Total Depravity or Free Will in this tract?

[Rippon]

So the church is either of the two?

The Church Universal is composed of all the regenerate. And those elect ones have a variety of gradations in their biblical understanding. Some of His people are more scriptural than others.

Spurgeon is simply saying that the two --Calvinism and Arminianism are not as close as you pretend to believe. The two are antithetical. How then can they be considered close?

You've confused politics with soteriology. It's popular to say that there isn't a dimes' worth of difference between the two main parties. You have transferred it over to the world of theology. But you are wrong.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Church Universal is composed of all the regenerate. And those elect ones have a variety of gradations in their biblical understanding. Some of His people are more scriptural than others.

Spurgeon is simply saying that the two --Calvinism and Arminianism are not as close as you pretend to believe. The two are antithetical. How then can they be considered close?

You've confused politics with soteriology. It's popular to say that there isn't a dimes' worth of difference between the two main parties. You have transferred it over to the world of theology. But you are wrong.

so prove it then. Im sure James (and others) will have enough rebuttal.

 

[JamesL]

Spurgeon is simply saying that the two --Calvinism and Arminianism are not as close as you pretend to believe. The two are antithetical. How then can they be considered close?

If you compare the two, starting with the end result, you'll find that they aren't antithetical at all.

The beginning thesis of both systems is that one MUST obey God in order to "inherit the Kingdom of God" which is erroneously reduced to "saved from hell, going to heaven"

To bear this out, concoct any scenario of faith and works in a man, and subject him to both systems. Both systems will always agree on the fate of each man.

Both systems agree that a man is spiritually dead.
Both agree that God must initiate a process of restoration in a man
Both agree that God chooses who will come to faith in Christ through the gospel
Both agree that believing the gospel is tantamount to makibg a choice to commit one's self to Christ
Both agree that faith AND commitment are necessary and mandatory
Both agree that the man who has faith in Christ MUST endure in good works to be finally saved.

The only place they disagree is HOW these elements are made to work out.

Look at each point - but not only that they disagree. Look at what they agree on, and exactly what grounds they disagree on, and whether or not the disagreement affects the final outcome of the man.

Predestination? They both agree that this applies only to those who finally "make it" to heaven. They only disagree as to how it works out

Did Christ die for everybody or only the elect? Doesnt really matter if both agree on the main point - Atonement is only applied to thise who end up going to heaven

Does God impose regeneration on the man to make him "willing" to commit to Christ, or does God woo the man to become willing on his own accord? Doesn't matter if both agree that a man must be willing, or make a commitment in order to go to heaven

Is a man eternally secure or can he forfeit eternal life? Doesnt really matter, if they both agree as to exactly who made it to geaven or not.


Go thru all the hotly debated passages of scripture, and honestly look at what they agree on.

Hebrews 6:4-6? One says a genuine believer fell away, the other says he was a fraud to begin with. Both agree that he's in hell

Romans 8:29-30? One says God predestined you arbitrarily, while the other says He predestined you because he looked thru the corridor of time and "foreknew" that you would believe. But both agree that thus pasage is talking about the "few" who will end up in heaven.

James 2:14-28? One says works are additionally required, while the other says works are the inevitable fruit of conversion. Both agree that works are a necessary component in the scheme of who "makes it" to heaven. Both agree - dead faith indicates that someone is in hell


If only 50 men make it through the gates of heaven, the Calvinist and Arminian will have the same 50 people in mind

Both systems assign the very same fate to each person, bar none. ZERO exceptions.

They aren't near as antithetical as Spurgeon presumed. He just wasn't willing to look deeper than the trivial disagreements

 

[pinoybaptist]

If you compare the two, starting with the end result, you'll find that they aren't antithetical at all.

The beginning thesis of both systems is that one MUST obey God in order to "inherit the Kingdom of God" which is erroneously reduced to "saved from hell, going to heaven"

To bear this out, concoct any scenario of faith and works in a man, and subject him to both systems. Both systems will always agree on the fate of each man.

