Can You Come to Christ on Your Own

[DaveXR650]

1. PROOF STATED (1) Conversion Involves Turning From Sin, and Man By Nature Is Unable To Do This.

(2) Conversion is Pleasing to God, and the Natural Man Cannot Please God.

4) Conversion Involves Subjecting Oneself to the Will or Law of God, and This is Impossible to the Natural Man.

5) Conversion Involves Receiving Christ as One's Personal Saviour, which is a Spiritual Thing, and the Natural Man Cannot Receive Spiritual Things.

(6) Conversion is a Spiritual Resurrection, and in a Resurrection, the Impartation of Life Must Always Precede the Manifestation of Life in Coming Forth. Conversion is represented as a spiritual resurrection in Eph. 2:4-6

I agree with every one of those statements. I find that everyone uses words differently and even in scripture things are said differently at different times. Conversion in the above seems to cover a lot of things whereas sometimes I see conversion used for the actual act of being born again. But I think that's a good way to put it all, as a summary.

 

[DaveXR650]

Did I say I liked him… no I didn’t! I said a great grandmother liked him, probably because he is of here people. So what? Are you miffed at that, tough! I couldn’t care less.

just answer me one question, do you believe that Jesus was an idealist? Yes or no is sufficient.

Not really miffed. Puzzled as to why you would get on this thread with the attitude you did from your first post and then continue to make a fool of yourself - while contributing nothing to the subject.
Start your own thread about whether Jesus was an idealist. Or better yet go back to the sports and car threads. You'll do better there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

DaveX, the unsaved do not have faith. The unsaved hide in the presence of the lamb and cry out for rocks to fall on them. (Revelation 6).
Since they don't have faith, they don't come to God. God must drag them to himself, like a person drags a bucket of water up from a well.


The Bible tells us we are justified by faith. Justification is after Salvation. Dead men don't have faith.


This is purely because men desire to claim power and don't like the idea that God can save without their assistance.


I don't agree. The Bible is clear. Humans love to rule, therefore we look for ways to climb to the top of the tower to be with God. But, no matter how high we attempt to lift our position...God always descends.


I just did. What I note is that you have abandoned addressing scripture and have never actually spoken to the scripture that has been shared with you.
Clearly I have offended your ego.

So why Austin do you continue on with this guy???

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not really miffed. Puzzled as to why you would get on this thread with the attitude you did from your first post and then continue to make a fool of yourself - while contributing nothing to the subject.
Start your own thread about whether Jesus was an idealist. Or better yet go back to the sports and car threads. You'll do better there.

You can’t even answer a simple direct question. That should be proof enough to anyone on this board you are seriously flawed in your thinking process. Others have noticed it as well.

 

[AustinC]

What is that? Don't do that. I know you feel this need to try to find something I have said that is wrong but that has nothing to do with anything. The term "Coming to Christ, or Closing with Christ is a common way of describing faith.

Philippians chapter 3 describes how Paul has come to discover "the righteousness of God that depends on faith". That chapter shows how Paul considers faith to be of utmost importance in justification, as you mentioned, and in salvation, which encompasses a whole life lived for Christ. But even the life lived for Christ - the sanctification, service for Christ, the striving for holiness, is all done by faith. That's why I said faith was so central in this. Read the whole chapter. See if you don't agree.
Justification coming after salvation - I'm not sure what you are getting at.


That's fine. And I agree that it is a danger for those who think they came to faith based on their natural free will. I'm not sure it always is that way though. I do know there is also a tendency for Calvinists to have a pride in being "elect" and to display an arrogance in theology that is equally dangerous. We all have to be careful.


You did. That's more like it. You indeed are offensive but not so much to my ego. If you made me look bad it would offend my ego but since your reasoning is so cringeworthy that didn't happen. So I appreciate the concern, but I'll be OK.

Your last comment shows your pride is offended.
What I have shared from God's word shows your original assertion is incorrect and since then you have been reacted in offense that your assertion could be incorrect.
As to Paul, please note he is addressing those who are already saved. He is addressing the faith of the redeemed.
DaveX, God saves many people who mistakenly think they are causing God to act. Some go through their whole lives with that error and God's grace covers that error. I chalk that error up to faulty teaching passed on by their mentors and to not diligently studying the Bible. Some are quite well read in other humans commentary about the Bible, yet seem not to wrestle with God's word to understand what the primary text is saying. In either case, God's grace is greater than the theological error.

Again, I am glad to know what you actually believe. It certainly is a hodgepodge of all the people you have read, which is obviously why you are a semi-Calvinist/semi-Arminian/semi-pelagian.

