What is the one determining factor when an unbeliever comes to faith in Christ?

[webdog]

Press the question.

I'm sure that there is more than one person here who believes in prevenient grace. Anyone who believes in prevenient grace must always come back to themselves as the deciding factor, 'themselves' being the flesh. Yet the poll would not reveal this.

There go I but for...

False. If God has decided those who do not suppress the truth for a lie and come to Him freely will be saved, He is still the deciding factor.

In your model the person who receives a gift on their birthday was the sole reason for the gift being given.

 

[Skandelon]

False. If God has decided those who do not suppress the truth for a lie and come to Him freely will be saved, He is still the deciding factor.

Well stated. :thumbsup:

 

[canadyjd]

It is this type of question that really lacks charity and a sense of honesty on the part of those you disagree with. While that may be how you understand it, why can you not, in charity, give room that it is understood in a different way?

I apologize if I have offended you. That was not my intention.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

The Holy Spirit brings conviction, would that be God intervening or just issuing the call, and man must answer the call.

The work of Holy Spirit is essential and is, imho, God's intervention into man's life.

I agree with you that man must answer the call. I see man's response to God's intervention as the appropriation of salvation by faith.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

If a man was standing in a road and unaware of the oncoming truck and you pushed him out of the way, you would certainly be credited as the the factor that made the difference; would you not?

What if the next week another man standing in the same path is pushed equally hard but he resists your push and thus was struck and killed. Does the second incident negate the first incident? Do you now lose credit for the first push as being "the factor that made the difference?"

If so, why? Why can't the hero be given the full credit for a successful rescue and full blame be put on the one who resists the rescuer's efforts?

But God is able to push the men out of the way each and every time He attempts it.

You have God pushing each person with the same amount of force. God knows how much resistence He will encounter with each person. He knows when to push a little or a lot harder to get the people where He wants them.

Are there some people He doesn't push at all? Does He just let them get run over due to their own decision to be in the road?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

....If God has decided those who do not suppress the truth for a lie and come to Him freely will be saved, He is still the deciding factor....

I disagree.

I believe scripture teaches that all have suppressed the truth for the lie. All are condemned before God.

But even if you don't believe as I do (and I, with all humility, charity, and honesty, affirm that you might hold that view....) if God is responding to what man does in electing people to salvation, then man is the deciding factor in his own salvation.

If, on the other hand, man is responding to what God has done by intervening in his life, then God is the determining factor in salvation.

peace to youraying:

 

[allinall]

False. If God has decided those who do not suppress the truth for a lie and come to Him freely will be saved, He is still the deciding factor.

In your model the person who receives a gift on their birthday was the sole reason for the gift being given.

Press the question...if you dare.

"Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient grace view would shrink from such answers. They see the implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to say, “No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate need for him.” That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?"

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2..._prevenien.php

When we "press the question", it should always ends at God's grace. But can the believer in prevenient grace make that claim? I say no. They say it's all of God, but when the question is pressed, we will see a different result. The one who holds to prevenient grace, meaning that God dispenced an equal amount of grace to everyone (therefore it is from God, they reason), but they also believe that what man does with that grace is the determining factor. So, it's a house of cards in reasoning. The believer in prevenient grace must give God His rightful sovereign place in election, or concede, that he is the deciding factor. There's no middle ground.

Care to try? Here's the starter question.

"Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no?"

peace

Dave

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is prevenient grace

 

[JesusFan]

What is prevenient grace

Not a "classic Arminianist" BUT
belief that God extends to ALL peoples as a direct result of the Cross a type of "comon grace"...

He desires ALL to become saved, knows that man cannot exercise faith in Jesus since we are sinners and unable to come to Christ on our own, so He sends forth sufficient grace to ALL, so anyone can believe in Jesus if they wish to, as it will be an act of their free will, now that God has allowed/enabled them to make a decision for Him now...

 

[webdog]

I disagree.

I believe scripture teaches that all have suppressed the truth for the lie. All are condemned before God.

But even if you don't believe as I do (and I, with all humility, charity, and honesty, affirm that you might hold that view....) if God is responding to what man does in electing people to salvation, then man is the deciding factor in his own salvation.

If, on the other hand, man is responding to what God has done by intervening in his life, then God is the determining factor in salvation.

peace to youraying:

If all have suppressed the truth for a lie...nobody will be saved.

if God is responding to what man does in electing people to salvation, then man is the deciding factor in his own salvation.

Silly. Are you the deciding factor in the entire process of giving and receiving a gift simply by accepting it? Do you thank yourself on your birthday for receiving a gift...or the one giving it? Why would you thank the one giving it if you hold to what you have stated...YOU were the deciding factor, proudly proclaim thanks and praise to yourself whenever you receive a gift

 

[webdog]

Press the question...if you dare.

"Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient grace view would shrink from such answers. They see the implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to say, “No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate need for him.” That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?"