Both systems agree that a man is spiritually dead.
Both agree that God must initiate a process of restoration in a man
Both agree that God chooses who will come to faith in Christ through the gospel
Both agree that believing the gospel is tantamount to makibg a choice to commit one's self to Christ
Both agree that faith AND commitment are necessary and mandatory
Both agree that the man who has faith in Christ MUST endure in good works to be finally saved.

The only place they disagree is HOW these elements are made to work out.

Look at each point - but not only that they disagree. Look at what they agree on, and exactly what grounds they disagree on, and whether or not the disagreement affects the final outcome of the man.

Predestination? They both agree that this applies only to those who finally "make it" to heaven. They only disagree as to how it works out

Did Christ die for everybody or only the elect? Doesnt really matter if both agree on the main point - Atonement is only applied to thise who end up going to heaven

Does God impose regeneration on the man to make him "willing" to commit to Christ, or does God woo the man to become willing on his own accord? Doesn't matter if both agree that a man must be willing, or make a commitment in order to go to heaven

Is a man eternally secure or can he forfeit eternal life? Doesnt really matter, if they both agree as to exactly who made it to geaven or not.


Go thru all the hotly debated passages of scripture, and honestly look at what they agree on.

Hebrews 6:4-6? One says a genuine believer fell away, the other says he was a fraud to begin with. Both agree that he's in hell

Romans 8:29-30? One says God predestined you arbitrarily, while the other says He predestined you because he looked thru the corridor of time and "foreknew" that you would believe. But both agree that thus pasage is talking about the "few" who will end up in heaven.

James 2:14-28? One says works are additionally required, while the other says works are the inevitable fruit of conversion. Both agree that works are a necessary component in the scheme of who "makes it" to heaven. Both agree - dead faith indicates that someone is in hell


If only 50 men make it through the gates of heaven, the Calvinist and Arminian will have the same 50 people in mind

Both systems assign the very same fate to each person, bar none. ZERO exceptions.

They aren't near as antithetical as Spurgeon presumed. He just wasn't willing to look deeper than the trivial disagreements

Thank you. That was very eloquently put. Clear. I agree with almost everything you said. No wonder a couple of the most rabid Arminians here applauded one very "Biblical" Calvinist.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JamesL]

Thank you. That was very eloquently put. Clear. I agree with almost everything you said. No wonder a couple of the most rabid Arminians here applauded one very "Biblical" Calvinist.:thumbs::thumbs:

Thanks, pinoy.

And thanks for overlooking my horrendous spelling via my tablet's touch screen

 

[steaver]

Yes. Its a lack of faith

Sure, you can have faith in a generic act of grace, that He'll *wink* and just say "hey... no harm, no foul". But that's not faith in the work of Christ. That's an appeal for an ambiguous forgiveness that God never promised to anybody.

Biblical salvation is found in the cross.

John 4:10, Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, ( Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. )

...and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; (John 11:27, She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. )

...thou wouldest have asked of him (Luke 11:13, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? )

...and he would have given thee living water. (John 7:38-39, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


According to Jesus' outline, one must ask (prayer) for eternal life. Who among us here would like to rebuke Jesus' own example stated so plainly in this text?

We mustn't conflate conviction with conversion. Two separate works of the Holy Spirit.

Sure, Jesus was "Lord", whatever that meant.

If it did not mean Jesus is God in your heart, then you were not saved.

I was praying to Him because I was foolishly taught that if I do this and that,I would be "saved"

I'm not exactly what you were taught, but being taught to pray for Jesus Christ to save you is not part of any foolishness, this is biblical teaching. Of course this must go along with being taught why you need saving in the first place and must also be accompanied by the conviction of the Holy Spirit of your lost state and the conviction by the Holy Spirit to call upon the Lord to fill that need.

I didn't even know that salvation was an act if rescue. I thought "saved" meant that a person was conditionally saved from hell, placed in a position to either obey God and merit entrance into heaven, or disobey God and lose my opportunity.