 

[AustinC]

So why Austin do you continue on with this guy???

He has continued to respond back.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Ancient Romans leaned on “Religion” to help with Roman morals. Unfortunately they remained immoral. It always stressed teachings of Greeks, Phoenicians, etc and incorporated them into church their own growing hodgepodge. The Roman Senator Cato commented that the philosopher Socrates, that prattling old fishwife, was rightly poisoned for undermining the morals of youth by his multiplex teachings. Apparently, that was a decay of character and that irked him.

 

[kyredneck]

@George Antonios; @RighteousnessTemperance&

So you're in agreement with the Calvinists' understanding of the verse?

"this is of the operation of God, which he himself works in men; it is not of themselves, it is the pure gift of God:

"...This, as a principle, is purely God's work; as it is an act, or as it is exercised under the influence of divine grace, it is man's act: "that ye believe"; the object of it is Christ, as sent by the Father, as the Mediator between God and men, as appointed by him to be the Saviour and Redeemer; and believing in Christ, is believing in God that sent him."

John 6:29 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

 

[DaveXR650]

As to Paul, please note he is addressing those who are already saved. He is addressing the faith of the redeemed.

Seriously, that's a mistake and it shows why you don't want to color every verse through preset theological glasses. Philippians chapter 3 is technically written to believers "Finally my brothers", but it gives a complete testimony of Paul's life, along with doctrine. It is therefore useful to anyone reading it because it explains before he was saved, how he was saved, and it shows the tension between the fact that he was "apprehended" by God and yet he strove to attain salvation. Both are there. Chapter 3 probably shows that better that any other portion of scripture.

By the way, a lot of people are rejecting the labels. Spurgeon didn't like them, neither did Lloyd-Jones. We don't live in the 1600's where the clergy in charge was trying to maintain a level of government control over communities. I'm not sure the TULIP means much nowadays. I do have some problems with some of the letters. The thing that bother me most is that I have read tons of actual sermons and pastoral writings of the guys that came up with it and honestly have not had any objection to any preaching or teaching they did. There is something not adding up when I compare what modern extreme Calvinists like you say and what the guys who invented all this stuff preach. That is a concern to me.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Ancient Romans leaned on “Religion” to help with Roman morals. Unfortunately they remained immoral. It always stressed teachings of Greeks, Phoenicians, etc and incorporated them into church their own growing hodgepodge. The Roman Senator Cato commented that the philosopher Socrates, that prattling old fishwife, was rightly poisoned for undermining the morals of youth by his multiplex teachings. Apparently, that was a decay of character and that irked him.

I hope you're not on the church discipline committee.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I hope you're not on the church discipline committee.

Why should people discipline … that’s God’s job.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why should people discipline … that’s God’s job.

Agree. Based on your statement about Cato I was concerned. I hope no one honks you off before an upcoming pot-luck.

 

[AustinC]

Seriously, that's a mistake and it shows why you don't want to color every verse through preset theological glasses. Philippians chapter 3 is technically written to believers "Finally my brothers", but it gives a complete testimony of Paul's life, along with doctrine. It is therefore useful to anyone reading it because it explains before he was saved, how he was saved, and it shows the tension between the fact that he was "apprehended" by God and yet he strove to attain salvation. Both are there. Chapter 3 probably shows that better that any other portion of scripture.

By the way, a lot of people are rejecting the labels. Spurgeon didn't like them, neither did Lloyd-Jones. We don't live in the 1600's where the clergy in charge was trying to maintain a level of government control over communities. I'm not sure the TULIP means much nowadays. I do have some problems with some of the letters. The thing that bother me most is that I have read tons of actual sermons and pastoral writings of the guys that came up with it and honestly have not had any objection to any preaching or teaching they did. There is something not adding up when I compare what modern extreme Calvinists like you say and what the guys who invented all this stuff preach. That is a concern to me.

DavidX, point to the exact verse in Phillipians 3 where Paul declares that the unsaved have saving faith.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Agree. Based on your statement about Cato I was concerned. I hope no one honks you off before an upcoming pot-luck.

LOL… Cato is well known for his “Delendam Esse Cathaginem” statement!

 

[George Antonios]

@George Antonios; @RighteousnessTemperance&

So you're in agreement with the Calvinists' understanding of the verse?

What I was pointing out is that if one makes the anti-scriptural argument that "free-will faith = work" that you must conclude that Christ told the Jews in John 6:29 that salvation is by works.

To use John 6:29 as a proof text that "free-will faith = work" is as erroneous as using Sirs, what must I do to be saved? to show prove that "free-will faith = work". Clearly, both John 6:29's work and Acts 16:30's do are simply terms asking about man's responsibility towards God.
The Calvinist brethren here typically commit the Semantic Totality Transfer Fallacy that James Barr famously warned about by imbuing every occurrence of "work" or "do" with the theological connotation of earning one's salvation through one's righteousness.

 

[DaveXR650]

DavidX, point to the exact verse in Phillipians 3 where Paul declares that the unsaved have saving faith.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Why would I want to do that? I have not made that point. If you are asking if the unsaved have to believe before they are saved then I would point you to the verses where Paul describes his former life as a good Pharisee who now counts all that as dung and gladly gives it up for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. That is describing faith and repentance.

Notice how you set up a false conflict that I am saying does not really exist. All you get out of any of my posts is some fantasy that you are protecting true Christianity because people might get some order wrong. Paul doesn't worry about it, does he. He explains both. Since we have a direct insight to Paul's actual conversion, we can see that it is probably the best example of God's sovereignty in action than you find anywhere else. But what does Paul do? He works out his salvation all the while giving God all credit and saying he is doing it by faith. "But I follow after if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended". You show me one verse anywhere in scripture where there is this preoccupation with the order that you are so stuck on.

There are places in Calvin's institutes where Calvin himself says faith comes before regeneration. John Owen said he would not argue the point but thought regeneration and faith occurred at the same time. In another place he said he thought there were people walking around born again but not yet come to faith. In other words, they were all over the place. But wait, isn't that just what you have been on here complaining about me?

"The rest of your post is irrelevant" works for you because that's all you can contribute. Some of you guys have been "converted" to Calvinism because you listened to some internet arguments by a few of the YRR guys. And your technique is simple. You have a few key verses that may or may not be in context, and if anyone doesn't bow to you when you present them you start screaming "heretic". I just happen to notice that there is more to this than you extreme Calvinists have been asserting. The arguments you use confounded your Baptist pastor 20 years ago because all he knew about Calvin was that "he was wrong on Baptism, and wrong on the Lord's Supper so what does he know". But they have been reading and they are noticing some cracks and have some questions.

A couple of you guys on here would do well to, whenever you have time, get on his site and listen to some Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermons. They are available in audio if you aren't wanting to read all the time. I promise you, if you do, you will still be a Calvinist when you are finished but you will not be these obnoxious "cage-stage" YRR guys like you see on the internet and you will learn to appreciate some of the other takes on soteriology and practical theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

What I was pointing out is that if one makes the anti-scriptural argument that "free-will faith = work" that you must conclude that Christ told the Jews in John 6:29 that salvation is by works.

I wish everyone would put away the free will faith = work thing. Faith by it's very definition cannot be a work the way we all use it related to salvation. I guess you could say you must subscribe or sign on to "the faith" in the form of a confession - maybe that would be a work. I know Richard Baxter had a Neonomianism for a while where he had the idea that in salvation Christ has come with a new, easier law which consisted of you believing, repenting and then following the easier standard of conduct which was less severe than the old law in penalty and performance. In that case maybe faith could be a work. I think even Baxter rejected that later on.

 

[kyredneck]

What I was pointing out is that if one makes the anti-scriptural argument that "free-will faith = work" that you must conclude that Christ told the Jews in John 6:29 that salvation is by works.

Well, I view "free-will faith" as anti-scriptural*, and no, I mustn't conclude that Christ was teaching 'saved by works'.

Because faith is a fruit of the spirit I agree with Gill and the Calvinists that believing on Christ is indeed a work/operation of God, not an act of the will of the flesh, but I'm not convinced that was what Christ was talking about. I think it goes much deeper than this, there's more, probably deserves a thread of its own, John 6:29.

* @RighteousnessTemperance&

 

[George Antonios]

Well, I view "free-will faith" as anti-scriptural*, and no, I mustn't conclude that Christ was teaching 'saved by works'.

Because faith is a fruit of the spirit I agree with Gill and the Calvinists that believing in Christ is indeed a work/operation of God, not an act of the will of the flesh, but I'm not convinced that was what Christ was talking about. I think it goes much deeper than this, there's more, probably deserves a thread of its own, John 6:29.

* @RighteousnessTemperance&

I understand your position, which you are simply repeating now.

Yes, that should get its own thread.

 

[kyredneck]

I understand your position, which you are simply repeating now.

Meh, not really, I've not fully stated my thoughts yet.