ByGracethroughFaith
New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Just go back and look at your own 'clear indication', and see where you got that from.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
BGTF
-
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!
Salvation by Works.....or Not?
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
Just go back and look at your own 'clear indication', and see where you got that from.
BGTF
Linda64 said:
Thanks for the spelling correction. I'm a public school victim.
"Replacement Theology" is simply a buzz word for those who don't understand Covenant theology. There is only one covenant of grace (faith in Christ) - in two dispensations (OT and NT). The true Israel (God's people) is now world wide - the church, of which there is no distinction between Greek or Jew.
Even if I granted that Romans 9 refered only to OT Israel, we see that God did not love all men in a saving manner. Esau (for that manner) was born in the line of Abraham - within the visible people of God. Yet... "Esau have I hated."
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, the same and forever. He saves, and prays for, only His elect:
John 17:9 "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Sincerely,
Dan V.
In order not to de-rail this thread anymore than it already is--my response to "Replacement Theology" is here:Dan V. said:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1089297&postcount=42
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Are repentance and faith conditions of salvation, and if so, are they things that man must do, or does God do them for man? Is man passive or active in repentance and faith? Is man simply responding to stimuli from God as a sponge drinks in water, or is man’s will active in repentance and faith, without which his activity, neither can or will be accomplished? Can man resist the influences of God or are they necessitated influences with resistance impossible?
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Except ye also repent, ye shall likewise perish.
Man must repent or man will perish.
Man can resist God's influences. I have done it in the past. When I would walk into an establishment to eat, and the Spirit would tell me to give thanks for my meal and others were just digging in. I went with the flow and ate without giving thanks. Before my Salvation, I felt the Spirit drawing me to talk with the Chaplain at the prison concerning my spiritual state, and yet I resisted for 2 weeks until I finally gave in to the drawing of the Spirit.
Man does have a will, He in not a robot with no feelings at all.
Choice has to be made before Salvation can be a reality.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Please do not think I am just hounding you SFIC. I do honestly desire to know not only the truth but the state of the church as shown forth by the opinions of those within her.
Is man the cause of the intents that are formed in repentance, or is God? Is what you are calling ‘choice’ the mere necessitated impulses of man responding to necessity, as many Calvinist illustrate by saying that ‘one is free to do as one wills?’ Can you see any difference between ‘doing as one wills’ and freedom to actually form the intent to will in a certain direction?
When the Calvinist speaks of ‘willing,’ that simply is a necessitated response due to stimuli directly from God that enables the will by granting of the abilities requisite of what they term as choice. They must have God doing something to enable man with abilities in order for man to ‘will.’ That is in essence no will and certainly no choice at all. It is the mere reflex of necessitated impulse. It is man responding as a sponge responds to water, not an actual choice of an intent of a free moral agent. Can you see what is at stake here and how the word ‘choice’ may in fact denote honest choice (the choosing between two or more alternatives) while the Calvinists speaks of choice when in fact there is no choice to be made at all, having his intents necessitated by force or coercion from God? Can you see how when some speak of man’s will or of willing, that their will is in reality no will at all, but rather only the necessitated reaction of a piece of tissue to an irresistible force?
Is man the cause of the intents that are formed in repentance, or is God? Is what you are calling ‘choice’ the mere necessitated impulses of man responding to necessity, as many Calvinist illustrate by saying that ‘one is free to do as one wills?’ Can you see any difference between ‘doing as one wills’ and freedom to actually form the intent to will in a certain direction?
When the Calvinist speaks of ‘willing,’ that simply is a necessitated response due to stimuli directly from God that enables the will by granting of the abilities requisite of what they term as choice. They must have God doing something to enable man with abilities in order for man to ‘will.’ That is in essence no will and certainly no choice at all. It is the mere reflex of necessitated impulse. It is man responding as a sponge responds to water, not an actual choice of an intent of a free moral agent. Can you see what is at stake here and how the word ‘choice’ may in fact denote honest choice (the choosing between two or more alternatives) while the Calvinists speaks of choice when in fact there is no choice to be made at all, having his intents necessitated by force or coercion from God? Can you see how when some speak of man’s will or of willing, that their will is in reality no will at all, but rather only the necessitated reaction of a piece of tissue to an irresistible force?
standingfirminChrist
New Member
One must first hear the Word according to the Scripture.