Well then, you were taught very poorly indeed. But this does not detract from the biblical command to call upon the Lord (prayer).

And I thought that a person would become unsaved with each sin, and must perform the whole stupid ritual all over again, each time

I didn't know that Jesus is God in the flesh, or that there is a resurrection from the dead, or any Christian essential beyond one - that there is a Creator who is offended by sin.

Everything else was some warped notion that came from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, witchcraft, spiritual warfare nuts, and whoever had a few slick words for my mom.

But I could beg for God to "save" me

So just because you were taught many falsehoods, you now disparage the one biblical teaching part that was correct, even though it was found useless to you because all the other necessary elements were left out?

 

[JamesL]

Steaver,
I've not the time to address each thing you wrote. But I will say a couple.

It is painfully obvious that you are starting with a doctrine, then pushing the doctrine onto whatever bible verse you think sounds similar to the doctrine.

I've already written to you about the misuse and abuse of Romans 10:9-13. It looks as if you simply dismissed it, preferring tradition.

Also, Romans 6:23 is speaking about physical death and resurrection. Context, man. C'MON!!!

Also, asking for the Holy Spirit is NOT a "sinner's prayer" for an unbeliever. Jesus was talking about the "living waters" that he spoke about with the woman at the well. John 7:29 says this explicitly.

What he was saying is the very thing He was talking about with Nicodemus. There was a mere "credited" righteousness before Jesus died. But actual, literal righteousness came through being washed in His blood. This happened when the Holy Spirit was "given" after Jesus' resurrection. See Hebrews 9-10. The New Covenant began when Jesus died. And He forever perfected those who are sanctified. Titus 3:5 says we were saved by the washing of regeneration, which is NOT something O.T. believers experienced.

Jesus was telling them to ask for the literal righteousness wrought by the Holy Spirit, one which far exceeds the crediting of righteousness offered before the ministry of Christ.

It is tantamount to scriptural abuse to try to twist the scriptures to support a tradition. You are sharp enough to understand the contradiction you present.. Paul asked AFTER the cross, "did you receive the Spirit because of the works of the Law, or by BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD?" (Gal 3:1-2)

Why doesn't it read "...or when you asked?" Why didn't Paul say that Abraham was justified by asking for forgiveness? Why is it that in Acts 10, Peter preached NOT ONE WORD about asking to be saved. And it says "While he wad still speaking" the Holy Spirit came upon them.

If Romans 10:9-13 supports "asking" for Christ, why does verse 20 say that God was made manifest to those who DID NOT ask for Him ?

Why does Isaiah 59:1-2 say "your sins have separated you from Him, so He does not hear you." ------>> ???

Ok, that's fight. Scripture isn't consistent. I get it. It says in one place the sky is never grey, but in another place it says the sky is grey all the time, right?

On one hand, we read that eternal life is to those who believe the gospel, but in another place we learn to disregard the gospel and simply pray a prayer. Good stuff

In one part we read that faith is the substance of things hoped for. But a different verse teaches us to say a prayer. Awesome job.

We can just take a bunch of verses out of context, then try to compile a consistent message from 25 conflicted thoughts.

Good job.

When you're willing to look at context, and stop looking to press your tradition onto scripture, you might be taken seriously.

What you're espousing currently is a conflicted heresy. The asking you propose is based on faith in a generic forgiveness, which God never offered to anyone.

The redemption offered is the removal of sins by a death which happened 2,000 years ago. Access to that grace is through faith, which is an inner conviction. an inner reliance. Inner hope.

You are desperately trying to equate inner hope with something you do, which is Antiscriptural

 

[Yeshua1]

So the church is either of the two? That statement should upset most non Calvinists....including Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc.

NEITHER system is the Gospel , but calvinism does a better job in explaining just HOW God uses the good news of the Gospel to save lost sinners!

 

[steaver]

Steaver,
I've not the time to address each thing you wrote. But I will say a couple.

