Presbyterian and Conversion?

Holyroller125

Regular Member
Feb 4, 2007
261
24
✟9,587.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello,

I am wondering, how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Do they go buy Romans 10:9-10, 13 - That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Is conversion instantaneous at the moment of faith when one believes in the heart, confesses with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and makes the faith statement, calling on the name of the Lord? Is this how a conversion goes in the presbyterian church? Just would like to know compared to Methodist.

Thank You,
Holyroller125
 

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Both Presbyterians and Methodists share basic ideas such as justification by faith, so at some level repenting and having faith in Christ means the same thing to both of us.

However we differ in some ways in the larger context.

1) All Christians believe that faith is something in which our wills are involved, but also that we can't come to faith without God's grace calling us first. However Presbyterian (actually Reformed) theology places a higher priority on the activity of God's grace, believing that God's decision to save us precedes any possible response from us, and thus that our salvation ultimately rests entirely on God's decision. We think God chose us before we were born. Hence we don't place quite as much emphasis on a moment of conversion, since we were God's all along. This also affects how we do evangelism. We are called by God to preach the Gospel. But ultimately we don't convert people: the Holy Spirit does. This makes Presbyterians less likely to use high-pressure evangelism tactics than some groups.

2) Some Christian traditions (although not necessarily the Methodists) see salvation as meaning primarily our "decision for Christ", after which we are "saved." First, we tend to emphasize Christ's decision for us. But second, we have the original Reformation perspective in which salvation has two parts. One is justification, which is our acceptance by God, based on Christ's death for us, which we receive in faith. Justification isn't so much a one-time event (though the way it becomes visible in our lives may be) as a permanent status on which we can rely. But salvation is more than just saving us from hell. It is renewing our character and lives, so that we reflect God's image in the way he wants. This process of building a Christian life is traditionally called "sanctification." It is built on our acceptance by God and our union with Christ, but it's conceptually distinct from that. Unlike justification, which is permanent, sanctification grows over time (one hopes – there can also be setbacks). Salvation is the whole thing: God's grafting us into Christ, our participation by faith, our status as Christ's (justification) and our developing Christian life (sanctification).

3) While it doesn't seem to have a prominent part in the modern United Methodist Church, the Methodist tradition includes "entire sanctification." This become more important in some offshoot traditions: the holiness movement and pentecostalism. Entire sanctification is the idea that at some point our relationship with God reaches the point where we are no longer sinners (though we can still make mistakes). Presbyterians don't believe that sin is ever completely eliminated in this life.

Wesley personally and Methodists in general have often been closer to the Reformed perspective than other non-Reformed traditions. Wesley didn't quite accept the Reformed concept of grace that justifies us before we are in a position to respond. But he came very close.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
. . . We think God chose us before we were born. . . .
If someone comes up to you and ask you, "Are you saved?" What would be your short response? And how would you respond to, "Would you like to be saved?" or "Do you want to get saved?"
How would you respond if someone ask you, "Do you know if you're saved?"
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If someone comes up to you and ask you, "Are you saved?" What would be your short response? And how would you respond to, "Would you like to be saved?" or "Do you want to get saved?"
How would you respond if someone ask you, "Do you know if you're saved?"

Well, technically I should say something like "I trust that I'm accepted by God and that he is saving me." However I know that most people use "saved" to mean justified, and not with the fullest meaning of salvation. In many cases I wouldn't turn a question into a theological argument, so in some cases I might just say "I trust that I am."
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
Well, technically I should say something like "I trust that I'm accepted by God and that he is saving me." However I know that most people use "saved" to mean justified, and not with the fullest meaning of salvation. In many cases I wouldn't turn a question into a theological argument, so in some cases I might just say "I trust that I am."

-----------------------------------------------------

ac·cept [ak-sept]
verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.


EXPAND
verb (used without object)
14. to accept an invitation, gift, position, etc. (sometimes followed by of ).

-----------------------------------------------


My Baptist sister said, "God accepted that I accepted Jesus".

