testimony

So which one was this?

 

It has seemed to me that some people get converted in "Calvinistic" ways and some (perhaps most) get converted in "Arminian" ways. My own conversion was textbook Arminian: I came under conviction while reading a tract or hearing preaching, but I resisted God for a few weeks until finally walking the aisle and praying the sinner's prayer. Four years passed before I first heard about monergism.

 

All conversion is Arminian -- nobody's conversion experience is Calivnist -- because nobody simply Wakes up one day and says --

"yesterday I was a pagan but this morning I just feel born again so now I think I will choose Christ".

However as the OP points out the basis for ASSURANCE that some people take - can be purely calvinist. So there are in fact TWO distinct events - that a testimony CAN reference.

#1. The moment one TURNS to be a Christian - the born-again experience.

#2. The moment one settles on some rationalization regarding assurance. (As the OP points out - this could come long after you have started to walk with Christ).

I am one of those who grew up in a Christian home and felt the peace that only God can bring at a very early age during family worship and during my own prayer times with God.

However my "understanding of assurance" came much later when I studied Romans 8 closely and saw its connection to 1John 5 and the work of the Holy Spirit forming a living connection - a living external "testimony" bearing witness with our spirit -- declaring that we ARE the children of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think we may say with all fairness that a "Calvinist" conversion might take the form of one who is under conviction, cries out to God, but cannot find peace until finally, in God's good time, his burden rolls off. Until then, all the repenting and "accepting of Christ" and sinner's prayers he can muster appear to avail nothing.

Curiously, that describes well the conversion of history's foremost Arminian, John Wesley, on May 24th, 1738, the anniversary of which occurs this Tuesday.

Go figure.

 

Calvinism or Arminianism shouldn't have anything to do with accepting Christ as savior. When you get saved you think you are doing it. When you grow in Christ and read scripture you realize it was all of grace. There are stages in our spiritual walks- but salvation does not hinge on accepting Calvinism or Arminianism since these do not deal directly with the 'essential doctrines' of salvation.

 

There is no objective test for salvation - except continuing good works.

 

Being "Born Again" has nothing to do with "Control"! It has everything to do with "Submission" of one's spirit to God!

One who submits, relinquishes control of that which is submitted!

 

Of course this misrepresentation has little if anything to do with calvinism.

 

I was about 8 years old and had been taken to church consistently for several years. I had heard the gospel many times.

After an evening service, I was brought under heavy conviction over my sin. God continued to convict and draw me and in the next service I received Christ as my Savior. From my perspective, you might be tempted to call it "arminian". However, from the biblical perspective, it was God that opened my eyes/gave me ears to hear/quickened my spirit which was dead in sin.

Similar to the OP, I was plagued with doubts for several years that I believe contributed to periods of unfaithfulness.

Understanding the nature of my salvation and that it wasn't dependent on me or my choices has given me a sense of freedom in Christ and a more godly lifestyle than ever before.

 

As I have pointed out before, this interpretation of "born again" makes Christ's analogy nothing but non-sense. Why compare it to physical birth if it had anything to do with a spiritually dead person's free will choice as opposed to an action by God that changes a person's nature thus freeing them from the bondage of their sin?

 

oops! - I got that wrong! there was NOT because... in YOUR statement. Consider it deleted.

I keep forgetting that the LAST thing Calvinists will do when faced with a less-than-flattering fact about Calvinism - is "address details" they prefer to "whine about the existence of the fact" and leave it at that.

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

oops! you broke ranks ventured out to address "a detail". Better be carefull.

Notice how in this "detail" you argue for the dead person suddenly finding that he is ALREADY born again - and not first making a choice as a dead person???

This was the very thing you rejected when pointed out in the previous post.

You are going to have a tough time denying Calvinism and then defending it simply because you don't like the details.

God's Drawing (john 12:32) ENABLES the choice thet TD disables - by everyone's standard of measure.

("yes" - even Calvinists)

The result is that WHILE christ is NOT in the heart chambers of the soul -- while OUTSIDE -- He can "STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK" awaiting the decision to OPEN the door on the part of the lost - but ENABLED soul that is ALONE on the inside.

What a PERFECT description Christ gives of this scenario!!

In Christ,

Bob

In Christ,

Bob

 

You "decided to receive Christ"??

AT the time you were considering that "decision" did you "observe" that without making it you were ALREADY a born-again Christian with no change about to take place at all? Did you conclude "Well since I am already a Christian I might as well decide to receive Christ"??

Or did you stick CHOOSE to CHANGE to ACCEPT change to ACCEPT Christ thinking that you HAD NOT done it yet and that you were not a born-again saint yet?

I am just wondering how far you are willing to go with this Arminian scenario.

In any case - as I pointed out - the Calvinist conversion scenario - does not exist. It is time-after-time that we see Calvinists converted via the Arminian model and then jumping on the Calvinist bandwagon "anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

You "decided to receive Christ"??</font>[/QUOTE] I think the quote above indicates that I received. In fact, I would say that "compelled" makes a better description than "decided".

No more so than a person resurrected from the dead realizes their first conscious thought. In retrospect, they realize it happened but when it occurred there were more immediate thoughts... and emotions.

 

oops! - I got that wrong! there was NOT because... in YOUR statement. Consider it deleted.

I keep forgetting that the LAST thing Calvinists will do when faced with a less-than-flattering fact about Calvinism - is "address details" they prefer to "whine about the existence of the fact" and leave it at that.

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]For you to insenuate that I avoid details says more about you than me.

Your statement was simply false. The only answer that can be given to it is that you spoke for calvinists in a way that misrepresents calvinists. How instructive indeed.

 

Still waiting for you to "actually name" something that was not in Calvinism "While noting that you just admitted to the very point my post raised" in your note on the "testimony" thread.

How "instructive" indeed.

Calvinists tend to fall all overthemselves "avoiding the details" while complaining that the details "exists".

Your post about a dead person waking up and not immediately realizing that they are alive and not dead -- serves to make the case.

You can not help but point out the flaws in your own argument - then complain that I "notice you doing that".

Your latest attempt to "reason through your own complaint" amounts to "I think you are wrong and the BECAUSE-clause that I would have put on that assertion is -- BECAUSE you have said something wrong... I just can't actually name what it is".

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob