What is the difference?

[Van]

1) We are comparing two Greek words, one translated believe, and one translated receive. Two different words.

In Hebrews 12:6 it says God receives, repeat, received, not believes, repeat, not believes. Thus the meaning of the word is to receive, not believe.

Therefore the passage has a lot to do with the meaning of receiving the gospel. When we receive the gospel we take it and make it our own. And we do this, John 1:12-13 before we are given the right to become children of God, i.e. before we are born again, regenerated, made a new creation.

Next, I brought up Mark 4:20 because it has the word "receive" in it. Your premise was "accept" (same Greek word that is translated in the KJV as receive) was not in the bible. You were wrong and yet have not acknowledge your mistake.

Next, LOL, you cite Mark 4:10 which teaches unregenerates if they hear the gospel, not cloaked in an arcane parable, could hear, understand and repent and be forgiven. The reason for the prevention is to the control the timing. Later that parable is explained to all. Thus God's purpose, according to the time of His choosing, was being fulfilled and is completely consistent with God allowing men to choose between life and death, just as scripture says.

Your distinction between belief, and receiving the gospel is without merit. Two different words, both inspired. We are to take the gospel and make it our own, we are to believe from our heart. We are not to reject.

 

[agedman]

1) We are comparing two Greek words, one translated believe, and one translated receive. Two different words.

In Hebrews 12:6 it says God receives, repeat, received, not believes, repeat, not believes. Thus the meaning of the word is to receive, not believe.

Van, did you miss the bold "my son" of Hebrews 12:6+ that I posted. It is stating that believers will undergo a certain discipline as a son. It has nothing to do with heathen ability to receive, accept, believe or any such.

The passage (again bold part) has everything to do with GOD receiving. In THAT context it is how it should be viewed, and not slathered all over the plate of Scriptures attempting to make it applicable to the heathen, as you did below.

Therefore the passage has a lot to do with the meaning of receiving the gospel. When we receive the gospel we take it and make it our own. And we do this, John 1:12-13 before we are given the right to become children of God, i.e. before we are born again, regenerated, made a new creation.

"We take it" (we) "make it our own" "we do this"

All the human work before becoming a believer!!!!! Not!

Salvation is ALL of God - not one bit ours but to be thankful.

It is totally - God's unmerited favor.

Next, I brought up Mark 4:20 because it has the word "receive" in it. Your premise was "accept" (same Greek word that is translated in the KJV as receive) was not in the bible. You were wrong and yet have not acknowledge your mistake.

Van, I don't remember making such a claim. It would be unacceptable for me to make such a statement!!!

Would you kindly point me to the post were I made that statement that I make an attempt to edit.

Next, LOL, you cite Mark 4:10 which teaches unregenerates if they hear the gospel, not cloaked in an arcane parable, could hear, understand and repent and be forgiven. The reason for the prevention is to the control the timing. Later that parable is explained to all. Thus God's purpose, according to the time of His choosing, was being fulfilled and is completely consistent with God allowing men to choose between life and death, just as scripture says.

First, would you please locate the Scriptures were Jesus reviewed the parable and explained it to all - and not just privately to the followers and disciples.

Second - and more to the point, is it was "according to the time of His choosing."

Does that not support the very essence of election - "according to the time of His choosing."

Seems to me you just proved the view I stated as correct.

It is up to God to choose - not man.

But others would reverse that and state man has free choice / will to make the decision in their own timing.

Just don't see support of that view as totally consistent with Scriptures.

Your distinction between belief, and receiving the gospel is without merit. Two different words, both inspired. We are to take the gospel and make it our own, we are to believe from our heart. We are not to reject.

Again the use of "we" as if that has any authority over God's will.

Grace - God's unmerited favor.

Either it is "unmerited favor" that I receive a jury summons, or I (or someone else) have somehow schemed the political machine and the vast number of computers they use.

For one to receive God's unmerited favor is without ANY work or effort of humankind - except the declaration of God's word - which brings faith.

Now, I know some are going to use the letter and state that someone has to actually pick it up, open it and read it for it to be "received." Such is the frailty of using human illustrations.

However, on a typical jury summons in this state - there isn't any place to mark "I didn't get it" as an excuse or defense for not showing up.

God is not benign, set upon the throne of heaven, wringing spiritual hands in anxiety that perhaps along the way of life a few good men might just happen to "accept" the shed blood of His only begotten Son.

Such a picture is exactly that painted by some who do desire to have some human involvement in the Salvation.