It is painfully obvious that you are starting with a doctrine, then pushing the doctrine onto whatever bible verse you think sounds similar to the doctrine.

To whom? I have studied the scriptures for some sixteen years now and have derived my doctrinal positions from such study. Traditions carry no weight with me in forming personal convictions concerning doctrine. I read the scriptures as is, and I take into consideration the full counsel of God's Word. While I do consider commentary from well studied men, the Spirit and the Word must convince me, not men. So you declaring how I come to my doctrinal positions really matters not to me and probably not to most if any, it's just another opinion, and that's ok, we all have one.

I've already written to you about the misuse and abuse of Romans 10:9-13. It looks as if you simply dismissed it, preferring tradition.

Yes, I found your explanation lacking in persuasion, again, your opinion, and it is not held by many.

Also, Romans 6:23 is speaking about physical death and resurrection. Context, man. C'MON!!!

Also, asking for the Holy Spirit is NOT a "sinner's prayer" for an unbeliever. Jesus was talking about the "living waters" that he spoke about with the woman at the well. John 7:29 says this explicitly.

I am perfectly in the bounds of allowing Scripture interpret Scripture. I laid out John 4 and 7 perfectly. Of course this is my own studied opinion, not all will agree, and that is ok.

Titus 3:5 says we were saved by the washing of regeneration, which is NOT something O.T. believers experienced.

Common ground. I wholeheartedly agree. But now you have stirred up the Calvinist camp who will declare OT believers were given the Holy Spirit regeneration even before Jesus Christ was glorified, in spite of what John says.

It is tantamount to scriptural abuse to try to twist the scriptures to support a tradition. You are sharp enough to understand the contradiction you present.. Paul asked AFTER the cross, "did you receive the Spirit because of the works of the Law, or by BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD?" (Gal 3:1-2)

Why doesn't it read "...or when you asked?" Why didn't Paul say that Abraham was justified by asking for forgiveness? Why is it that in Acts 10, Peter preached NOT ONE WORD about asking to be saved. And it says "While he wad still speaking" the Holy Spirit came upon them.

If Romans 10:9-13 supports "asking" for Christ, why does verse 20 say that God was made manifest to those who DID NOT ask for Him ?

Why does Isaiah 59:1-2 say "your sins have separated you from Him, so He does not hear you." ------>> ???

Ok, that's fight. Scripture isn't consistent. I get it. It says in one place the sky is never grey, but in another place it says the sky is grey all the time, right?

On one hand, we read that eternal life is to those who believe the gospel, but in another place we learn to disregard the gospel and simply pray a prayer. Good stuff

In one part we read that faith is the substance of things hoped for. But a different verse teaches us to say a prayer. Awesome job.

We can just take a bunch of verses out of context, then try to compile a consistent message from 25 conflicted thoughts.

Good job.

I believe you are getting yourself all in a tissy. No one is justified by simply asking. Asking is part of the process God implemented in His Salvation plan. Faith alone in Christ alone justifies.

When you're willing to look at context, and stop looking to press your tradition onto scripture, you might be taken seriously.

I have no desire to be taken seriously by any mortal man. I preach what I believe I have been taught by the Holy Spirit through God's Word. If I am found to be wrong, I will suffer loss at the JSOC, however, I will suffer knowing I did my best to preach correctly. Again, I could care less about tradition, if I did, I would not preach the tithe is not for Christians, and I would not upset my classes when I tell them there is no biblical command to be in church on Sunday morning. Boy that one sure got the old folks speaking out!

Blessings!

 

[JamesL]

To whom? I have studied the scriptures for some sixteen years now and have derived my doctrinal positions from such study. Traditions carry no weight with me in forming personal convictions concerning doctrine.....

Yes, I found your explanation lacking in persuasion, again, your opinion, and it is not held by many

The above two premises are in conflict. If you give no weight to tradition, then what would it matter how many (if any) share my view?

You do know that tradition is simply the teachings of men?

No one is justified by simply asking. Asking is part of the process God implemented in His Salvation plan. Faith alone in Christ alone justifies!