Is there another alternative that might not sound like God is waiting for man's actions?

"I like "I trust that I am." Some might think you said, "I think I am saved."

One can't really say, "I am saved ! "
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
-----------------------------------------------------

ac·cept [ak-sept]
verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.


EXPAND
verb (used without object)
14. to accept an invitation, gift, position, etc. (sometimes followed by of ).

-----------------------------------------------


My Baptist sister said, "God accepted that I accepted Jesus".

Is there another alternative that might not sound like God is waiting for man's actions?

"I like "I trust that I am." Some might think you said, "I think I am saved."

One can't really say, "I am saved ! "

"Accepted by God" is a fairly standard paraphrase of justified. The problem with justified is that different traditions give it somewhat different meanings. I believe the sense is "receive with approval or favor". "God accepted that I accepted Jesus" is of course an Arminian understanding. It's not a plain sense understanding of "God accepted me." I guess there's no wording that can't be misunderstood.

I think justification means that God has forgiven me and declared me to be a proper member of his covenant people. That uses recent research by people like N T Wright into the 1st Cent Jewish meaning of "righteous." More traditional Reformed theology would say that we are given the status of not guilty. In both cases we're talking about proper legal standing before God and membership in his people.
 
Upvote 0
A

Anoetos

Guest
If someone comes up to you and ask you, "Are you saved?" What would be your short response? And how would you respond to, "Would you like to be saved?" or "Do you want to get saved?"
How would you respond if someone ask you, "Do you know if you're saved?"

I would say that, in Christ, God has save me; He has saved me from sin; He has redeemed me and set my feet upon a high place; He has worked a change in me and made me a son and a friend where before I was at enmity with Him; He has made me a new creature and givn me eternal life.

But if I were asked when this happened I would say that it happened at the Cross, and if I were asked why, I would say solely by grace through faith, itself a gift.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
I would say that, in Christ, God has save me; He has saved me from sin; He has redeemed me and set my feet upon a high place; He has worked a change in me and made me a son and a friend where before I was at enmity with Him; He has made me a new creature and givn me eternal life.

Then you're saying you're the Elect. I was wondering if we can claim we are the Elect and say, "I'm the Elect". If you're saying that God has saved every single man then that might be what you meant. If we say God saved some and didn't save others, then is it possible to claim we are the Elects cause we believe in Jesus Christ being our Lord and Saviour?
Or perhaps we should say, "I don't know if I am the elect" or "I don't know if I'm saved"

How does, "I hope I'm saved" sound?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
I am elect. I believe this because I believe that God has redeemed me, and I do not believe that He redeems any He has not chosen.

I cannot prove it to you in the same way that I can prove that two apples put together with three other apples makes five apples.
I think you should say, "I am the Elect". I'd like to know if Hedrick would be comfortable in saying that directly.
For some reason, most of the time, the arminians tries hard to beat around the word, "Elect" and tries not to let you say it or use it in that way. I think it has something to do with "Elect" doesn't mean you and me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I think you should say, "I am the Elect". I'd like to know if Hedrick would be comfortable in saying that directly.
For some reason, most of the time, the arminians tries hard to beat around the word, "Elect" and tries not to let you say it or use it in that way. I think it has something to do with "Elect" doesn't mean you and me.

No, I wouldn't. The problem is that we can't see God's plan directly, and all attempts I know of to come up with objective tests to see whether someone is probably elect have caused as many problems as they have solved. There's a long history of this in Reformed Christianity, and it typically seems to lead to something very much like justification by works. I see no evidence for tests of whether you're elect in Calvin's own writing.

My understanding of Calvin's position is that there are two levels on which we can understand events. Since God normally works though normal history, we can understand events as happening on the human level, according to people's abilities and motivations. And of course those motivations include activity by the Holy Spirit. But on God's level there is a plan, so we could in principle also understand things in terms of his plan.

But except where he has revealed it, we don't know his plan. So it's really only possible to understand things as humans. Thus the safest approach for us is not to guess whether we are elect, but to trust in his promise that he will save anyone who trusts him. While Luther and Calvin both believed in predestination, as far as I know, neither of them advocated trying to guess whether we are elect. Both recommended trusting God's promises.

There is a psychological problem here, because the doubt then comes up: well, sure God will save anyone who trusts him, but how do I know I really trust him and I'm not self-deluded? Then we descend into a morass of trying to second-guess ourselves. I don't think there's an intellectual answer to that, because intellectual answers just further feed the process. The only answer I know is a non-intellectual one: the only way to have confidence is to focus on God and his promises, not on our own faith. Nowhere does the Bible say that our faith has to measure up to a certain standard. Indeed Jesus says that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, and of course the mustard seed was proverbially the smallest possible object. We are to have faith in God, not faith in our own faith.

Now in a certain sense saying that I have confidence in God implies that I'm elect, I suppose. But it's not something I want to claim in any direct way.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
. . . Thus the safest approach for us is not to guess whether we are elect, but to trust in his promise that he will save anyone who trusts him.. . ..
I believe you're right. I recently read Calvin's Institutes and he talks about going overboard with the term "predestination". He was also saying that the more you get into guessing and second guessing, the more trouble you'll get into called boasting.
I think for now, I'll stick with, "I hope I'm saved" Does that sound right or does that excuse the armininians saying, "If you don't know Jesus is your Lord and Saviour then you're not saved."?

My guess is that it's impossible for armininians and Calvinists to agree with each other or be on the same page.

I enjoyed your response like I always do.
 
Upvote 0
A

Anoetos

Guest
Fwiw, and what I tried to get across is that the experience of salvation in its subjectivity cannot necessarily be communicated. So, if I am asked whether I am saved or not, I usually just say, "yes", if for no other reason than that, as often as not what I am really beings asked is whether I am a Christian who goes to church, who believes the Bible, and above all who trusts Jesus for salvation.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2011
1,448
68
✟9,428.00
Faith
Christian
. . . So, if I am asked whether I am saved or not, I usually just say, "yes", if for no other reason than that, as often as not what I am really beings asked is whether I am a Christian who goes to church, who believes the Bible, and above all who trusts Jesus for salvation.

YES are three letters and that best fit the minimum amount of wording to answer the arminians questions but when they ask you a second question like almost always, a response usually ends up into a long explanation to the meaning of "yes" and ends up with maybe, hope, might or working on it.

The arminians has a "know for sure" boat in their lakes but I know for sure there leaking in water
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Assurance of salvation is a generic Reformation tenet. I wouldn't think it is peculiar to Arminians. Maybe the Calvinist and Arminian answers are different on where assurance comes from. I don't know Arminian theology that well. I can say that plenty of Reformed have not given the answer I have. Many Reformed Christians have answered that because our lives should reflect the new life in Christ, the way you know you're elect is that your life shows the fruit of a Christian life.

While I don't disagree that our lives should show fruit, the problem is our lives aren't perfect, and non-Christian lives can show good things as well. So when you try to turn this into something that can actually give someone assurance it becomes impossible. People are, quite correctly, bothered by their remaining sins, and a person who is particularly sensitive can never get any assurance that they've repented enough and shown enough fruit to be sure that they aren't deluding themselves. This is exactly the problem that Luther had before his conversion, which led to justification by faith. Better to say that we can trust God to save us. That was certainly Luther's answer, and I think Calvin's. But the problem I describe occurred among Reformed Christians, and Luther's answer should be common property of all Protestant traditions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello,

I am wondering, how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Do they go buy Romans 10:9-10, 13 - That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Is conversion instantaneous at the moment of faith when one believes in the heart, confesses with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and makes the faith statement, calling on the name of the Lord? Is this how a conversion goes in the presbyterian church? Just would like to know compared to Methodist.