 

[Van]

Good golly, the word is received and it means received, just as it is used in Hebrews 12:6 for God receiving someone. I am not the one dancing around to every topic but the one under discussion, the meaning of the Greek word translated accept or receive or welcome. The same word is applicable to those hearing the gospel in Mark 4:20. It means to take and make our own.

Again you make unbiblical assertions. Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:2. God credits our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24.

Salvation is all of God, He provides the gospel in which we trust, He either accepts or rejects our response; if He accepts, He puts us spiritually in Christ and seals us in Christ with the Holy Spirit. To deny any part of that is to deny scripture.

Agedman, the parable and the explanation is found in scripture, and every word of it is inspired by God. Jesus told us to make disciples and teach them all He had commanded, which includes this parable.

My view is God chooses believers individually during their lifetime. Please say you actually understand my position. It is not corporate salvation, it is individual salvation based on individual election during our lifetime through faith in the truth.

I have provided the scriptures that show we must believe, accept, receive and not reject the gospel. John 3:16, Mark 4:20, and so forth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses us through faith in the truth. Thus we had faith before being chosen. Calvinism has it the other way around. But the verse does not say God chose us before we had faith. Not how it reads.

 

[Van]

Often the word "accept" is used: Accept the Lord as your savior. Accept Christ into your life. ...

However, the problem is this word is NOT Scriptural.

The Greek word translated receive, accept, welcome is scriptural, as shown in Mark 4:20. The assertion that it is not, is a mistaken view.

Strong's G3858 - paradechomai

1) to receive, take up, take upon one's self

2) to admit i.e. not to reject, to accept, receive

a) of a son: to acknowledge as one's own

 

[Van]

Give it a rest.

You made a specific accusation that Calvinists do not believe the Bible. The Gospel is contained in the Bible. If a person does not believe the Gospel they cannot be saved. Either stand by your accusation or retract it.

You have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to put words in my mouth. Listen, Sir, I told you what I meant. You are simply trying to disparage me, which demonstrates you have nothing to support your views. I provided several specific examples where Calvinists do not believe the bible.

1) God desires all men to be saved. Do you believe that?

2) Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Do you believe that?

3) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Do you believe that?

4) God sets before us the choice of life or death? Do you believe that?

5) God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth? Do you believe that?

6) Men entering heaven were blocked by mistaken doctrine. Do you believe that?

I could go on and on with specific verses which Calvinism must nullify to foist their man-made doctrine into the text.

You Sir, have nothing but an effort to disparage. Give it a rest.

 

[Herald]

You have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to put words in my mouth. Listen, Sir, I told you what I meant. You are simply trying to disparage me, which demonstrates you have nothing to support your views. I provided several specific examples where Calvinists do not believe the bible.

1) God desires all men to be saved. Do you believe that?

2) Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Do you believe that?

3) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Do you believe that?

4) God sets before us the choice of life or death? Do you believe that?

5) God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth? Do you believe that?

6) Men entering heaven were blocked by mistaken doctrine. Do you believe that?

I could go on and on with specific verses which Calvinism must nullify to foist their man-made doctrine into the text.

You Sir, have nothing but an effort to disparage. Give it a rest.

There is a difference between disagreeing with you on what the Bible teaches and not believing the Bible. Once you get your knickers out of the twist you have put them in think about that one for a while.

 

[agedman]

You have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to put words in my mouth. Listen, Sir, I told you what I meant. You are simply trying to disparage me, which demonstrates you have nothing to support your views. I provided several specific examples where Calvinists do not believe the bible.

Van, I understand that sometimes we get exasperated when in disagreement with each other.

But that is a long way from "Calvinists do not believe the bible."

That just isn't the truth. We all may have a perspective from which we approach various Scriptures, but we all do have as a foundation that the Bible is the Word of God and accurate for faith and practice.


I would like to respond to the series of questions, that on the surface would seem to hold one to either, Yes - and therefore adopting your view, or No, and seemingly to violate some Scripture you have in mind.

BUT the questions you asked are but the beginning of discerning what is truthful.

I have included just a few others that you might want to attend, also which must be considered in the answer to your question.

Like you, the questions are not exhaustive, but enough to tease a more clear and balanced answer.

1) God desires all men to be saved. Do you believe that?

God is BOTH a God of love and justice, of mercy and truth.

Do you think God would send heathen to hell who have never heard the gospel?

Do you think that the desires of God can be unmet?

2) Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Do you believe that?

Is it not all who believe for whom Christ laid down his life?

Did in fact Christ ransom all?

