ten-reasons-to-not-ask-jesus-into-your-heart-0

[Benjamin]

I am not sneaking anywhere. I am open and honest about what I believe. "Free will" is a myth. A fallacy at worst, a misnomer at best.

...

Man's will is only able to make volitional choices within the context of his spiritual condition.

LOL, ...talk about fallacy regarding free will/volition, you've just merely exposed your question begging back door:


Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature (spiritual condition)."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature (spiritual condition)?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

Your signature line exposes the problem. You mistake "free will" for "volition." They are not the same. All people make volitional decisions every day. Every person consciously chooses, make choices, every day. The ability to make volitional choices has nothing at all to do with free will.

This kind of statement is exactly why I define the premise issues (in my signature) up for debate rather than let others resort to semantic ambiguity fallacies to generate smoke screens.

I suggest reading Luther's "Bondage of the Will." It is an excellent exposition on the will of man and his fallen condition.

BTW, your attempt to be condescending by telling me I should study up as if If I don't understand your view (typical tactic, as predicted

) simply makes me laugh.

 

[revmwc]

I agree. And that's the least of my concern with the SBC (and I am a SBC member). Frown

What is more distressing is that if they did try to have a doctrinal statement specific to their local church, I'm not sure that many would have enough doctrine to put in the statement. It'd be a 3x5 card.

(that is...btw...exaggeration....most could fill a 3x5 card Laugh)

I have my own personal DS

 

[TCassidy]

LOL, ...talk about fallacy regarding free will/volition, you've just merely exposed your question begging back door:


Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature (spiritual condition)."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature (spiritual condition)?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

A false a priori assumption leads to false conclusions. God being Sovereign does not mean he is First Cause of all things. Don't blame the corruption of man, and the consequences of that corruption, on God. He allows us to witness the consequences of our corruption. It is only within His permissive will, not His decretal will, that such things occur.

This kind of statement is exactly why I define the premise issues (in my signature) up for debate rather than let others resort to semantic ambiguity fallacies to generate smoke screens.

So you wrongly define what I believe then blame me for your false definition?

BTW, your attempt to be condescending by telling me I should study up as if If I don't understand your view (typical tactic, as predicted simply makes me laugh.

Does that mean you have no desire to read the definitive writing, which has stood for over 400 years, on the subject?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, but many (even 1 is too many in my opinion) have no doctrinal statement specific to their local church be simply refer people to the BF&M. I think that is a cop out, but I seem to be in the minority.

Having a weak document does not protect the local church and leaves it wide open to trouble.

 

[JonC]

I have my own personal DS

Autonomous saint?

 

[revmwc]

Autonomous saint?

No but when I send a resume to a church they know where I stand

 

[DHK]

But the crux of the matter is the condition of the unregenerate's heart. The heart is really the inner man, the spirit of man. It is what and who he really is. As an unregenerate, it is an enemy of God. It hates Him. It wants nothing to do with Him. That is why an unregenerate can not ask Him to come into their heart.

No american would open their front door to an member of ISIS and ask them to come in. No american would seek a member of ISIS to speak to them, to seek fellowship with them. I am speaking about unregenerate americans here. Enemies will never seek fellowship.

Alright. So what point are you trying to make? Or who are you arguing with?
Are you debating the SBC Confession? Is it wrong?
Or are you debating the Apostle Paul? Is he wrong?
Or are they both wrong and you are the only that is right? How does that work?

I didn't give my own opinion. I just simply quoted the SBC Confession and added a couple of scriptures from the Book of Romans? What is your argument with?

ETA:Have you found that post of mine where I said Christ was hating Himself yet? I won't let you go on this one. Post it or apoligize to me.

Show me where I said such a thing. Here you are again making false accusations. I have nothing to apologize for. Something you read offended you. You probably never took the time to carefully read what was written. But here you have made a false accusation. You need to drop the matter.

 

[Benjamin]

A false a priori assumption leads to false conclusions. God being Sovereign does not mean he is First Cause of all things. Don't blame the corruption of man, and the consequences of that corruption, on God. He allows us to witness the consequences of our corruption. It is only within His permissive will, not His decretal will, that such things occur.

