Still don't understand...

[Reformationist]

Hello everyone. As most of you know I am a reformed Christian. I'm not going to go into detail as to what that means right now but most of you are familiar with Calvinism so there's probably no need.

There is something that the Protestant community has strongly embraced since the 19th century that, to this day, continues to confuse me.

It is the issue of man's volitional ability to "make a decision for Christ." I have had more discussions on this issue than I can remember and it is still a mystery to me. For two hundred years the predominant Protestant view regarding man's volitional inclination in his unregenerate state dealt primarily with his inability to acknowledge Christ's Lordship in his unregenerate state yet many Protestants wholly disagree with this, making professions of man's moral freedom to not only ascertain the things of God, which Scripture claims cannot be acknowledged by the carnal mind, but to actually embrace them, thereby obligating God to extend His grace of salvation.

It seems that this question would not be a difficult one to answer but I am yet to receive an answer that glorifies the Creator rather than the creation.

So, on to my question:

What do you believe is the defining difference between those that do embrace the Gospel unto salvation and those that don't?

I feel that this is an important and complicated issue so I ask that any who wish to participate do so with an open mind and a desire to explain their position to those of opposing viewpoints. Therefore, I ask that people don't drop a one word bomb, like, "grace" or "free will," and then bail on the thread. Please explain your answer and let us all seek to glorify God with our behavior in this thread.

God bless,
Don

 

[BarbB]

Dear Reformationist,

I am really not intellectually capable of participating in this thread, and I can only spend so much time on CF - too much really - but I promise I won't bail on you.

I have been watching Word Pictures on Angel One (Tuesdays 9pm, Fridays 7am and Sat 8am). The programs for the past 3 months have addressed this issue. I don't want to tell you their statement of faith until the end, because I don't want to prejudice the discussion.

I was saved sometime in the summer of 2001. My husband had died and I wanted to die. I was driven to begin going to church and so did. I went to Episcopal healing services and was prayed over. I went to grief counseling at Church of the Nazarene and fell to the floor begging God to rid me of the bitterness I was feeling at Dave's death. I began to feel better. I was then driven to read the Bible and found a wonderful spirit-filled church to attend regularly. Now, I cannot tell you when I was saved because I never prayed the sinner's prayer or accepted an altar call. All I know is that by the time the summer was over, I was totally head-over-heels in love with Jesus! I was definitely a new creation. I prayed for the forgiveness of my sins. The Holy Spirit worked on me with my mouth, lack of patience, self control, and finally and hugely forgiveness and loving my neighbors (including the ones I didn't like).

There's no way I could have started this process, but that was what I thought until watching the Word Picture programs and it all became clear. God worked on my unregenerate heart during my extreme grief (actually probably before that, bit by bit). Eventually I knew what it was to love Him so much that I wanted nothing more than to please Him. Therefore, I was saved by His grace and also I have His gift of Saving Faith.

I have now watched people respond to an altar call, prayed the prayer and become Christians - only to have nothing change in their lives!!!!!! Not them and not their responses to their circumstances. It is obvious that there has been no working of God on their unregenerate hearts.

All I can say is that I believe that God worked on my heart so that I could respond to his call. As I respond to his call continually, my faith and love grow stronger and stronger. Amen!

Edited to add: I just looked at your second sig. When Dave died, I wanted to be with him in heaven. Could I have instigated God's regeneration of my heart by my desire to be saved so I could have been with Dave? See, when we get to questions like these, my head nearly explodes!

btw, Word Pictures holds to a Baptist statement of faith!

 

[Reformationist]

Dear Reformationist,

I am really not intellectually capable of participating in this thread, and I can only spend so much time on CF - too much really - but I promise I won't bail on you.

I appreciate your participation and, just for the record, I think people, myself included, often try to be so intellectual about the Word that they entirely change the message of the Gospel that comes through so forcefully.