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2..._prevenien.php

When we "press the question", it should always ends at God's grace. But can the believer in prevenient grace make that claim? I say no. They say it's all of God, but when the question is pressed, we will see a different result. The one who holds to prevenient grace, meaning that God dispenced an equal amount of grace to everyone (therefore it is from God, they reason), but they also believe that what man does with that grace is the determining factor. So, it's a house of cards in reasoning. The believer in prevenient grace must give God His rightful sovereign place in election, or concede, that he is the deciding factor. There's no middle ground.

Care to try? Here's the starter question.

"Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no?"

peace

Dave

I'll do as our Lord has done and answer a question with a question Can you know the thoughts of another human being? You wanted to "press the question"...you need to go all the way back, not only to where it is convenient.

Your answers will be contingent on not only knowing what you know, but what the person who rejected Christ knows.

 

[Luke2427]

If a man was standing in a road and unaware of the oncoming truck and you pushed him out of the way, you would certainly be credited as the the factor that made the difference; would you not?

What if the next week another man standing in the same path is pushed equally hard but he resists your push and thus was struck and killed. Does the second incident negate the first incident? Do you now lose credit for the first push as being "the factor that made the difference?"

No. But the problem with your analogy is that you have person A purposing to save both men from the oncoming disaster and failing the second time. If person A represents God then God is failing if he is purposing to save both times.

In another thread you say God purposes to redeem every person. Most accountable persons are NOT redeemed- so God is trying to push a lot of folks out from the path the the truck and failing miserably in your system.

You also have the second man, B2, more depraved [edit] than the first man, B1.

 

[Allan]

Not a "classic Arminianist" BUT
belief that God extends to ALL peoples as a direct result of the Cross a type of "comon grace"...

He desires ALL to become saved, knows that man cannot exercise faith in Jesus since we are sinners and unable to come to Christ on our own, so He sends forth sufficient grace to ALL, so anyone can believe in Jesus if they wish to, as it will be an act of their free will, now that God has allowed/enabled them to make a decision for Him now...

This from "Setting the Record Straight" of the Society of Evangelical Arminians (Classical or Reformed if you will):

Thus Arminianism has more in common with Calvinism than it does with semi-Pelagianism. Yet the insults and semi-Pelagian epithets continue up to the present day. But why is this? The Calvinist's contention with the Arminian is his conception of prevenient grace. Sproul notes:

If prevenient grace always enables the sinner to assent to grace, then Arminius's view is monergistic in this regard. For Arminius prevenient grace seems to be irresistible to the degree that it effectively liberates the sinner from his moral bondage or impotency.

Prior to receiving prevenient grace, man is dead and utterly unable to choose the good. After receiving this grace, the sinner is able to do what he was previously unable to do. In this sense, prevenient grace is monergistic and irresistible. But what Arminius calls the inward vocation or call of God is neither monergistic nor irresistible. . . .

Prevenient grace, then, makes man able to assent to Christ but not necessarily willing. The sinner is now able to will, but he is not yet willing to do so. The ability to will is the result of a monergistic, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit, but the actual willing is the synergistic work of the sinner cooperating with God's prevenient grace. Giving grace is the work of God alone; assenting to it is the work of man, who now has the power to cooperate or not cooperate with it.2

What Sproul finds troubling is how an unregenerate sinner can "will himself" to believe. This is a typical response from an Edwardsian Calvinist. Still, I find his notion of "willing oneself" to believe to be a bit left of center to what the Arminian actually believes. We confess that even the willing to believe is an enablement of God, even if the one thus enabled does not comply with God's Spirit.

The Westminster Larger Catechism asks:

What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?" To which the following answer was provided. "That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation (emphasis added).3

I am assuming that from their perspective the "us" refers to "the elect." And yet it was not the elect only who were under God's wrath. The commentary notes, "Because of God's great love, which led him, even in eternity before the creation of the world, to decree a plan of salvation by means of which his elect would in due time be redeemed and saved from their sin"4 (emphases added).

But when the elect actually repents, having been elected by God from before the creation of the world, how does he or she do so? The commentary answers, "We are to take advantage of this way of escape by complying with God's revealed requirements concerning it, which are outlined in the catechism as including (a) repentance toward God; (b) faith in Jesus Christ; (c) diligent use of appointed outward means"5 (emphasis added).

You mean the elect must actually do something? You mean they must "comply with God's revealed requirements"? This sounds like Arminian teaching! But is that not robbing God of his glory and sovereignty? Is that not man-centered? Is that not a work? Furthermore, how is all of this accomplished? The answer given is the exact same one offered by Arminians: grace.

The commentary states, "God has chosen to appoint these outward means of grace . . . as instruments by which the benefits of Christ's saving work are communicated to us. These means of themselves cannot save us; it is only Christ that can save us; but he makes use of these appointed means. Therefore if we would have Christ and make sure of an interest in him, we must be diligent in our use of the appointed means"6 (emphasis added).

Like I mentioned above: Reformed Arminianism has much more in common with Calvinism than it does with semi-Pelagianism, and Calvinists would know this if they even attempted to invest a little time getting to know the writings of Arminius and the Remonstrants, and noting the agreements in their system with the core or essence of Reformed thought.