Did He lay down His life for heathen going to hell?

3) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Do you believe that?

Is the whole world saved?

If not, was the propitiation inadequate?

To whom would the propitiation be inadequate?

Why if Christ died for the whole world would the world still grown in travail under it's present condemnation?

4) God sets before us the choice of life or death? Do you believe that?

Do you believe that a person without Christ is condemned already?

Do you believe that Christ will say to many, "I never knew you?"

5) God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth? Do you believe that?

Do you consider that human faith is adequate to get God's attention?

Do you accept that God does the choosing and it is not of any effort, motivation, or human system that motivates that choice?

6) Men entering heaven were blocked by mistaken doctrine. Do you believe that?

NOPE - already answered earlier in the thread. The tradition of temple sacrifice and teaching were not discredited by Christ, but the living of hypocritical lives was. It was THAT in which the Lord was condemning by demonstrating that the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees had to be exceeded.

If God wants someone saved, no human kind will block, thwart, or cause such to not happen.

I could go on and on with specific verses which Calvinism must nullify to foist their man-made doctrine into the text.

You Sir, have nothing but an effort to disparage. Give it a rest.

Van, what does it show if a person can answer all your questions in the positive without obligation to the rest of the Scriptures?

It would show that person as unlearned in the character and nature of God, Christ Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

For instance: The Scriptures state in Romans 10,

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

​

Does that mean that EVERYONE that hears will have faith? NO!!!! read on to see the example of Israel.

Paul directs a few pointed questions with their answers.

18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you.”

20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,
“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”

21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
​

So, here is a people, called by God's name, given the Word of God, who carried the word to "all the earth" and what of their human faith? Was it ever appointed to righteousness? Not according to this passage.

Righteous faith is given by God to ears that hear and eyes that see. To those who can hear the Word and can See the word. NOT with human ears and eyes, but the ears and eyes of the very core of the soul. To the well prepared dirt.

To such as are like the young man who cried out to Christ, "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief." Such a declaration is the automatic response of the believer.

 

[Van]

There is a difference between disagreeing with you on what the Bible teaches and not believing the Bible. Once you get your knickers out of the twist you have put them in think about that one for a while.

I told you what I meant, no need for you to substitute a different meaning. I did not say Calvinists do not believe anything in the Bible, I provides specifics from the bible that Calvinism denies.

I did not see where you answered any of my questions. Shall I assume you do not believe any of them and therefore do not believe the Bible. No, lets wait till you answer my questions as I answered yours. Unless that is another verse you deny.

 

[Van]

The subject is receiving, accepting, welcoming the gospel

Van, I understand that sometimes we get exasperated when in disagreement with each other.

But that is a long way from "Calvinists do not believe the bible."

That just isn't the truth.

I provided the verses. If you violate the law on one point, how much of the Law have you violated?

We all may have a perspective from which we approach various Scriptures, but we all do have as a foundation that the Bible is the Word of God and accurate for faith and practice.

So to nullify a verse because it does not fit with Calvinism would be wrong? God desires all men to be saved. Is it wrong to claim God does not really desire all men to be saved?

I have included just a few others that you might want to attend, also which must be considered in the answer to your question.

Like you, the questions are not exhaustive, but enough to tease a more clear and balanced answer.

No problem, looking a verses in isolation rather than in the context of all the Bible says on the topic is unsound.

God is BOTH a God of love and justice, of mercy and truth.

Yes, all true.

Do you think God would send heathen to hell who have never heard the gospel?

All men are condemned already because of unbelief, John 3:18. So yes, God does not say the opportunity for mercy will be provided to all, only justice.

Do you think that the desires of God can be unmet?

Great question. If God desires all men to be saved, and all men are not saved, then were God's desires unmet? No. God has revealed His redemption plan, which provides the opportunity for salvation to all who hear and understand the gospel. So if someone rejects the gospel, or does not hear the gospel, that is still consistent with God's revealed desire that all men come to the know of the truth. His desire is not to compel some men, the Calvinist view, to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Is it not all who believe for whom Christ laid down his life?

No, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, including the false teacher who did not believe.

Did in fact Christ ransom all?

Yes. But the ransom is like an oil lease, it gives the right to extract the oil, or leave it in the ground. So everyone was bought, but not everyone is extracted, God extracts from the realm of darkness those whose faith He credits as righteousness.

Did He lay down His life for heathen going to hell?

Yes, He laid down His life for all, including those who do not receive the reconciliation.

Is the whole world saved?

No, few are those who find the narrow way.

If not, was the propitiation inadequate?

No the means of salvation is adequate for the whole world, but a person must receive the reconciliation.

To whom would the propitiation be inadequate?

No one, it is adequate for the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

Why if Christ died for the whole world would the world still grown in travail under it's present condemnation?

Yes, providing the opportunity for salvation does not equate with receiving salvation. Just whoever believes according to God's assessment.

Do you believe that a person without Christ is condemned already?

Yes, John 3:18

Do you believe that Christ will say to many, "I never knew you?"

Yes, Matthew 7:21-23

Do you consider that human faith is adequate to get God's attention?

Yes, our turning from the world and to God, and putting our faith in Christ rather than ourselves is what gets God's attention.

Do you accept that God does the choosing and it is not of any effort, motivation, or human system that motivates that choice?

The choice depends on God and not on the man that wills to be saved, Romans 9:16. God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. And it is God who determines whether or not to credit that faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24.

NOPE - already answered earlier in the thread. The tradition of temple sacrifice and teaching were not discredited by Christ, but the living of hypocritical lives was. It was THAT in which the Lord was condemning by demonstrating that the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees had to be exceeded.

Still avoiding Matthew 23:13 which says men were entering heaven, then we blocked. You can say it does not mean what it says till the cows come home, this verse still presents the inspired truth, Total Spiritual Inability and Irresistible Grace are unbiblical.

If God wants someone saved, no human kind will block, thwart, or cause such to not happen.

If God does not compel, but allows people to choose to trust in Christ, then rejection of the gospel is both consistent with God's desires, and God's word. John 5:40.

Van, what does it show if a person can answer all your questions in the positive without obligation to the rest of the Scriptures?

The idea is to stick with all scripture, not just those selected verses that are so vague you can pour Calvinism in.

It would show that person as unlearned in the character and nature of God, Christ Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Spot on. Are you ears burning?

For instance: The Scriptures state in Romans 10,

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

​

Does that mean that EVERYONE that hears will have faith? NO!!!! read on to see the example of Israel.

No one said everyone who hears, understands, the first soil, and no one said everyone who hears and understands, accept and does not reject the gospel.

o, here is a people, called by God's name, given the Word of God, who carried the word to "all the earth" and what of their human faith? Was it ever appointed to righteousness? Not according to this passage.

That is right, they were seeking God through the works of the Law, not through faith in Christ, Romans 9:30-33.

Righteous faith is given by God to ears that hear and eyes that see. To those who can hear the Word and can See the word. NOT with human ears and eyes, but the ears and eyes of the very core of the soul. To the well prepared dirt.

Yes, it takes well prepared dirt, but no irresistible grace. If their hearts have not been hardened, and the gospel message is not encoded in a parable, the lost can hear, understand, repent and be forgiven.

 

[Herald]

I told you what I meant, no need for you to substitute a different meaning. I did not say Calvinists do not believe anything in the Bible...

You said:

Calvinists do not believe the Bible.

You used the definite article "the", ergo you said Calvinists do not believe the totality of the Bible. That is what "Calvinists do not believe the Bible" means. If you worded yourself poorly than at least say it.

 

[Van]

You said:

You used the definite article "the", ergo you said Calvinists do not believe the totality of the Bible. That is what "Calvinists do not believe the Bible" means. If you worded yourself poorly than at least say it.

I am done with you, Goodbye. I told you what I meant, and you claim I meant something else. Nothing more needs to be said.

Folks can you break one point of the Law and be charged with breaking the whole law. Can scripture be broken? To deny any part of scripture is to deny scripture. To deny any part of the scripture is to deny the scripture. To deny any part of the Bible is to deny the Bible. I expressed myself with specific examples.

Herald's effort is to change the subject from the mistaken and unbiblical doctrines of Calvinism to my behavior. It is a ploy used by all those pushing the mistaken doctrine. Did Herald answer my questions? Nope.

Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.

 

[Herald]

I am done with you, Goodbye. I told you what I meant, and you claim I meant something else. Nothing more needs to be said.

Folks can you break one point of the Law and be charged with breaking the whole law. Can scripture be broken? To deny any part of scripture is to deny scripture. To deny any part of the scripture is to deny the scripture. To deny any part of the Bible is to deny the Bible. I expressed myself with specific examples.

Herald's effort is to change the subject from the mistaken and unbiblical doctrines of Calvinism to my behavior. It is a ploy used by all those pushing the mistaken doctrine. Did Herald answer my questions? Nope.

Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.