I was saved sometime in the summer of 2001. My husband had died and I wanted to die. I was driven to begin going to church and so did. I went to Episcopal healing services and was prayed over. I went to grief counseling at Church of the Nazarene and fell to the floor begging God to rid me of the bitterness I was feeling at Dave's death. I began to feel better. I was then driven to read the Bible and found a wonderful spirit-filled church to attend regularly. Now, I cannot tell you when I was saved because I never prayed the sinner's prayer or accepted an altar call. All I know is that by the time the summer was over, I was totally head-over-heels in love with Jesus! I was definitely a new creation. I prayed for the forgiveness of my sins. The Holy Spirit worked on me with my mouth, lack of patience, self control, and finally and hugely forgiveness and loving my neighbors (including the ones I didn't like).

There's no way I could have started this process, but that was what I thought until watching the Word Picture programs and it all became clear. God worked on my unregenerate heart during my extreme grief (actually probably before that, bit by bit). Eventually I knew what it was to love Him so much that I wanted nothing more than to please Him. Therefore, I was saved by His grace and also I have His gift of Saving Faith.

I have now watched people respond to an altar call, prayed the prayer and become Christians - only to have nothing change in their lives!!!!!! Not them and not their responses to their circumstances. It is obvious that there has been no working of God on their unregenerate hearts.

All I can say is that I believe that God worked on my heart so that I could respond to his call. As I respond to his call continually, my faith and love grow stronger and stronger. Amen!

I am sorry for your loss but I understand that you now see it as gain and I admire you for that and praise God for His healing love.

Edited to add: I just looked at your second sig. When Dave died, I wanted to be with him in heaven. Could I have instigated God's regeneration of my heart by my desire to be saved so I could have been with Dave? See, when we get to questions like these, my head nearly explodes!

Even if your grief at the loss of your husband was such, and I'm sure it was, that you desired to be with him in Heaven, you and I both know that's not faith. Now, one possibility is that God used the death of your husband to draw you to Him. However, had your heart remained unrevived you would have just hated God for allowing your husband to die and never have sought Him. I don't want you to take this the wrong way but I'm sure that your grief over your loss, as real as it was, was not a condition that would motivate God to regenerate your heart. A lot of people who never know God lose loved ones. However, it may have been the means God used to open your eyes and ears to the Truth of His Word.

Thank God that He did though.

Thank you again for your participation.

God bless,
Don

 

[InquisitorKind]

What do you believe is the defining difference between those that do embrace the Gospel unto salvation and those that don't?

I haven't studied this topic much, but my answer is (although you have requested that it not be, I will try to explain further) simply that those who embrace the Gospel have choosen to do so, and those that don't have not choosen to do so.

I don't think the difference can be reduced to character differences i.e. that someone is just smarter and thus choose to accept the Gospel, or was less stubborn, etc.

I'd be happy to explore this topic more with you, even though I'm not that knowledgable in it.

~Matt

 

[Reformationist]

I haven't studied this topic much, but my answer is (although you have requested that it not be, I will try to explain further) simply that those who embrace the Gospel have choosen to do so, and those that don't have not choosen to do so.

I don't think the difference can be reduced to character differences i.e. that someone is just smarter and thus choose to accept the Gospel, or was less stubborn, etc.

I'd be happy to explore this topic more with you, even though I'm not that knowledgable in it.

~Matt

I see what you're saying Matt but there must be a defineable difference between those that repent and those that don't. We know that the Lord's Plan of salvation was not random, right? We know that His Plan included salvation. And, in my opinion, it is deeply unglorifying to God to profess that His plan was not a specific, individual plan, i.e., He didn't care who would be saved just that His Son would be glorified by those that are.

We must acknowledge that there is a difference, even if we don't know what it is. I think the best place to start is in trying to determine whether the difference exists in God's Plan for us on an individual basis or whether there was, in fact, some difference in the individual creation.

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

I see what you're saying Matt but there must be a defineable difference between those that repent and those that don't.