Please read my lips, I know what Compatibilism is and how it is expounded. Nice job BTW. I wish I had the time to nail down your definitive terms, such as "Sovereign" meaning Deterministic Sovereignty and expose how you would unavoidably resort to mutually exclusive definitions of volition/free will vs determinism, or cause and effect vs influence and response, but alas I simply don't have the time for this dance. I will clarify though that I do not blame God for the corruption of man but would contend that your view unavoidably does when brought to its logical conclusions.

So you wrongly define what I believe then blame me for your false definition?

I merely defined the term (free will) which is an ethical way to begin to get to the truth in claims and issues, I've not even begun on pinning you to what your beliefs unavoidably hinge on logically... (Determinism ).

Does that mean you have no desire to read the definitive writing, which has stood for over 400 years, on the subject?

It meant I understand the principles your view is based on quite well. In fact your posts sound like a broken record to me. That was the point, along with exposing that you would likely try to resort to the ole tactic of inferring that I didn't understand your view, ...which certainly didn't take you long . Really wouldn't be interested in drawing all the historical sources from both sides into a debate, wouldn't need it to deal with "your" reasoning anyway.

Got to go, carry on.

 

[TCassidy]

Are you debating the SBC Confession? Is it wrong?

No, but have you ever considered the possibility your understanding of the BF&M may be slightly incomplete?

Or are you debating the Apostle Paul? Is he wrong?

No, Paul is right. But the possibility exists that your understanding of Romans 10:9 is slightly flawed.

Or are they both wrong and you are the only that is right? How does that work?

Now you are just being nasty. May I suggest everyone in this thread practice a little more Christ-likeness?

Now, let's look at what the BF&M says.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption of the believer.

Nobody is arguing against that or denying it. The question remains, who will accept? Only those who have been given a new heart of faith.

Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior.

Exactly. And who will do that? Those whom God has regenerated.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Yes. Of course that verse does not say "whosoever asks Jesus into his heart will be saved."

It says that those who confess Christ, and believe in their heart, the resurrection, will be saved.

And that it is with that new heart of faith that causes us to believe unto righteousness, and for us to confess unto salvation.

The problem is you seem to be conflating regeneration, confession, faith (belief), and salvation.

Even the BF&M takes care to insure the reader knows that "salvation" is tripartate. "In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification."

The problem, as i see it, is that most Christians today are guilty of "sloppy theology." And the above conflation of distinct terms is one example of that condition.

 

[TCassidy]

Please read my lips,

Is that a pejorative mockery of my being deaf? If so it is not only beneath contempt, it is a violation of the BB rules.

"Sovereign" meaning Deterministic Sovereignty

I already corrected you on this. There is a difference between decretal will and permissive will.

I merely defined the term (free will)

Yes, incorrectly, as I pointed out earlier.

It meant I understand the principles your view is based on quite well.

Well, obviously not as well as you assume. As your response shows.

 

[Benjamin]

Is that a pejorative mockery of my being deaf? If so it is not only beneath contempt, it is a violation of the BB rules.

If you are saying you are deaf, which I am afraid that is how I might need to taking this, that is news to me and therefore a very unfortunate and embarrassing choice of words on my part, nothing more. If you happen to be deaf I'm glad I checked in again before hitting the hay so I can apologize for any misunderstanding and assure you the thought was never on my mind. OTOH, if your merely trying to use your new status to make this phrase "read my lips" into a personal attack issue rather than to mean "let's get this clear" then I'll just take that debate maneuver for what it is worth.

 

[DHK]

No, but have you ever considered the possibility your understanding of the BF&M may be slightly incomplete?

Anything is possible. But I never really commented on anything. The only comment I did say that if such expressions are used in the BF&M then perhaps there is nothing wrong for them to be used elsewhere, or something to that effect. I never stated any of my beliefs.

No, Paul is right. But the possibility exists that your understanding of Romans 10:9 is slightly flawed.

Well, I don't think it is. But we have differing opinions. Then again, I never gave any opinion. I just quoted the passage.

Now, let's look at what the BF&M says.Nobody is arguing against that or denying it. The question remains, who will accept? Only those who have been given a new heart of faith.Exactly. And who will do that? Those whom God has regenerated.

And this is where we have always disagreed.
Your last statement was a response to this one:

Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior.
--At some point I know you believe that justification, faith, regeneration, and hence salvation are all simultaneous. It happens at the same time. Yet regeneration is placed before "the acceptance of Jesus Christ ...as Lord and Savior." I don't agree.
I actually don't agree with the statement of "faith is the acceptance..." either, since faith is simply trust, confidence, etc. I am not sure why it is defined in the BF&M as such. It is not faith but rather salvation itself that is "the acceptance of Jesus Christ..."

