Tim. 3:12-13, Mark 13:21-22.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Mark 1:14-15. 'Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel."'

So to whom was our Lord speaking? To everyone within earshot; it was a 'general call.' There is no suggestion in the text that He was limiting His preaching to just certain people. He is Lord of Lords and King of kings, therefore it is the duty of everyone who hears to obey His command, repent and believe the gospel. Did everyone who heard repent and believe? It appears not. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world and men preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19). Men are not willing to forsake their sins; they prefer to carry on with them as I did for many years. Our Lord declares, "All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people' (Romans 10:21, quoting Isaiah 65:2).
But,
'After these things He went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he left all, rose up, and followed Him.' Now who found whom? Jesus found Levi. We may say, "I found Jesus," but the fact is that He first finds us (c.f. 1 John 4:19). Here is the 'particular call,' and Levi obeys it. 'Your people shall be volunteers in the day of your power.'

 

[AustinC]

"...Moderate-Calvinists believe the High-Calvinists are in error because they have negated the sinner’s responsibility (moral duty) to believe, based on the sinner’s inability (spiritual ability) to believe. They argue, ’The sinner’s inability (spiritual ability) does not nullify the sinner’s responsibility (moral duty) to believe on Christ to the saving of the soul’. On the basis of this argument, Moderate-Calvinists tend to be quite certain they have won the high ground on the issue...."
The Association of Historic Baptists » 6. It Is The Moral Duty Of All Sinners To Savingly Believe On Christ?

There is no such thing as a "moderate calvinist." There are people who pick which of the 5 major tenets of Calvinist soteriology they accept or reject. In rejecting some of the tenets they immediately declare themselves to be comfortable in living with contradiction and no resolution. They are, at any point of rejecting a tenet, no longer calvinists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is no such thing as a "moderate calvinist." There are people who pick which of the 5 major tenets of Calvinist soteriology they accept or reject. In rejecting some of the tenets they immediately declare themselves to be comfortable in living with contradiction and no resolution. They are, at any point of rejecting a tenet, no longer calvinists.

What would you call them then? Perhaps Arminians!

oh I have it, Cal-Minian, a coined term that attempts to depict a theological ground half-way between Calvinism and Arminianism! Personally, It’s a very shrewd posture to take if you want to capture more people for your new religious agenda. Good work Andy… get close enough to Gill to mimic many of his doctrines, namely DOG, but continue slipping in questions & innuendo, just enough to create controversy. Then add side comments that you’re the instrument (of God) that will eradicate High Calvinism … hint, call it Hyper Calvinism at party’s and get togethers for added effect. Shrewd… you must have worked way into the night to come up with that game plan.

 

[DaveXR650]

In rejecting some of the tenets they immediately declare themselves to be comfortable in living with contradiction and no resolution. They are, at any point of rejecting a tenet, no longer calvinists.

The only way to not have difficulty in resolution or paradox, is to go either with complete causative determinism or hyper-Calvinism or go all the way the other way to a complete free will Pelagianism. Everyone in between has to deal at some level with how are you going to reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man.
Owen, Watson, Bunyan were militant Calvinists back when it really mattered and yet they made offers of the gospel and preached in a way that called for decision in response to the gospel offer. Same with later guys living in more open times like Bonar, Spurgeon, and J.C. Ryle. They were well known as 5 point Calvinists and yet preached like Baptists. They believed in "soul winning".

It is true we always like to describe ourselves as "moderate". John R. Rice said he was a moderate Calvinist and then proceeded to dismantle all the 5 points except the "P".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The all men commanded in Acts 17 are the regenerated elect, the Spiritual seed of Abraham, throughout the world. God doesnt command the unregenerate to repent, for they are obligated to the law which is no repentance.

Exactly!