You need to grow up and take responsibility for your words and actions. I purposely kept my interaction with you on one thing, which you never answered. It is painful to to admit a mistake; a pain I have had to endure many times during my imperfect Christian journey. You seem incapable of doing so. You are so steeped in your hatred for Calvinism that everything you do on this board is viewed through that lens. You certainly are not the only one. There are others.

 

[Van]

You need to grow up and take responsibility for your words and actions. I purposely kept my interaction with you on one thing, which you never answered. It is painful to to admit a mistake; a pain I have had to endure many times during my imperfect Christian journey. You seem incapable of doing so. You are so steeped in your hatred for Calvinism that everything you do on this board is viewed through that lens. You certainly are not the only one. There are others.

More personal attack, more fiction, more malice to any opponent of Calvinism. The topic is what is the difference between believing and accepting the gospel. Calvinism denies we accept it, because they mistakenly claim our faith is instilled. But Mark 4:20 says we accept it, receive it, welcome it and make it our own.

1) Does God desire all men to be saved? Calvinism denies this scripture, therefore they deny scripture.

2) Did Jesus lay down His life as a ransom for all? Calvinism denies this part of the Bible, therefore they deny the Bible.

3) Can Scripture be broken, taking this part and leaving that part? Calvinism denies verse after verse, slicing and dicing scripture, making by the tradition of men scripture to no effect.

 

[John I Morris]

For sure...

Yes, accept and believe are different words at their meaning, but in reality they both can and more often than not do mean the same thing in regard to ones accepting/asking Christ into ones heart, which is what we do when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him into our heart, accept Him as our Savior adn Lord.
At least that in my own view of it. Either word can be used without offending me or lessening the impact of what one just did in regard to salvation.
:jesus:

 

[Van]

Yes, accept and believe are different words at their meaning, but in reality they both can and more often than not do mean the same thing in regard to ones accepting/asking Christ into ones heart, which is what we do when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him into our heart, accept Him as our Savior adn Lord.
At least that in my own view of it. Either word can be used without offending me or lessening the impact of what one just did in regard to salvation.
:jesus:

Spot on, Sir, Spot on.

 

[Herald]

More personal attack, more fiction, more malice to any opponent of Calvinism.

No one is personally attacking you. You are, however, being held accountable for your words. You want to dodge your own words by asking me questions, so as to put me on the defensive and deflect attention from yourself. I do not think I will give you permission to do that. Not today. You said:

Calvinists do not believe the Bible

They are your words. They make perfect sense to me. They make perfect sense to you too. All you have to do is say "I misspoke" and then this whole conversation will be over. But you do not know what it means to take personal responsibility for something, do you?

 

[Winman]

No one is personally attacking you. You are, however, being held accountable for your words. You want to dodge your own words by asking me questions, so as to put me on the defensive and deflect attention from yourself. I do not think I will give you permission to do that. Not today. You said:



They are your words. They make perfect sense to me. They make perfect sense to you too. All you have to do is say "I misspoke" and then this whole conversation will be over. But you do not know what it means to take personal responsibility for something, do you?

I would say Calvinists do not believe the Bible and I would not take it back or apologize, because it is the truth. I could show many scriptures that Calvinists do not believe, such as John 20:31 that says a person must believe to have life.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Calvinists do not believe this verse, Calvinists believe that life or regeneration precedes faith, while this verse easily teaches that faith precedes having life or regeneration. Luke2427 was even honest enough to admit that is what this verse "appears" to say about a year ago.

I could show at least half a dozen verses that all say you must first believe before you are made alive, and you do not believe any of them.

Jhn 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.

Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture. Calvinism teaches that whosoever has life shall believe, the scriptures teach that whosoever believes shall not perish but HAVE life.

Calvinists do not believe MANY verses in the scriptures. That is FACT.

 

[agedman]

Yes, accept and believe are different words at their meaning, but in reality they both can and more often than not do mean the same thing in regard to ones accepting/asking Christ into ones heart, which is what we do when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him into our heart, accept Him as our Savior adn Lord.
At least that in my own view of it. Either word can be used without offending me or lessening the impact of what one just did in regard to salvation.
:jesus:

I do not necessarily disagree except in the area of human involvement.

If one has already believed, why then do they also have to "accept Jesus into their heart?"

In general terms, is not the typical use of the word "accept" used to entice people into thinking they can mentally acquire and therefore are heavenly secure?

Does not the term "believe" engage a far different mechanism of rational thought in which the person who is called upon to believe, must come to terms with what is actually the heart's desire? That is, the rational is checking out what the heart desires irregardless of the mindset.