Yes. Of course that verse does not say "whosoever asks Jesus into his heart will be saved."

It says that those who confess Christ, and believe in their heart, the resurrection, will be saved.

True, it simply mentions the heart as the vehicle of belief or faith. It is the BF&M that uses the actual expression "accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," which is the basic topic of this thread. The intent of my first post was simply to point out that since that phrase is used in the SBC Statement of Faith, then should it be any wonder that most people use the expression. Most of the posters here either are or have been members of the SBC.

And that it is with that new heart of faith that causes us to believe unto righteousness, and for us to confess unto salvation.

I realize that is the belief among Calvinists. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

The problem is you seem to be conflating regeneration, confession, faith (belief), and salvation.

I simply disagree with the Calvinist ordo salutis

Even the BF&M takes care to insure the reader knows that "salvation" is tripartate. "In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification."

The problem, as i see it, is that most Christians today are guilty of "sloppy theology." And the above conflation of distinct terms is one example of that condition.

There is no reason to unnecessarily confuse the issue. I fully realize the tripartite nature of salvation. But IMO that is off topic, almost a rabbit trail.
The BF&M even states clearly that Salvation in its broadest sense includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. But that is what you said isn't it?
Again, we are not discussing "the broadest sense." We are discussing that particular point in time when an individual is justified/regenerated/saved.

 

[SovereignGrace]

DHK,

Jesus Himself said that he did not take you out of this world but has left you in this world.
The world is not His. He said very clearly that the world would hate you because it hated Him (Christ).
Or according to you Christ hates himself. You have some weird theology.

In the 'Why should the 1689 Confession of Faith be used' thread. Post # 89 page 5.

You tell so many 'hairy ones' you can't keep up with them. I'll quote Judge Judith Sheindlin..."If you tell the truth you don't have to have a good memory."

 

[SovereignGrace]

Alright. So what point are you trying to make? Or who are you arguing with?
Are you debating the SBC Confession? Is it wrong?
Or are you debating the Apostle Paul? Is he wrong?
Or are they both wrong and you are the only that is right? How does that work?

I thought that confession was pretty good, that portion you posted, that is. I think you are misapplying it to what you think it says and not what it really says. God welcomes all who come. God saves all those who believe. Both sides agree with this. It is how we arrive at it that causes ll the acrimony.

I didn't give my own opinion. I just simply quoted the SBC Confession and added a couple of scriptures from the Book of Romans? What is your argument with?

I have not read that entire confession(hope to, though) but it agreed with what you posted from it.

Show me where I said such a thing. Here you are again making false accusations. I have nothing to apologize for. Something you read offended you. You probably never took the time to carefully read what was written. But here you have made a false accusation. You need to drop the matter.

Page 5, post # 85. It was your's and you directed it at me.

Jesus Himself said that he did not take you out of this world but has left you in this world.
The world is not His. He said very clearly that the world would hate you because it hated Him (Christ).
Or according to you Christ hates himself. You have some weird theology.

Own it.

 

[revmwc]

Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter Yet averred toward them after mind ye and let be being dipzed each of ye on the name of Jesus anointed into from letting misses and ye shall be getting the gratuity of the Holy Spirit.

The OP’s 10 points show 1 verse for salvation Acts 2:38, it says nothing about repenting from their sins. It says repent, that after mind in the Greek, turning their mind to Christ, change their minds about Who Jesus was and turn to believing on Him. When they do they will have remission of sin and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit that is the Holy Spirit will enter their life (Heart) as a proof of salvation. I find not one verse that says repent of your sins.


Where do folks that oppose asking Jesus into heart doesn’t save them, of course what I tell folks and have people do is admit they are a sinner and that they believe that Jesus died on the cross for them and that they accept Him as their savior. Once they do then I will tell them, if they are children Jesus is in their heart, because Guess what Scripture says it happens in a nanosecond. Galatians 4:6 states after trusting in Christ, “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” When does one become a son when they trust in Christ, He enters their heart according to this.

