- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I wonder why Calvinists don't understand that belief is a choice. We could certainly choose not to believe. Many do in fact.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I wonder why Calvinists don't understand that belief is a choice. We could certainly choose not to believe. Many do in fact.It's as simple as this. The Arminianian turns the gospel into law and makes salvation depend on obedience. The Calvinist knows that whoever hears the gospel and believes is saved. No choice involved.
Here's where you change the gospel into law and grace into works. That is when you make salvation conditioned on "choice" which is one of many forms of obedience the false gospel calls for. I put this together for another forum but it lends itself to this topic so I'll share it here.I wonder why Calvinists don't understand that belief is a choice. We could certainly choose not to believe. Many do in fact.
If you were really saved, God means more to you than life itself and the last thing you would want to do is reject him. The legalistic false gospel depends on free will and those who depend on it are just as lost after "choosing" to believe as they were before they "chose" to believe. The gospel does not work this way.It's funny.
I'm not sure how one could totally buy into either side.
I believe in salvation by grace, but we obviously have the free will to choose, or reject it.
On the other hand the Bible says God chose us. But Jesus is the way (truth, life) and we must come to him. And unless we are born again... on and on it goes.
Thanks for sharing that, Dave.Here's where you change the gospel into law and grace into works. That is when you make salvation conditioned on "choice" which is one of many forms of obedience the false gospel calls for. I put this together for another forum but it lends itself to this topic so I'll share it here.
The order of salvation 3 historic views
1) Salvation is by grace, and takes place through the new birth in the hearts of those who cannot believe or repent. This results in hearing the gospel at a spiritual level. And having faith in Christ. This results in the baptism of the Holy Spirit through repentance and in living a holy life.
2) Salvation is partially by grace but depends on human response to the gospel, perceived by the flesh to be law. Obedience originates in the flesh and is said to produce the new birth which aids in obedience and secures salvation which is conditioned on continued obedience.
3) Salvation is by obedience to the gospel, perceived to be law. People save themselves unaided by God, by following Christ's example.
Wow. Your view is ten times more legalistic than what you are labeling legalistic.If you were really saved, God means more to you than life itself and the last thing you would want to do is reject him. The legalistic false gospel depends on free will and those who depend on it are just as lost after "choosing" to believe as they were before they "chose" to believe. The gospel does not work this way.
I am not labeling you lost, just confused. I believed quite like you at one time.Wow. Your view is ten times more legalistic than what you are labeling legalistic.
Your formula is so tight that you just declared me as lost. Seriously? (a punishable offense)
The work of God cannot be contained in human formulas. You have created false requirements for salvation to the point of condemning anyone who falls outside your legalistic framework. This is wrong on so many levels. Appalling really.
You still turn the gospel into Law and make salvation contingent on a sinful work of the flesh.Thanks for sharing that, Dave.
I can't agree with any of the three in totality. (as written)
I most closely associate with number 2, but it seems to be written with a negative bias.
I don't perceive the Gospel to be law. Nor do I believe that obedience is of the flesh. Nor that works secure our salvation. It's like I want to combine 1 and 2. Like this...
Salvation is by grace, but depends on human response to the gospel. (free will choice) As perceived by the believer, when in actuality God has chosen them. While maintaining the offer to all humankind. "Whosoever will come after me..." - Mark 8:34
None of which makes much rational sense. But... it works.
Essentially, we are predestined by our own choice. (God foreknew)
As a personal testimony, as a child I was a believer, but at age 8 years, God nudged me to make a decision. Thus marking a point in time. My wife remembers no such personal event, saying it happened gradually. I know many who testify to this gradual experience. I think both are equally valid. The proof is in the pudding.
Well, that's the point. You weren't "lost" when you believed quite like me, right? If that's the case then there is something incomplete about what you are claiming.I am not labeling you lost, just confused. I believed quite like you at one time.
You change the gospel into law and grace into works when you make salvation depend on your "choice". The truth is, God saves those who cannot believe or repent, turning them into repentant believers through the new birth.
Receiving Christ is NOT a sinful work of the flesh. That's ridiculous.You still turn the gospel into Law and make salvation contingent on a sinful work of the flesh.
Notice they were born "not of human decision".Receiving Christ is NOT a sinful work of the flesh. That's ridiculous.
John 1:9-13
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Cornelius had the fruits of the Spirit in operation long before he heard Peter preach. But he was ignorant of the gospel until Peter preached it. I was born again months before I stumbled into a Pentecostal Church and heard the false gospel. Which took years of independent study to uproot.Well, that's the point. You weren't "lost" when you believed quite like me, right? If that's the case then there is something incomplete about what you are claiming.
One cannot change the nature of a gift to something earned by simply receiving it. That's NOT work! If I bend down to pull a gift from under the tree does it somehow cease to be a gift due to the effort exerted? No, that's ridiculous. Does the act of receiving suddenly put me under the law of earning gifts? Nope. If I NEGLECT to take possession of a gift, do I own it? Nope. You have to "do the work" of receiving it to take possession. Do I own a gift that was left under the tree? Nope. I have ignored it, thus making it of no effect in my life and thus insulting the giver.
Nice try.Notice they were born "not of human decision".
Look at it this way. The flesh cannot discern spiritual truth, so it cannot "receive" the true Christ through an act of the will. It only chooses a false Christ or idol.
But to those who "received" Christ, as a placement in their heart by God, as you would "receive" a pat on the back, to those he gave the title "Children of God".
I disagree.Cornelius had the fruits of the Spirit in operation long before he heard Peter preach. But he was ignorant of the gospel until Peter preached it. I was born again months before I stumbled into a Pentecostal Church and heard the false gospel. Which took years of independent study to uproot.
= salvation for the self-righteous who share in God's glory, choosing him as any good person would.I disagree.
The Spirit draws us to Christ to make a decision.
We do not have the Spirit until we receive it.
The will can only sin and choose a false Christ for the wrong reason. Unless born again, a person cannot discern the true Christ.Nice try.
This gives a comparison between those who did receive and those who did not receive.
An act of the will in both cases.
John 1:9-13
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
I disagree.= salvation for the self-righteous who share in God's glory, choosing him as any good person would.
= salvation for the self-righteous in the power of their own goodness = robbing God of his glory in salvation.I disagree.
Christ has made provision for us. Will you receive it, or reject it?
There is nothing self-righteous in receiving the gift of the vicarious atonement.
You have it backwards. The pattern I see in most of your doctrine.The will can only sin and choose a false Christ for the wrong reason. Unless born again, a person cannot discern the true Christ.
Receiving Christ is an admission that we are not sufficient in ourselves. Yet you see the opposite.= salvation for the self-righteous in the power of their own goodness = robbing God of his glory in salvation.
“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19–21)You have it backwards. The pattern I see in most of your doctrine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?