That's illogical and irrational. A process that includes something you do is not "faith alone".

Where does scripture say anything about a "salvation plan" ?? you can't even see that you've embraced nonbiblical philosophy. But it's evident in the one-liners and catch phrases you use

Where do you see a process in Acts 10? For that matter, where do you see those men being told to say a prayer, or doing such?

There are multiple scriptural examples of your teaching not being practiced. Were they preaching a false message?

When did the Philippian jailor ask Jesus to forgive him? Did Paul forget to tell the guy?

If your position were truth, then every scriptural example of evangelism would include a sinner's prayer. But not one of them does.

And you didn't answer Isaiah 59:1-2

 

[JamesL]

Steaver,
I forgot this in my last post. It is not my intention to persuade you. Although, when you mentioned that few hold my position, that says you really aren't looking only at the scriptures. You're giving more weight to what you perceive as consensus.

If 4,000 men teach error, and 6 people teach truth, you'd rather go with the 4,000 because that's the most comfortable


But again, it is not my intention to persuade you into believing like I do. My whole desire is to get you to reevaluate from the scriptures.

See, if your position were true, then "whosoever" saying your heretical prayer would be saved. I would have been saved on one of the 600-800 occasions on which I repeated that empty jargon. I was whosoever, I prayed, and I wasn't saved.

Oh, you think maybe I wasn't sad enough over my sins, or maybe I wasn't sincere enough in a commitment to Christ. Or maybe I hadn't confessed every sin I could think of.

But none of that would matter if your "whosoever says this prayer" heresy were true. If your take on that scripture were correct, it would work every time, whether someone believes the gospel or not.

And why does Paul says in Romans 10:20 the exact OPPOSITE of what you're trying to tell me he meant in verse 13?
I'd really appreciate an answer to that one

 

[steaver]

The above two premises are in conflict. If you give no weight to tradition, then what would it matter how many (if any) share my view?

As much as it matters how many share my view. Your the one who brought the tradition charge into the conversation.

You do know that tradition is simply the teachings of men?

I always wondered what that meant, thank you for clearing that up

That's illogical and irrational. A process that includes something you do is not "faith alone".

Exercising faith is not a work. Saying a prayer is not a work. Maybe in the traditions you follow, but not as defined in the scriptures.

Where does scripture say anything about a "salvation plan" ?? you can't even see that you've embraced nonbiblical philosophy. But it's evident in the one-liners and catch phrases you use

Where does scripture say anything about a "Trinity", or a "Bible". I would wager you use these "catch phrases" quite often.

Where do you see a process in Acts 10? For that matter, where do you see those men being told to say a prayer, or doing such?

There are multiple scriptural examples of your teaching not being practiced. Were they preaching a false message?

When did the Philippian jailor ask Jesus to forgive him? Did Paul forget to tell the guy?

If your position were truth, then every scriptural example of evangelism would include a sinner's prayer. But not one of them does.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

"Then Peter said unto them, do not do anything! Do not repent of your unbelief, do not get baptized to show your repentance is genuine, do not ask for the Holy Ghost as Jesus taught us when He was here with us!"

And you didn't answer Isaiah 59:1-2

And what was the question? Are you suggesting there is a contradiction between these two verses?

2Ch7:14 - "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

What's that LORD? You want Israel to DO something? You want Israel to PRAY and then you will FORGIVE??? Surely you jest LORD!!!!

 

[steaver]

Steaver,

But none of that would matter if your "whosoever says this prayer" heresy were true. If your take on that scripture were correct, it would work every time, whether someone believes the gospel or not.

You may provide my quotes supporting your accusations of my "heresy" as stated here, or repent and apologize for misrepresentation of my pov.

 

[steaver]

David's prayer for the indwelling Spirit to come, the new covenant....