"Almost persuaded" is just as unsaved as the "persuaded" unless that persuasion is secured upon a radically changed belief system than what is natural in humankind. Such a belief system change can only be done by Christ.

Unfortunately the word accept became the code word (in my opinion) with the rise of neo-evangelical and ecumenical camps that put forth that there is something humans must do, say, pray, ... in order for the salvation to be complete. Sometimes this thinking evolved to the point that it is referred to as "easy believe-ism." It is also a part of why some consider that they can "unaccept" what they once accepted.

This is highly unfortunate, and has mislead far too many. The statement, "receive him into our hearts" in itself isn't the problem, it is the way such has been portrayed since the 1950's.

 

[Winman]

I do not necessarily disagree except in the area of human involvement.

If one has already believed, why then do they also have to "accept Jesus into their heart?"

It is not enough to simply believe Jesus exists. You must commit yourself to him, you must place yourself in his hands and trust him to save you.

In general terms, is not the typical use of the word "accept" used to entice people into thinking they can mentally acquire and therefore are heavenly secure?

Correct, as when Jesus said he is knocking at the door, if any man hear his voice and open to him, he will come in and sup with them.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

It is not enough to simply believe Jesus is the Son of God, the devils believe and tremble. You must open the door of your heart and receive him, you must invite him in to be saved.

Does not the term "believe" engage a far different mechanism of rational thought in which the person who is called upon to believe, must come to terms with what is actually the heart's desire? That is, the rational is checking out what the heart desires irregardless of the mindset.

Believe means to trust, to rely upon, to depend upon.

It is like the story of a tight-rope walker with a wheel barrow. He asks a spectator, do you believe I could walk you across this tight-rope without falling? The spectator says, Yes. The tight-rope walker then tells the spectator to get in the wheelbarrow. The spectator says NO. The tight-rope walker says, Then you really do not believe me.

"Almost persuaded" is just as unsaved as the "persuaded" unless that persuasion is secured upon a radically changed belief system than what is natural in humankind. Such a belief system change can only be done by Christ.

Almost persuaded is LOST. Persuaded will trust and depend on Jesus and be saved.

Unfortunately the word accept became the code word (in my opinion) with the rise of neo-evangelical and ecumenical camps that put forth that there is something humans must do, say, pray, ... in order for the salvation to be complete. Sometimes this thinking evolved to the point that it is referred to as "easy believe-ism." It is also a part of why some consider that they can "unaccept" what they once accepted.

This is highly unfortunate, and has mislead far too many. The statement, "receive him into our hearts" in itself isn't the problem, it is the way such has been portrayed since the 1950's.

Accept is a perfectly acceptable term. You must receive or accept Jesus as your Saviour to be saved.

A perfect example of saving faith is when Jesus trusted his spirit into his Father's hand and gave up the ghost.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Jesus as a man believed that God the Father would raise him from the dead if he allowed himself to be crucified for our sins. Jesus trusted his very soul into his Father's hands. This is what believing in the Bible means.

It is one thing to believe an airliner can fly all the way over the Atlantic Ocean without crashing, it is altogether different to actually board the plane and trust it to get you to London safely. Believing on Jesus means trusting your soul into his hands and depending completely on him to save you. It is not something you have to work.

 

[agedman]

I would say Calvinists do not believe the Bible and I would not take it back or apologize, because it is the truth. I could show many scriptures that Calvinists do not believe, such as John 20:31 that says a person must believe to have life.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Calvinists do not believe this verse, Calvinists believe that life or regeneration precedes faith, while this verse easily teaches that faith precedes having life or regeneration. Luke2427 was even honest enough to admit that is what this verse "appears" to say about a year ago.

I could show at least half a dozen verses that all say you must first believe before you are made alive, and you do not believe any of them.

Jhn 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.

Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture. Calvinism teaches that whosoever has life shall believe, the scriptures teach that whosoever believes shall not perish but HAVE life.

Calvinists do not believe MANY verses in the scriptures. That is FACT.

Painting with that wide brush, again?

The same could be said of the non-cal's.

But then, it is a matter of perspective.

I don't know any Cal who does not use the entire Bible, without hesitation, eager to establish principle of faith and practice by balancing Scripture with Scripture.

However, I also have seen a number of non-cal's attempt to justify some principle they hold when there is not one Scriptural support - or they attempt to restate Scriptures to mean what in truth they do not.

So, were the same arguments of Whitefield and Wesley, were they not?