We call ourselves Reformed (or Classical) Arminians because we stand in the Reformed tradition. Though we disagree with some of the particulars, we certainly agree with the core elements of the Reformation. Salvation comes sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria (by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone). This is the current state of Reformed Arminianism.

1 R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 140.

2 Ibid., 131-132.

3 Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2002), 431.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 432.

6 Ibid.

 

[allinall]

What is prevenient grace

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/prevenient.html

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/StillSovereign.htm

Under number one.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html

Dave

 

[Skandelon]

No. But the problem with your analogy is that you have person A purposing to save both men from the oncoming disaster and failing the second time.

He only failed if his purpose was to effectually save (not allow resistance); which is not our view and not the subject the analogy was attempting to address. But I should expect you to nit-pick the analogy rather than address the point actually being discussed since that has been you MO as of late

In another thread you say God purposes to redeem every person.

You need to provide the actual quote or a link in order for me to reply to such misapplications of what I believe.

Most accountable persons are NOT redeemed- so God is trying to push a lot of folks out from the path the the truck and failing miserably in your system.

Its not a failure if He has purposed for them to make a free choice and thus resist his appeal. The analogy was meant ONLY to serve the purpose to show that credit is still given to the rescuer in the first scenario even if the victim resists in the second scenario...a point you purposefully overlook.

 

[Skandelon]

I disagree.

I believe scripture teaches that all have suppressed the truth for the lie. All are condemned before God.

What about the child who grows up being discipled in the faith and believing the gospel and though still having sin, live their lives in faith? Did they too "suppress the truth for a lie" and become "defiled in their thinking" as these in Romans 1? If so, explain.

 

[canadyjd]

What about the child who grows up being discipled in the faith and believing the gospel and though still having sin, live their lives in faith? Did they too "suppress the truth for a lie" and become "defiled in their thinking" as these in Romans 1? If so, explain.

The child, at some point, appropriated salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Before that, in spite of their being discipled by good Christian parents all of their lives, they were "defiled in their thinking" and unsaved.

To "suppress the truth for a lie" doesn't mean you have to be as bad/evil as you possibly can. Even with ongoing discipling, the child's spiritual condition is beyond our knowledge. I can't look inside and see if Holy Spirit is indwelling. Before salvation, however, all suppressed the truth of God's revelation and believed a lie, imho.

Ghandi was taught as a young child that he was the re-incarnation of Budda (if I understand it correctly). Though he was taught to do good (according to man's standards), he had "suppressed the truth for a lie" even while he was a yound child attempting to do good.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

If all have suppressed the truth for a lie...nobody will be saved.

All have suppressed the truth for a lie and nobody will be saved....unless God intervenes in their lives.

Silly. Are you the deciding factor in the entire process of giving and receiving a gift simply by accepting it?

If you earn it, is it a gift? If God is responding to what man does in making the decision to elect them to salvation, then the man has earned it, imho.

Your boss responds to your exceptionally good work by giving you a bonus and a promotion. You respond by accepting his offer. Is it a gift or did you earn it?

Your boss, because of the kind intention of His heart and because of His purposes which only He knows, looks upon your horrible work, forgives you of your failures and offers you a bonus and a promotion. You know you didn't earn it. As a matter of fact, you know you deserve to be fired instead. You respond by accepting his offer. Is it a gift or did you earn it?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

The child, at some point, appropriated salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Before that, in spite of their being discipled by good Christian parents all of their lives, they were "defiled in their thinking" and unsaved.

You seem to equate defiled with unsaved, but the scripture says the "BECAME defiled," they were always unsaved. Is there any biblical support for the view that they are born defiled rather than what the scripture actually says, which is that they became defiled only after their rebellion?

To "suppress the truth for a lie" doesn't mean you have to be as bad/evil as you possibly can.

I agree. I never said it did. I argued that they had to clearly see and understand the truth in order to trade it in, but Calvinism insists they can't know God or understand spiritual matters from birth unless first effectually called. Yet, this text says they do know God and they do clearly see and understand his attributes which is the very reason they are without excuse.

I'm just wanting to know how someone suppresses a truth they were born unable to see or hear? How does a man born totally depraved become blind and deaf and hardened to the gospel? If there is never a time in a persons life they are NOT suppressing the truth, then how can their come a time that they do suppress it?

 

[Robert Snow]

You seem to equate defiled with unsaved, but the scripture says the "BECAME defiled," they were always unsaved. Is there any biblical support for the view that they are born defiled rather than what the scripture actually says, which is that they became defiled only after their rebellion?

I agree. I never said it did. I argued that they had to clearly see and understand the truth in order to trade it in, but Calvinism insists they can't know God or understand spiritual matters from birth unless first effectually called. Yet, this text says they do know God and they do clearly see and understand his attributes which is the very reason they are without excuse.

I'm just wanting to know how someone suppresses a truth they were born unable to see or hear? How does a man born totally depraved become blind and deaf and hardened to the gospel? If there is never a time in a persons life they are NOT suppressing the truth, then how can their come a time that they do suppress it?

Very well put! Thank you for asking some intriguing questions. Can't wait to hear the Calvinist response.