The person who is "ready" to receive jesus thru faith in Him needs to know who He is, what He did for them, and why they needed Him to do it!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How do I do that?
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
The person who is "ready" to receive jesus thru faith in Him needs to know who He is, what He did for them, and why they needed Him to do it!
But if you "do", then it is a work. I don't believe a person has the capacity to choose to believe anything. We believe because we are convinced - either by evidence, or simply by the words of one who is believable.
Little kids believe everything their parents tell them, simply because they have a view that their parents are infallible.
And it really isn't a Calvinist vs Arminian issue, because those two camps agree on the issue - man must choose Christ. Where they differ is on the condition of the heart. One says man can choose from an unregenerate state, while one says the "zap" must happen first, giving the man a godly disposition in order to make the choice.
You said it right here again.
A work is something we DO. Again you have stated that faith is a work, something we do. That is the definition of a work. Faith is not a work. It is a gift to be received.
Consider Scripture:
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--First, Abraham was justified by faith and faith alone. (vs. 3)
--Second, Grace and works are opposed to each other. Works demand a reward just as a laborer deserves his wages. But grace is a gift.
--Third, To those that do no work whatsoever but simply believe (not a work) he is the one that is justified. Note that belief and faith are not works. To him that worketh not... It is clear that belief and faith are not works, otherwise the statement would make no sense.
I agree with that. It's impossible to believe in someone without having some idea who they are and what they've set out to accomplish.
I saw Winnan's original question as implying some understanding of that, and that the person is near the point of faith
Well, Luke 16 shows that men can refuse to believe even a miracle, Abraham said that if the rich man's brothers did not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rose from the dead.
And Jesus showed in John chapter 20 that a person can believe even if they have not seen him as Thomas did.
This shows faith is a choice. It is a judgment, whether God is truthful or not. We are told that Sarah received strength, because she "judged him faithful who promised".
Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Now, if you remember, Sarah did not believe the first time she heard she would have a child, but laughed.
Gen 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
Sarah did not believe when she first received the promise, but sometime after that was persuaded God is faithful and would fulfill his promise to her.
The point is, the scriptures could not rightfully command us to believe if we have no control over it. It would be unjust to punish a man for unbelief if he could not believe as some falsely teach.
No, the scriptures say God has shown all men enough evidence to believe, so all men are without excuse.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 says that though God be invisible, the evidence for God is "clearly seen" and is "understood" by the things that are made, so that all men are without excuse.
So, unbelief is a choice.
But what is belief? What does it mean to believe on Jesus? Did the men in Matthew 7 believe in Jesus?
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Were these men atheists like those persons in Romans 1? NO, they believed in Jesus and called him "Lord, Lord".
So why weren't they saved?
There are some principles I try to follow when developing doctrine:
1) we must not read into a passage something which it does not say
2) we must not run counter to an explicit statement in scripture
We are going through this very issue in our Wed night bible study. Some have read into Mark 16:16 the notion of water baptism for eternal life, while some have read into Rom 10:9-13 the notion of a sinner's prayer. Some read into Heb 6:4-6 the idea that a believer can be lost. Some read into Philippians 1:6 the notion of perseverance of the saints, or Phil 4:13 the idea that doing all things through Christ covers winning a football game.
It's easy to do, and we're all guilty of importing our doctrine into a passage. But usually, only others are able to see that we're doing it.
And that's something you're doing at Luke 16, where there is no mention of anyone making a choice to believe. Also in Matt 7:21-23, nowhere does it say those who will be turned away by Christ have believed in Him. I would argue that they never believed in Him, because those who believe in Him have passed from death to life and shall never perish. But even at that, I am reading into the passage.
My mom used to say that Judas Iscariot believed in Christ more than all the other apostles. I'd be like, "uhh, where does the bible say that?" The answer is nowhere.
And that's the issue with saying that we choose to believe. The bible doesn't say that anywhere. To the contrary, scripture says we ate born, not of the will of the man, nor the will of the flesh, but by God.
The issue of choosing to believe is a matter of philosophy, in fact it is one of the first topics in first year philosophy classes. There are plenty of philosophies concerning that issue. But we can't allow our philosophical presuppositions to trump an emphatic statement of scripture.
Do we have a responsibility to believe? Absolutely. But it's not a responsibility to to perform an active participation, it's a responsibility to be teachable by the Holy Spirit.
That's why all through Acts, Paul was arguing, in order to "persuade" men. Some were convinced, while others refused. They made a judgment, not a decision.
They weighed the argument and became convinced, or they refused.