Psalm51:10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

 

[DHK]

I just came home from a mid-week meeting. I met a dear lady with this testimony. She said: "I had been to many evangelical churches between 1977-1980. I heard the gospel. But I rebelled against it. I understood it; I did not want to submit to the authority of Christ.
Then one day in 1980 I was listening to David Mainse on 100 Huntley Street, and he said: "If you pray this prayer after me you can be saved." And so I did. I decided then to give my heart to Jesus. I prayed that sinners prayer and I got saved that day.
She has absolute assurance in her life that that is when she was saved.
She started attending the Pentecostal church and was involved there for a couple of years, became a member of an Independent Baptist Church for a while, and now is a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance church, and has been for a number of years. She is a very missionary-minded person, and also one who is very confident of her salvation.

 

[JamesL]

David's prayer for the indwelling Spirit to come, the new covenant....

Psalm51:10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

What on earth does that have to do with conversion? He was already a believer well before he prayed that.

And considering that, are we to think he slipped in and out of justification with every misdeed? Or did he have a relational forgiveness in mind?

 

[JamesL]

I just came home from a mid-week meeting. I met a dear lady with this testimony. She said: "I had been to many evangelical churches between 1977-1980. I heard the gospel. But I rebelled against it. I understood it; I did not want to submit to the authority of Christ.
Then one day in 1980 I was listening to David Mainse on 100 Huntley Street, and he said: "If you pray this prayer after me you can be saved." And so I did. I decided then to give my heart to Jesus. I prayed that sinners prayer and I got saved that day.
She has absolute assurance in her life that that is when she was saved.
She started attending the Pentecostal church and was involved there for a couple of years, became a member of an Independent Baptist Church for a while, and now is a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance church, and has been for a number of years. She is a very missionary-minded person, and also one who is very confident of her salvation.

I would treat the testimony as very suspect. Everybody has a testimony, but the question MUST be - is it biblical.

Just this past couple of weeks, I've been talking with two Mormon missionaries. They've told me their testimony of praying to "Heavenly Father" to ask if the Book of Mormon and its teachings are true. And they are VERY confident that they have the truth.

Heck, I even have my own experience, when I was 12 years old, of "praying the prayer" and having a confidence that because of what I had just done, I was saved. But you know what? It wasn't biblical. I know when I first believed upon Christ, at the age of 28.

And where is there any biblical notion of someone "giving their heart to Jesus" ???

He's trying to give US something. But self righteous people are always trying to give Him something

I remember a friend of mine, a Church of Christ member, said "I got baptized and gave my life to Jesus."

I asked him very pointedly - But have you hoped in Him for eternal life? Have you found confidence in His death and His blood to save you? Or are you hoping that because you got baptized...?

I would ask that lady the same thing - Are you hoping that because you said a prayer...?

 

[JamesL]

You may provide my quotes supporting your accusations of my "heresy" as stated here, or repent and apologize for misrepresentation of my pov.

The quotes are in your posts. Go back and read your own words.




You're always deflecting. When are you going to answer. Here's one very pointed question I asked you. How long are you going to ignore it?

And why does Paul says in Romans 10:20 the exact OPPOSITE of what you're trying to tell me he meant in verse 13?
I'd really appreciate an answer to that one

 

[DHK]

I would treat the testimony as very suspect. Everybody has a testimony, but the question MUST be - is it biblical.

Certainly it is biblical. Consider the facts.
1. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
--She had been hearing the Word of God, the Gospel, for three years, but had been rejecting it.
2. Salvation comes by grace through faith: sola gratia, sola fide. And the object of faith must be Christ. sola Christos. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is the teaching of Eph.2:8,9.
3. That salvation described in that passage is to be received as a gift. It is the gift of eternal life mentioned in Romans 6:23; John 5:24; John 10:27-29. It is the gift of God, and it must be received by faith.
We are justified by faith and faith alone.