Through the reading of the Word, the Spirit will speak to people's hearts. ( I do not see this as regeneration as the Calvinist's do... only as a witness of Truth revealing man's sinful state)
Once the sinful state is made manifest, the Spirit begins to draw that person to Christ.
That person upon feeling the drawing has a choice to make at this point... accept and be accepted, or reject and be rejected.
Does that mean the person will never have another chance to accept? Not necessarily, he or she could live to 100 and accept Christ later on. But then again... he could die 5 minutes down the road.
Hope that explains my position, HP.
Through the reading of the Word, the Spirit will speak to people's hearts. ( I do not see this as regeneration as the Calvinist's do... only as a witness of Truth revealing man's sinful state)
Once the sinful state is made manifest, the Spirit begins to draw that person to Christ.
That person upon feeling the drawing has a choice to make at this point... accept and be accepted, or reject and be rejected.
Does that mean the person will never have another chance to accept? Not necessarily, he or she could live to 100 and accept Christ later on. But then again... he could die 5 minutes down the road.
Hope that explains my position, HP.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I appreciate your willingness to hang in there. That does make your position clear to me, and I will say that I have not witnessed a statement by any on the list more in line with truth than yours. :thumbs:
Being spiritually dead does not render a person incapable of responding to the Gospel. Quickening happens at salvation. We are not regenerated before we get saved--we are regenerated AT salvation. Nobody is "elected" to salvation!Dan V. said:
BTW--does a person wake up saved?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Nobody "wakes up saved" no text says "when you wake up and find out that suddenly you are a Christian -- then choose Christ".
The regeneration of 2Cor 5 "if anyone is IN Christ he IS a new creation" happens AFTER a person chooses Christ.
Romans 10 makes it clear that with the heart one believes.
As Rev 3 states "Behold I stand at the door and knock if anyone OPENS the door I will then come in " and fellowship with Christ begins.
And now to address the opposite extreme from those who claim that you "wake up saved"--
Those who imagine that the "born-again saved state" is that of the sinner "alone and without Christ" in Rev 3 are mistaken.
in Christ,
Bob
The regeneration of 2Cor 5 "if anyone is IN Christ he IS a new creation" happens AFTER a person chooses Christ.
Romans 10 makes it clear that with the heart one believes.
As Rev 3 states "Behold I stand at the door and knock if anyone OPENS the door I will then come in " and fellowship with Christ begins.
And now to address the opposite extreme from those who claim that you "wake up saved"--
Those who imagine that the "born-again saved state" is that of the sinner "alone and without Christ" in Rev 3 are mistaken.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
In John 1 "He came to HIS OWN but HIS OWN receved Him not" --
God is acting to seek and save the lost but as we find in Luke 7 among the lost "they rejected God's purpose for them".
Matt 23 "OH HOW I WANTED to gather your chilrden ... but you would not"
in Christ,
Bob
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I like that.
That is just how we are to be towards sin, dead, not very responsive. That is not able to sin, but unresponsive, not willing to sin.
NotCountedWise
New Member
Hello everyone. As you can see, I'm new to the forum.
===
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Which one are you?
The error of both Decision Theology and Double Predestination can, perhaps, be demonstrated by the fact that they destroy certainty. In the former case, one's salvation rests on oneself. In the latter case, one is left with a coin toss; as there can be no true indication that one's faith will persevere. The mere doctrines themselves, of course, do not create an uncertain state. Rather, uncertainty is born when the doctrine is combined with true sincerity.