It might be like a man who believes the earth is flat. Put him in a rocket ship to outer space. As the rocket goes up, he is going to encounter evidence which runs contrary to his understanding. It's going to become obvious that he was wrong, and he will become convinced that the earth is round. Or, he can refuse to look out the window. Or he can willfully reject the evidence. But he has to make no choice to believe it. That will happen naturally, so long as he's not stubborn
1) we must not read into a passage something which it does not say
2) we must not run counter to an explicit statement in scripture
We are going through this very issue in our Wed night bible study. Some have read into Mark 16:16 the notion of water baptism for eternal life, while some have read into Rom 10:9-13 the notion of a sinner's prayer. Some read into Heb 6:4-6 the idea that a believer can be lost. Some read into Philippians 1:6 the notion of perseverance of the saints, or Phil 4:13 the idea that doing all things through Christ covers winning a football game.
It's easy to do, and we're all guilty of importing our doctrine into a passage. But usually, only others are able to see that we're doing it.
And that's something you're doing at Luke 16, where there is no mention of anyone making a choice to believe. Also in Matt 7:21-23, nowhere does it say those who will be turned away by Christ have believed in Him. I would argue that they never believed in Him, because those who believe in Him have passed from death to life and shall never perish. But even at that, I am reading into the passage.
My mom used to say that Judas Iscariot believed in Christ more than all the other apostles. I'd be like, "uhh, where does the bible say that?" The answer is nowhere.
And that's the issue with saying that we choose to believe. The bible doesn't say that anywhere. To the contrary, scripture says we ate born, not of the will of the man, nor the will of the flesh, but by God.
The issue of choosing to believe is a matter of philosophy, in fact it is one of the first topics in first year philosophy classes. There are plenty of philosophies concerning that issue. But we can't allow our philosophical presuppositions to trump an emphatic statement of scripture.
Do we have a responsibility to believe? Absolutely. But it's not a responsibility to to perform an active participation, it's a responsibility to be teachable by the Holy Spirit.
That's why all through Acts, Paul was arguing, in order to "persuade" men. Some were convinced, while others refused. They made a judgment, not a decision.
They weighed the argument and became convinced, or they refused.
It might be like a man who believes the earth is flat. Put him in a rocket ship to outer space. As the rocket goes up, he is going to encounter evidence which runs contrary to his understanding. It's going to become obvious that he was wrong, and he will become convinced that the earth is round. Or, he can refuse to look out the window. Or he can willfully reject the evidence. But he has to make no choice to believe it. That will happen naturally, so long as he's not stubborn
OK.
Well, those verses are worded in such a way as to give an impression. Mark 16:16 does say that those that believe AND are baptized will be saved. Now, I do not believe you have to be baptized to be saved, but I can understand how some folks would believe that verse is saying that.
Now, if we all have to have perfect doctrine to be saved, we are ALL in big trouble. I believe the Lord will be understanding and lenient toward folks who interpret Mark 16:16 to be teaching that baptism is necessary.
I disagree. Abraham clearly says that if these five brothers do not believe Moses and the prophets, then neither will they believe if someone went to them from the dead. The problem is not that God has not provided enough evidence for them to believe, God clearly says ALL men are without excuse in Romans 1:20. No, the problem is the WILL, these men are not willing to believe no matter what.
I mean, what would you do with Pharaoh? Are you telling me he did not have enough evidence from Moses to be convinced and persuaded he was from God? How many people have you seen turn a rod of wood into a serpent? How many people have you seen strike the rivers with his rod and turn the rivers into blood?
I am pretty sure I would believe the very first miracle, but Pharaoh REFUSED to believe.
Ok, so your Mom made a mistake, that doesn't mean everybody else is always mistaken.
Sure you do, our whole justice system depends on this. The prosecution presents a case to try to convince you a person committed a crime, the defense presents a defense to prove the defendant did not commit the crime.
Lots of times the prosecution is very good and convinces the jury the defendant is guilty and the man goes to jail. Years later DNA proves the prosecution was wrong and the man innocent.
According to your view, no one would ever falsely go to jail, because a person can only be persuaded by reality.
No, when we decide if the defendant is guilty or not, we are making a choice of whose story we believe. We are TRUSTING that evidence presented to us.
And that is what faith is, it is a choice, it is a TRUSTING. We are taking God at his word and depending on him to fulfill his promises to us.
It most certainly is not, the scriptures themselves tell us to choose whom we serve. God says of evil men that they did not "choose the fear of the LORD".
Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
God does not make mistakes, he knew exactly what he was saying when he said these evil men did not "choose" the fear of the LORD.
If we are responsible to believe, then we have control over whether we believe or not. This is why Calvinism is error, if unregenerate men CANNOT believe, then they are not guilty.
A judgment is a decision. And how did the jury find? "Guilty your honor."
And people change their opinion in a trial all the time. Why? Because they hear new evidence, or simply because someone will argue the evidence in another way. There was a famous movie called "12 Angry Men" that documents this. Fantastic movie.
Not necessarily. The man may think he is in some Hollywood movie simulator and he is being deceived.
In fact, that is what these flat earth folks believe about the moon landings. They think it was all done in a studio somewhere and is fake.
You see, you can decide whether you believe evidence or not. Abraham told the rich man that even if one went from the dead to his five brothers, they would not believe.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
:wavey::thumbsup::wavey:
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
If you are going to quote me, please quote every thing I said. I used scripture to back up what I said. The Op never mentioned whether the person knew any thing about God or not.Russian general now a soldier in God's army Go ahead. Tell me how great a background in the Bible, God's demands, etc., Borisov had when he became a Christian.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Are you deliberatly leaving out verses 34 ad 35 to make your point. Include those verses and you will see Phillip preached unto him Jesus before he believed.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
In verse 32 Paul spoke unto the jailer and all that were in his house the words of the Lord and then he took them in verse 33 and baptized he and all his straightway. It's funny how Free wills leave out scripture.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Thanks, but I'll quote the relevant portion of your post to what I have to say. Especially when your Scripture citation is irrelevant to the subject.
And yet people who have no background in the gospel, the church, etc., are saved every day. How do you explain that?
Didn't leave out any Scripture, but apparently your reading comprehension is lacking. Notice:
* it was midnight when the earthquake occurred.
* Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer and his household.
* The jailer washed their wounds and within the same hour he and his household were baptized.
So how much preaching and in depth doctrine was related to the jailer and his family in less than an hour?
Also noticed you said nothing about the thief on the cross.
No, I didn't purposely leave out that scripture, but we can't always show everything here, I try to show only what is necessary to make my point, and leave out other scripture for brevity only. It is difficult to read long posts.
The Ethiopian eunuch was obviously a religious man who believed the OT scriptures he was reading. I get the impression he was a very good and very devout man. The fact that he struggled with scripture shows he truly and sincerely wanted to understand God's word. So, it is fairly safe to assume he had read the scriptures often, and had a pretty good grasp on the OT. It is easy for us to understand OT prophesy about Christ NOW, but this scripture was a mystery to believers at that time, kind of like the book of Revelation is to us now.
We can't say for certain how long Philip spent with him explaining the scriptures, perhaps it was several hours.
Still, the eunuch was able to put two and two together and understand the OT prophecies when they were explained to him by Philip. He understood these prophecies were about Jesus who came and died for our sins. And he believed Jesus truly was the promised Christ the Jews all knew about and expected.
But belief was instant. It is not some long drawn out process. Philip told the eunuch he must believe with all his heart to be baptized. When the eunuch confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, Philip was persuaded that he truly believed in Jesus and so took him down and baptized him.
The eunuch didn't have to prove his faith with long years or consistent service to God as many today demand. He didn't have to "endure to the end" as many falsely teach. He believed on the spot and that was good enough to Philip who was under the leadership of the Holy Spirit at the time. He baptized the Ethiopian eunuch and departed, and the eunuch continued on his way in joy.
Believing is instant, and it is EASY. It is easy for us, but Jesus had to give his life so that we might believe.
What is not funny is the petty attack on "freewills". Anything else you say has no credibility after that. This constant attacking of Calvnism and the attacking of freewills only weaken arguments. It seems some cannot stand on their arguments alone they have to have these sophomoric attacks to prop up their position.
Last edited by a moderator:
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Read post 13 and see who attacked who first. You are right though, I should have let it pass.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
There are many false Christ's that are proclaimed and believed on in this day and time. Every thing from a health and wealth gospel to a fire escape gospel. Believing is not the issue but which Jesus did you believe on is the issue. To be taught aright of God is to start with God and work down to man, not start with man and work up to God.
What does that even mean?
It was a valid observation. According to Calvinism, people are elected to salvation from before the foundation of the world. Also God must enable people to believe by regenerating them first--by giving them a new heart. So if God is doing this for people who are we to say He can't do it instantaneously? Is He all powerful or not?
I never thought of this one, but this is a great argument. It seems a person would go from hating God and being in complete rebellion, at the same time not understanding spiritual matters, and then one second later you love God, understand the gospel, and believe. And you would not even know WHY!
Now, that is a DRAMATIC change, a person would certainly notice.
I have never heard any person give a testimony like this.
Have you?