Thank You,
Holyroller125

Hello,

how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Great question. Rather than framing an answer in my own words, allow me to quote the well known and popular Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." - Excerpt from the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus

As you can see, the Presbyterian (Biblical) view of conversion is not unique to Presbyterians. Two of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians held to the "monergist" view of conversion, as did the founder of the Lutherans, and George Whitfield one of the founders of Methodism, Reformed Anglicans like J.I. Packer, Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon.

The following link provides links to 172 resources by many different scholars/theologians (including: J.I. Packer, Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Owen, A.W. Pink) pertaining to regeneration, in favor of monergism: SEARCH RESULTS

One of the links is an ebook with Quotes on Monergistic Regeneration from Church History

Monergism is contrasted to Synergism, one of the links is to this great article by John Hendryx. John has written a number of great articles on the subject.

I hope this helps, God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Holyroller125

Regular Member
Feb 4, 2007
261
24
✟9,587.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello,

how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Great question. Rather than framing an answer in my own words, allow me to quote the well known and popular Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." - Excerpt from the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus

As you can see, the Presbyterian (Biblical) view of conversion is not unique to Presbyterians. Two of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians held to the "monergist" view of conversion, as did the founder of the Lutherans, and George Whitfield one of the founders of Methodism, Reformed Anglicans like J.I. Packer, Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon.

The following link provides links to 172 resources by many different scholars/theologians (including: J.I. Packer, Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Owen, A.W. Pink) pertaining to regeneration, in favor of monergism: SEARCH RESULTS

One of the links is an ebook with Quotes on Monergistic Regeneration from Church History

Monergism is contrasted to Synergism, one of the links is to this great article by John Hendryx. John has written a number of great articles on the subject.

I hope this helps, God bless.

Yes it did, I also see a general consensus between all these faith covenant communities. The general concensus is consistent with Scripture, confirmed by Church Fathers, and validated through the historic Christian church. Whereas, heresy has no general concensus, not confirmed (Exegetic) by Greek Fathers, and validated through the historic Christian church.

It is powerful to have different backgrounds even with the general concensus of (Biblical) conversion.

Everyone continue to participate in this discussion.
Thank YOu,
Holyroller125
 
Upvote 0

cajunhillbilly

Regular Member
Jul 4, 2004
870
37
71
Dallas, TX
✟16,522.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Politics
US-Republican
Both Luther and Calvin pointed to the promises of God as the grounds for one's assurance, NOT our works. They also pointed to baptism as the means by which God brought us into the church and the Eucharist/Lord's Supper as the means by which we receive God's grace sacramentally as grounds for assurance. Too often we tend to point to subjective feelings and works and that leads to dispair as we see just how wicked our hearts continue to be even after a "conversion". We do not love God enough or our neighbor as ourselves and we despair. Are we really saved? Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, and so on all would say trust God's promises as conveyed to us by Word and Sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
H

HereIstand.Todd

Guest
Hello,

how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Great question. Rather than framing an answer in my own words, allow me to quote the well known and popular Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." - Excerpt from the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus

As you can see, the Presbyterian (Biblical) view of conversion is not unique to Presbyterians. Two of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians held to the "monergist" view of conversion, as did the founder of the Lutherans, and George Whitfield one of the founders of Methodism, Reformed Anglicans like J.I. Packer, Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon.

The following link provides links to 172 resources by many different scholars/theologians (including: J.I. Packer, Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Owen, A.W. Pink) pertaining to regeneration, in favor of monergism: SEARCH RESULTS

One of the links is an ebook with Quotes on Monergistic Regeneration from Church History

Monergism is contrasted to Synergism, one of the links is to this great article by John Hendryx. John has written a number of great articles on the subject.

I hope this helps, God bless.


Apologetic_Warrior,

This is the most concise explanation that I have heard on this. I know RC Sproul's books and he is fairly easy to understand but you have explained this well. Thank you.

I believe that since we were dead spiritually before being saved and we ourselves had no part in it that we can say with confidence that we are saved if we are indeed a believer in Christ. The reason I say this is simple. If it was all of God and not of me and I am a believer then trusting in God's promises in His Word we can know that we are saved and He gets all the glory not us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums