Featured Can You Come to Christ on Your Own

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.