The prayer is a vehicle to express that faith. I would dare say that most people have been saved because they have prayed, and asked Christ to save them.
Scriptural proof:
Remember that when Luke records events he doesn't record every detail.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..."
Inferred then, is that he obeyed Paul, prayed, and believed, and thus was saved. They then went to his household where the gospel was preached again, and the rest of his household consequently believed. Prayer is a vehicle for the expression of one's faith.
--"Lord remember me when you enter into thy kingdom." That is a prayer.
The Ethiopian eunuch no doubt prayed. Philip said: "If thou believest, thou mayest." He then made a confession that Christ was Lord. Somewhere along the line something happened. Developing a personal relationship with Christ is a two-way street. It involves faith, the reception of salvation as a free gift from God. That had to happen before Philip would baptize the eunuch.
When I got saved, it wasn't the prayer that saved, but the faith expressed through the prayer that I put in Christ. In evangelism we always stress that. But the person must ask, must receive the gift.
"For as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name."

Just this past couple of weeks, I've been talking with two Mormon missionaries. They've told me their testimony of praying to "Heavenly Father" to ask if the Book of Mormon and its teachings are true. And they are VERY confident that they have the truth.

You know they don't have the truth. They believe the Book of Mormon above and beyond the Bible, a book full of heresies. Their prayers are to devils and not to God.

Heck, I even have my own experience, when I was 12 years old, of "praying the prayer" and having a confidence that because of what I had just done, I was saved. But you know what? It wasn't biblical. I know when I first believed upon Christ, at the age of 28.

We all have our own testimony of how and when we were saved. You cannot deny one person's testimony of salvation based on your own experience. This person rejected the gospel for three years, then the Holy Spirit convicted here while watching a Charismatic TV show, and she prayed a prayer and was saved. If your theology doesn't fit, then so be it. You can't deny a person's salvation just because it doesn't fit into your paradigm.

And where is there any biblical notion of someone "giving their heart to Jesus" ???

Normally it is both from John 1:12 and from:
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

He's trying to give US something. But self righteous people are always trying to give Him something

A person who comes to Christ comes as a sinner, a criminal before God with nothing to offer. Christ paid the penalty for his sins. He has nothing to give. He simply receives by faith the gift of salvation on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and that wonderful grace that he has bestowed upon us.
God doesn't "try" to do anything. He either does or does not. He wouldn't be God if he had to "try." That is bunk. He gives us salvation based on the work of Christ.

I remember a friend of mine, a Church of Christ member, said "I got baptized and gave my life to Jesus."

I asked him very pointedly - But have you hoped in Him for eternal life? Have you found confidence in His death and His blood to save you? Or are you hoping that because you got baptized...?

I would ask that lady the same thing - Are you hoping that because you said a prayer...?

There is works salvation which is no salvation at all--COC.
A prayer doesn't save. A prayer is a vehicle through which faith is expressed. If faith is not expressed then no one is saved. Faith is a prerequisite to salvation.

[FONT=&quot]Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:[/FONT]

 

[JamesL]

Certainly it is biblical. Consider the facts.
1. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
--She had been hearing the Word of God, the Gospel, for three years, but had been rejecting it. what gospel? A gospel of sinner's prayers?
2. Salvation comes by grace through faith: sola gratia, sola fide. And the object of faith must be Christ. sola Christos. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is the teaching of Eph.2:8,9.
3. That salvation described in that passage is to be received as a gift. It is the gift of eternal life mentioned in Romans 6:23 - this is out of context; John 5:24; John 10:27-29. It is the gift of God, and it must be received by faith.
We are justified by faith and faith alone.

other than your out-of-context reference to Romans 6:23, you're pretty well on track with the above

The prayer is a vehicle to express that faith. I would dare say that most people have been saved because they have prayed, and asked Christ to save them.

The bolded parts are in total conflict. You had just said that we're justified BY FAITH, AND FAITH ALONE.

An "expression" of faith would be AFTER faith. So, if one is justified already by faith, then it's done before the prayer.

Or would you want to revise what you wrote previously and say we're justified by faith AND expression of that faith?