Indeed, perhaps the most fundamental action of Christianity is that of repentance. The Christian is, properly, engaged in a constant struggle against his sins. He examines himself according to God's Holy Law and discovers that he is wanting. Terrified that he, through unbelief, has fallen from grace, he renounces his idols and false works and prays to God for mercy. Here the difficulties arise. Suppose he has previously made a Decision for Christ. He is then compelled to ask--did I truly make a Decision? My sins demonstrate that I am a flawed creature, prone to failings...prone to weakness. And here I am, caught amidst my sins. What if my first Decision was also a false work? And look at me now, seeking forgiveness for sake of Christ. Yet, God must withhold this forgiveness from me unless I truly seek it. I think I seek it, yes--but with this proof of my weakness and inability lying before me, dare I believe that I can, by my own will, truly take hold of Christ's forgiveness?
The argument is straight-forward: The sincere Christian will discover himself in sin, proving that his will is frail and weak. Yet he thinks his salvation rests on an act of his will, thus leaving a paradox and uncertainty.
Ironically, many who hold to pelagian works-righteousness do not feel particularly uncertain about their salvation, just as many who hold to Decision Theology are likewise not uncertain. In fact, many who cling to Christ-denying religions have no qualms about their eternal destination. This ought to demonstrate clearly that uncertainty is *not* solely the product of bad doctrine; it is also necessary to have sincerity. But those who affirm that man must "add to" his salvation or "complete" his salvation or "grasp" his salvation *and* who are also sincere in their faith cannot avoid this terrible uncertainty. Because no, you cannot really ever do enough, or really ever do it right.
But perhaps the chief problem is a lack of options. Sure, Decision Theology is in error, as man's will is in bondage to sin and cannot free itself. It is not capable of anything good or godly, as Christ states: "A bad tree can only produce bad fruit." And as a bad tree produces only bad fruit, so is man incapable of "choosing God" prior to regeneration. Note that infants, as David affirms in Psalm 51, are conceived in sin. (That is, as bad trees.) Original sin produces actual sin, just as being born again produces good works. Thus whether or not an infant has committed a specific actual sin is somewhat irrelevant. Now, obviously, a bad tree is not a puppet, as the human will clearly has significant freedom in choosing the frequency of severity of its actual sins (that is, bad fruit)--although a bad tree which produces little fruit is no different from a bad tree which produces much fruit. Indeed, the human will can even be conditioned to perform regular acts of "civil righteousness." Nevertheless, these acts are still evil before God--for as Isaiah states, "All my good works are as filthy rags." Thus it's not simply that you can't do *enough* good works to be saved. You can't do good works, period. A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit.
So are there other options besides Double Predestination? In a word: Yes. But they require a somewhat different way of thinking. Naturally, we are still left with saying that Christ pulls us (kicking and screaming) onto the boat, instead of waiting for us to grab some proffered lifeline. That is, he regenerates and converts us in opposition to our natural will.
How is this accomplished? Why, it is the *very Word of God* through which the Holy Spirit regenerates us. Indeed, it is the preaching and hearing of this Word. Thus, when Jesus exclaims, "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is near!" this very Word of God is made alive by the Spirit and assaults the hearer. It is not simply an invitation or an offering; it is an action. The Word is indeed not a sales pitch intended to provide compelling rationale for the consumer to close the deal on salvation. After all, I suspect there are better sales pitches than "Repent." Examples might include: "Better Sex" and "Your Best Life Now."
This concept of the Word as a channel through which the Spirit acts (or perhaps, in stronger language, as the very "incarnation" of the Spirit's activity) is critical. Indeed, the Word is what is referred to as a *Means of Grace.* That is, God invades our temporal existence through Means such as His Word (he might even combine His Word with a physical element), and through this connection he overcomes and regenerates our natural will. This is functionally analogous to Decision Theology, in the sense that in both cases there is a Temporal 'Conversion' Event; something must happen *now* for us to be saved. Specifically, the forgiveness of sins won at the cross through the blood of Christ's substitutionary death must somehow transcend time and be directly and personally *applied* to each of us. (However, whether this personal salvation is achieved through our own act (such as a personal decision for Christ), or by Christ making a personal decision to apply it to us (perhaps through baptism) is a point of valid controversy.)