We see Romans 8: 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

No one is saved who doesn’t have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, if a person doesn’t Have the Holy Spirit or as we see in Galatians 4:6 the Spirit of the Son in them then they are not saved. Then in verse 10 of Romans 8 we see if Christ be in you, seems He comes into our lives and Paul in Galatians 4:6 makes it clear those who are sons have Christ in their hearts, Paul’s words. Then we see this Paul states in Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Calling upon saying Lord I am a sinner and I believe you paid for my sins and I repent of my unbelief and turn to you in belief, is the same as saying Lord Jesus I am sinner come into my Life (Heart) and change me.

 

[revmwc]

The question is not why God should have hated Esau; there are ever so many reasons why He might have done that. The question is why God should have loved Jacob.

So why did He hate Esau, because He knew before their birth to choices Esau would make. He knew all Esau would do before Esau was ever conceived, therefore He hated the deeds of Esau. God actually Loved Esau as He loves all mankind, 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Because of His Love God sent Christ to die for sinners and Paul said He was the chiefest of sinners.

By the way why did God choose Paul the chiefest of sinners and not call all the Pharisees who saw themselves as righteous? Because God knew Paul beforehand and knew the choice Paul would make to believe.

 

[TCassidy]

It is the BF&M that uses the actual expression "accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," which is the basic topic of this thread. The intent of my first post was simply to point out that since that phrase is used in the SBC Statement of Faith, then should it be any wonder that most people use the expression. Most of the posters here either are or have been members of the SBC.

Yes, but it does not say "invited Jesus into your heart." Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is an entirely different construct. And that is a result of our salvation, not the cause of it. We don't accept Him in our lost condition. We can't. 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes that very clear, "Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[TCassidy]

If you are saying you are deaf, which I am afraid that is how I might need to taking this, that is news to me and therefore a very unfortunate and embarrassing choice of words on my part, nothing more. If you happen to be deaf I'm glad I checked in again before hitting the hay so I can apologize for any misunderstanding and assure you the thought was never on my mind.

Forgiven and forgotten.

 

[Benjamin]

Forgiven and forgotten.

Hmm, ...well that will give reason for pause to a guy before using those types of phrases again.

 

[DHK]

Yes, but it does not say "invited Jesus into your heart." Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is an entirely different construct. And that is a result of our salvation, not the cause of it. We don't accept Him in our lost condition. We can't. 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes that very clear, "Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here are some of the statements given in the OP (objections) :

1. In order to be saved, a man must repent (Acts 2:38). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of repentance.
2. In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith.
3. The person who wrongly believes they are saved will have a false sense of security. Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure. They live in doubt and fear because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them assurance of salvation.
4. The person who asks Jesus into his heart will likely end up inoculated, bitter and backslidden. Because he did not get saved by reciting a formulaic prayer, he will grow disillusioned with Jesus, the Bible, church and fellow believers. His latter end will be worse than the first.
5. It presents God as a beggar just hoping you will let Him into your busy life. This presentation of God robs Him of His sovereignty.

I quoted from the BF&M, which uses the actual expression "accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior"
Whether or not one adds the prepositional phrase "into one's heart," I find irrelevant. It is the act of "accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," that most Calvinists here object to or have objected to in the past. The very act, they say, is a work. It is all or nothing "of God." Of course it is. But it is a gift that must be accepted by faith by man. And therein many object. I do not find "into one's heart" as the central point of objection.

For example, "Asking Jesus (into one's heart)" takes away from the requirement of repentance. If we go past the Book of Acts and go to the epistles where the doctrine of salvation is fully explained, where is repentance ever demanded for salvation? Salvation is always presented as "by grace through faith." One is justified by faith. Accepting Christ has nothing to do with repentance.

Second objection. Accepting Christ as Savior IS an act of faith. For by grace are ye saved through faith.
The very word "accepting" is found in the Bible. It is simply a synonym for "receiving."
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Who says (3rd objection) that: "Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure"
--What a joke? Does the author have evidence here? Please provide it.
I will give evidence for this. Rather just read it in the writings of the Puritans. Most of them struggled with an assurance of salvation not knowing at the end of their lives if God would accept them or not. It was the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Faith." They were never sure if they had "persevered" enough, if they were holy enough to be accepted of God. Never sure if they were "fully sanctified to enter into God's presence. Many of the Puritans struggled with this.
This is not true of those "that have trusted or accepted Christ as their Savior and Lord (whether into their heart or not).

Thus objection after objection is easily answered. It is all "fluff."