Scriptural proof:
Remember that when Luke records events he doesn't record every detail.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..."
Inferred then, is that he obeyed Paul, prayed, and believed, and thus was saved. They then went to his household where the gospel was preached again, and the rest of his household consequently believed. Prayer is a vehicle for the expression of one's faith.
--"Lord remember me when you enter into thy kingdom." That is a prayer.
The Ethiopian eunuch no doubt prayed. Philip said: "If thou believest, thou mayest." He then made a confession that Christ was Lord. Somewhere along the line something happened. Developing a personal relationship with Christ is a two-way street. It involves faith, the reception of salvation as a free gift from God. That had to happen before Philip would baptize the eunuch.

Sorry, sir. Inference is NOT proof. And I shudder to think that God would leave a matter of such gravity to inference.

When I got saved, it wasn't the prayer that saved

But you just said that most people are saved BECAUSE they prayed.

You can't have it both ways, man. The prayer saves or it doesn't. The prayer is EITHER the reason we are saved, or it is merely an expression of the faith by which one is justified.


In evangelism we always stress that. But the person must ask, must receive the gift.
"For as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name."[/quote]
Where does John 1:12 says anything about asking?

It would be nice if traditions weren't pushed onto the text. Oh, that's right. You see "inference"

But inference? really?

You know they (Mormons) don't have the truth. They believe the Book of Mormon above and beyond the Bible, a book full of heresies. Their prayers are to devils and not to God.

ok. But they prayed a prayer.

We all have our own testimony of how and when we were saved. You cannot deny one person's testimony of salvation based on your own experience.

I'm not discounting her testimony based on my experience. I'm discounting her testimony because I see no biblical basis for it.

Same with my own experience. There is no biblical basis for what I experienced as a 6 year old, a 12 year old, or any of the other 600-800 times I prayed that meaningless prayer.

I don't understand why it's hard for you and Steaver to understand that I'm discounting MY OWN experience, because it simply wasn't biblical. I mention my own experience to point out that we can't trust ANYONE'S experience if it's not biblical

I had not hoped in Christ for eternal life. It's that simple. I said a prayer hundreds of times, but had not hoped in Christ. Do you comprehend that?

This person rejected the gospel for three years, then the Holy Spirit convicted here while watching a Charismatic TV show, and she prayed a prayer and was saved.

That's not biblical. Plain and simple

If your theology doesn't fit, then so be it. You can't deny a person's salvation just because it doesn't fit into your paradigm.

It doesn't have to fit my paradigm. It only has to fit scripture- not inference

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

Wrong confession, wrong salvation, wrong context. You probably love verse 13 "Whosoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"

Maybe you can answer what Steaver is trying to ignore. Why did Paul write in Romans 10:20 the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're trying to tell me he meant in verses 9-13?

God was made manifest to those who DID NOT ask for Him. Wanna turn it into inference?

A person who comes to Christ comes as a sinner, a criminal before God with nothing to offer. Christ paid the penalty for his sins. He has nothing to give. He simply receives by faith the gift of salvation on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and that wonderful grace that he has bestowed upon us.

The crux of the matter is - HOW does he receive it? BY faith, or by asking?

Faith is the substance of thing HOPED for. Faith and prayer are not synonyms. If prayer EXRESSES faith, then faith comes first.

God doesn't "try" to do anything. He either does or does not. He wouldn't be God if he had to "try." That is bunk. He gives us salvation based on the work of Christ.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have repeatedly INFERRED that God is trying to give us a gift, and that the onus is upon us to accept it.

He gives us the gift only if we're willing to do some work of righteousness to "receive" it, right?

There is works salvation which is no salvation at all--COC.
A prayer doesn't save. A prayer is a vehicle through which faith is expressed. If faith is not expressed then no one is saved. Faith is a prerequisite to salvation.

Scripture EXPLICITLY says baptism saves, that he who believes AND is baptized will be saved, etc etc etc

There is more explicit wording to support baptismal regeneration than there is to support petition regeneration. So why do you dismiss clearer wording in favor of inference ????

Why do you relegate baptism to being a work, and not prayer?

You, plain and simply, are not consistent