I hardly feel it is fair to compare this sort of monergism to Calvinism, chiefly because under Calvinism it's all meaningless semantics. If you are elect, it doesn't matter whether you are regenerated by the power of the Spirit through the Word, or by the power of rock music, or by eating tomato soup; because whatever effected regeneration in you will *fail* to effect regeneration in the pre-damned soul sitting next to you. Whereas, in fact, the intervention of the Holy Spirit through the Word is a proof *against* Double Predestination, since the Word is effective on all who here it, not only on the "elect." Indeed, those who hear it and believe *are* the elect.
Ah-ha! But perhaps I've committed a cardinal error. Is the Word *really* always effective? If so, why don't all who hear it believe? (Aren't we once again back in the land of puppets?) *Perish the thought.* When fallible humans, incapable of seeing the heart, have conditioned themselves to favor immediate responses (Matt. 13:5) and invent tactics (sometimes at the expense of the Word) to effect such responses--all the while forgetting that good seed does not spring up quickly--it is no wonder that the efficacy of the Word is challenged. Nevertheless, the Word is always effective. We who are "blind" are hardly fit to discern the effects of the Word, just as we who are immoral are hardly fit to judge the morality of God.
But this question cannot be truly "answered" apart from the doctrine of "simultaneously saint and sinner." Earlier I asked the question: Are you are good tree or a corrupt tree? But what I have done is create a false dichotomy. For if you claim to be a good tree only, you lie (1 John 1:8) and in so doing demonstrate yourself to be a corrupt tree. The very fact that Christians produce bad fruit (that is, sin) is a proof that we are simultaneously good and corrupt. By our old nature (the old Adam), we are evil. But by Christ, we are made new. Furthermore, we must also concede that the devil, the world, and the flesh all work in concert to make war against God and the Good Tree (Christ) who lives in us. The two cannot live together in harmony. In essence, what does this mean? Chiefly, that Good Tree within us is under siege, and will ultimately be forced out. That is, unless the Holy Spirit intervenes through the Word, thus strengthening and preserving our faith and killing the Corrupt Tree through daily repentance.
One might liken us to a bucket full of holes. The Holy Spirit, through the Word, fills us with life-giving Water. Indeed, he heals us and stops up the cracks. Yet he has chosen to not restore us fully; this blessing awaits us in heaven. Thus, by our nature, we leak; we remain cracked and flawed. Our faith is challenged and drains away. New holes open up. We succumb to temptation and sin. Etc. Thus it is a sheer imperative, an absolute necessity: The Holy Spirit must continuously intervene through the Word to refill us with Water and plug up our holes.
In summary, the Word is always effective. But its effects are not always apparent, nor are they permanent. That we must engage in daily repentance and be daily renewed by the Holy Spirit must suggest the existence of at least *some* negative consequence were we to cut ourselves off from the Word, the Means of Grace. Indeed, this is chiefly how Christians fall from the faith: through the neglect of the Means of Grace. If you refuse to hear God's Word, if you refuse to receive the Sacrament...what else can you expect? Surely, just as the universe would dissolve into chaos were the Father to remove his sustaining hand, our faith cannot long withstand the influence of evil unless the Spirit is there to bear us up through his Word. Nevertheless, he *is* willing and able to keep us from falling. And indeed, through the continual application of his Word, he accomplishes this.
Continued below.
===
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Which one are you?
The error of both Decision Theology and Double Predestination can, perhaps, be demonstrated by the fact that they destroy certainty. In the former case, one's salvation rests on oneself. In the latter case, one is left with a coin toss; as there can be no true indication that one's faith will persevere. The mere doctrines themselves, of course, do not create an uncertain state. Rather, uncertainty is born when the doctrine is combined with true sincerity.
Indeed, perhaps the most fundamental action of Christianity is that of repentance. The Christian is, properly, engaged in a constant struggle against his sins. He examines himself according to God's Holy Law and discovers that he is wanting. Terrified that he, through unbelief, has fallen from grace, he renounces his idols and false works and prays to God for mercy. Here the difficulties arise. Suppose he has previously made a Decision for Christ. He is then compelled to ask--did I truly make a Decision? My sins demonstrate that I am a flawed creature, prone to failings...prone to weakness. And here I am, caught amidst my sins. What if my first Decision was also a false work? And look at me now, seeking forgiveness for sake of Christ. Yet, God must withhold this forgiveness from me unless I truly seek it. I think I seek it, yes--but with this proof of my weakness and inability lying before me, dare I believe that I can, by my own will, truly take hold of Christ's forgiveness?
The argument is straight-forward: The sincere Christian will discover himself in sin, proving that his will is frail and weak. Yet he thinks his salvation rests on an act of his will, thus leaving a paradox and uncertainty.
Ironically, many who hold to pelagian works-righteousness do not feel particularly uncertain about their salvation, just as many who hold to Decision Theology are likewise not uncertain. In fact, many who cling to Christ-denying religions have no qualms about their eternal destination. This ought to demonstrate clearly that uncertainty is *not* solely the product of bad doctrine; it is also necessary to have sincerity. But those who affirm that man must "add to" his salvation or "complete" his salvation or "grasp" his salvation *and* who are also sincere in their faith cannot avoid this terrible uncertainty. Because no, you cannot really ever do enough, or really ever do it right.
But perhaps the chief problem is a lack of options. Sure, Decision Theology is in error, as man's will is in bondage to sin and cannot free itself. It is not capable of anything good or godly, as Christ states: "A bad tree can only produce bad fruit." And as a bad tree produces only bad fruit, so is man incapable of "choosing God" prior to regeneration. Note that infants, as David affirms in Psalm 51, are conceived in sin. (That is, as bad trees.) Original sin produces actual sin, just as being born again produces good works. Thus whether or not an infant has committed a specific actual sin is somewhat irrelevant. Now, obviously, a bad tree is not a puppet, as the human will clearly has significant freedom in choosing the frequency of severity of its actual sins (that is, bad fruit)--although a bad tree which produces little fruit is no different from a bad tree which produces much fruit. Indeed, the human will can even be conditioned to perform regular acts of "civil righteousness." Nevertheless, these acts are still evil before God--for as Isaiah states, "All my good works are as filthy rags." Thus it's not simply that you can't do *enough* good works to be saved. You can't do good works, period. A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit.
So are there other options besides Double Predestination? In a word: Yes. But they require a somewhat different way of thinking. Naturally, we are still left with saying that Christ pulls us (kicking and screaming) onto the boat, instead of waiting for us to grab some proffered lifeline. That is, he regenerates and converts us in opposition to our natural will.
How is this accomplished? Why, it is the *very Word of God* through which the Holy Spirit regenerates us. Indeed, it is the preaching and hearing of this Word. Thus, when Jesus exclaims, "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is near!" this very Word of God is made alive by the Spirit and assaults the hearer. It is not simply an invitation or an offering; it is an action. The Word is indeed not a sales pitch intended to provide compelling rationale for the consumer to close the deal on salvation. After all, I suspect there are better sales pitches than "Repent." Examples might include: "Better Sex" and "Your Best Life Now."
This concept of the Word as a channel through which the Spirit acts (or perhaps, in stronger language, as the very "incarnation" of the Spirit's activity) is critical. Indeed, the Word is what is referred to as a *Means of Grace.* That is, God invades our temporal existence through Means such as His Word (he might even combine His Word with a physical element), and through this connection he overcomes and regenerates our natural will. This is functionally analogous to Decision Theology, in the sense that in both cases there is a Temporal 'Conversion' Event; something must happen *now* for us to be saved. Specifically, the forgiveness of sins won at the cross through the blood of Christ's substitutionary death must somehow transcend time and be directly and personally *applied* to each of us. (However, whether this personal salvation is achieved through our own act (such as a personal decision for Christ), or by Christ making a personal decision to apply it to us (perhaps through baptism) is a point of valid controversy.)
I hardly feel it is fair to compare this sort of monergism to Calvinism, chiefly because under Calvinism it's all meaningless semantics. If you are elect, it doesn't matter whether you are regenerated by the power of the Spirit through the Word, or by the power of rock music, or by eating tomato soup; because whatever effected regeneration in you will *fail* to effect regeneration in the pre-damned soul sitting next to you. Whereas, in fact, the intervention of the Holy Spirit through the Word is a proof *against* Double Predestination, since the Word is effective on all who here it, not only on the "elect." Indeed, those who hear it and believe *are* the elect.
Ah-ha! But perhaps I've committed a cardinal error. Is the Word *really* always effective? If so, why don't all who hear it believe? (Aren't we once again back in the land of puppets?) *Perish the thought.* When fallible humans, incapable of seeing the heart, have conditioned themselves to favor immediate responses (Matt. 13:5) and invent tactics (sometimes at the expense of the Word) to effect such responses--all the while forgetting that good seed does not spring up quickly--it is no wonder that the efficacy of the Word is challenged. Nevertheless, the Word is always effective. We who are "blind" are hardly fit to discern the effects of the Word, just as we who are immoral are hardly fit to judge the morality of God.
But this question cannot be truly "answered" apart from the doctrine of "simultaneously saint and sinner." Earlier I asked the question: Are you are good tree or a corrupt tree? But what I have done is create a false dichotomy. For if you claim to be a good tree only, you lie (1 John 1:8) and in so doing demonstrate yourself to be a corrupt tree. The very fact that Christians produce bad fruit (that is, sin) is a proof that we are simultaneously good and corrupt. By our old nature (the old Adam), we are evil. But by Christ, we are made new. Furthermore, we must also concede that the devil, the world, and the flesh all work in concert to make war against God and the Good Tree (Christ) who lives in us. The two cannot live together in harmony. In essence, what does this mean? Chiefly, that Good Tree within us is under siege, and will ultimately be forced out. That is, unless the Holy Spirit intervenes through the Word, thus strengthening and preserving our faith and killing the Corrupt Tree through daily repentance.
One might liken us to a bucket full of holes. The Holy Spirit, through the Word, fills us with life-giving Water. Indeed, he heals us and stops up the cracks. Yet he has chosen to not restore us fully; this blessing awaits us in heaven. Thus, by our nature, we leak; we remain cracked and flawed. Our faith is challenged and drains away. New holes open up. We succumb to temptation and sin. Etc. Thus it is a sheer imperative, an absolute necessity: The Holy Spirit must continuously intervene through the Word to refill us with Water and plug up our holes.
In summary, the Word is always effective. But its effects are not always apparent, nor are they permanent. That we must engage in daily repentance and be daily renewed by the Holy Spirit must suggest the existence of at least *some* negative consequence were we to cut ourselves off from the Word, the Means of Grace. Indeed, this is chiefly how Christians fall from the faith: through the neglect of the Means of Grace. If you refuse to hear God's Word, if you refuse to receive the Sacrament...what else can you expect? Surely, just as the universe would dissolve into chaos were the Father to remove his sustaining hand, our faith cannot long withstand the influence of evil unless the Spirit is there to bear us up through his Word. Nevertheless, he *is* willing and able to keep us from falling. And indeed, through the continual application of his Word, he accomplishes this.
Continued below.
NotCountedWise
New Member
Back to certainty. I suspect we might, in theory, get along fine in terms of certainty by knowing that the objective Word of God is the very mechanism by which and through which the Holy Spirit intervenes in us. However, God, in his infinite wisdom, had other plans. He gives us special proofs of his forgiveness, physical signs of his favor, through which he *also* delivers salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Namely, the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist. Through these Means, the Holy Spirit is promised to intervene in each of us, personally.
Even if one accepts (tolerates?) this suspiciously papistic doctrine, it may not be obvious how this resolves the issue of certainty. But it is quite simple. Receiving these gifts is a matter of fact. And the promises attached to them are also a matter of fact, insofar as God's Word is fact. (Who would deny that God's Word is fact? I daresay no one.) Thus it is quite impossible to question the validity of a Baptism made in the name of the Triune God. Similarly, it is quite impossible to question the validity of Christ's Body and Blood. Why is this impossible? Because our actions do not cause them to be what they are. Rather, it is the Word of God that does it. The fact that Baptism and the Eucharist are personal divine interventions in no way hinges upon you; you cannot do anything. You are not obligated to "grasp" them or make a "willful choice." God applies them to you. Both are totally objective, having their origin outside of you. They come from God.
Thus when you, as a Christian, have realized your sins and begged for mercy for the sake of Christ--there is no question about what happens next. Because you know that it is the Holy Spirit who has convicted you of your sin. And you know that your forgiveness hinges on an Act of the Divine Will, not on an act of the human will.
Finally, to pay homage to the tile of the thread: What good is it to claim that salvation is by "grace alone" if in fact that grace is useless without an act of the human will? I suspect that this is functionally equivalent to salvation by grace + works, a particularly Romanist notion. (I suspect that more than one act of the human will may be necessary.)
Even if one accepts (tolerates?) this suspiciously papistic doctrine, it may not be obvious how this resolves the issue of certainty. But it is quite simple. Receiving these gifts is a matter of fact. And the promises attached to them are also a matter of fact, insofar as God's Word is fact. (Who would deny that God's Word is fact? I daresay no one.) Thus it is quite impossible to question the validity of a Baptism made in the name of the Triune God. Similarly, it is quite impossible to question the validity of Christ's Body and Blood. Why is this impossible? Because our actions do not cause them to be what they are. Rather, it is the Word of God that does it. The fact that Baptism and the Eucharist are personal divine interventions in no way hinges upon you; you cannot do anything. You are not obligated to "grasp" them or make a "willful choice." God applies them to you. Both are totally objective, having their origin outside of you. They come from God.
Thus when you, as a Christian, have realized your sins and begged for mercy for the sake of Christ--there is no question about what happens next. Because you know that it is the Holy Spirit who has convicted you of your sin. And you know that your forgiveness hinges on an Act of the Divine Will, not on an act of the human will.
Finally, to pay homage to the tile of the thread: What good is it to claim that salvation is by "grace alone" if in fact that grace is useless without an act of the human will? I suspect that this is functionally equivalent to salvation by grace + works, a particularly Romanist notion. (I suspect that more than one act of the human will may be necessary.)
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Man can choose God prior to regeneration. I know this to be fact. For I was one who chose God before regeneration.
I was dead in trespasses and sins before He so marvellously and gloriiously saved me from a devil's hell.
I heard the Word, I chose to believe the Word and trust Christ as my Savior and asked Him to be Lord of my life. It was then that He saved me, bringing newness of life into an otherwise dead soul.
The soul was not made alive befre Salvation, but afterward. Regeneration is life anew... life after trust in Christ.
I was dead in trespasses and sins before He so marvellously and gloriiously saved me from a devil's hell.
I heard the Word, I chose to believe the Word and trust Christ as my Savior and asked Him to be Lord of my life. It was then that He saved me, bringing newness of life into an otherwise dead soul.
The soul was not made alive befre Salvation, but afterward. Regeneration is life anew... life after trust in Christ.