I don't see why this has to be the case. Yes, people are different, but why should their have to be (this is what I'm reading from you, so correct me if I'm wrong) a defining characteristic that leads some people to accept the Lord and others not to?

We know that the Lord's Plan of salvation was not random, right? We know that His Plan included salvation. And, in my opinion, it is deeply unglorifying to God to profess that His plan was not a specific, individual plan, i.e., He didn't care who would be saved just that His Son would be glorified by those that are.

Where did anyone say that God's plan was random, or that he didn't care who was saved? You might think that these are logical conclusions based on my current position toward salvation, but you'd have to demonstrate that first before I could accept it.

~Matt

 

[Reformationist]

I don't see why this has to be the case. Yes, people are different, but why should their have to be (this is what I'm reading from you, so correct me if I'm wrong) a defining characteristic that leads some people to accept the Lord and others not to?

Let me paint it a bit differently, though certainly not unrealistically. Two twin brothers attend a church service and are both exposed to the same message. One responds by embracing the Gospel as the Truth, the other, summarily rejects it. Now, even if we say, "people are different" we are still in a position with seeking to understand what it is that causes one person to submit to the Lordship of Christ and another to reject it. It's not random. We can't just say there is no defining characteristic between those who submit to God and those who don't. I'm not asking for a specific attribute that those who submit have that causes them to submit nor am I asking for a single, specific attribute that causes some not to. I'm just asking where the difference lies. If the causal agent for embracing the Gospel is man's free will then the difference is found within the man. If, on the other hand, the causal agent lies with God's divine perrogative in extending or withholding His grace, then the difference is found in the purpose of the Creator.

Where did anyone say that God's plan was random, or that he didn't care who was saved?

No one. I was trying to rule those out as possibilities. Is it safe to say that God's plan is NOT random and that He does care whom He saves?

You might think that these are logical conclusions based on my current position toward salvation, but you'd have to demonstrate that first before I could accept it.

I don't have a clue what your "current position towards salvation" is. I'm just trying to have some meaningful, fruitful discussion that may help us understand why some submit and some don't.

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

If the causal agent for embracing the Gospel is man's free will then the difference is found within the man. If, on the other hand, the causal agent lies with God's divine perrogative in extending or withholding His grace, then the difference is found in the purpose of the Creator.

I would say the "causal agent" is found in man's free will.

No one. I was trying to rule those out as possibilities. Is it safe to say that God's plan is NOT random and that He does care whom He saves?

Sorry, I took your response for saying that the position opposed to Calvinism in this matter makes God out to be random. Yes, I think that God wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9).

I don't have a clue what your "current position towards salvation" is. I'm just trying to have some meaningful, fruitful discussion that may help us understand why some submit and some don't.

I hope I'm not coming off the wrong way. I know you're trying to have meaningful discussion, and I don't want to detract from that.

~Matt

 

[BarbB]

I don't want you to take this the wrong way but I'm sure that your grief over your loss, as real as it was, was not a condition that would motivate God to regenerate your heart. A lot of people who never know God lose loved ones. However, it may have been the means God used to open your eyes and ears to the Truth of His Word.

Thank God that He did though.

Thank you again for your participation.

God bless,
Don

Oh, I couldn't take anything you say the wrong way, Don!

In hindsight (20-20 even in faith matters ) I can see that God was working on the two of us for about the previous year.

Our marriage became more and more like a Christian marriage should be. I began deferring to Dave's experience instead of my own (very imperfect) experience. He relaxed and consulted me more often on decisions. We both stated daily and hourly how much we loved the other! We were searching for a church (but he didn't like the one I wanted and I didn't like the minister in the one he liked). Much, much more!

Anyway, it is obvious to me that I had nothing to do with the process, except finally in the end going along with it and furthering it where I could.

Now sure then how free will enters in, but I'm willing to listen!

Barb

 

[Jeffery]

What do you believe is the defining difference between those that do embrace the Gospel unto salvation and those that don't?

Faith in His words.

 

[Reformationist]

Faith in His words.

So why does one person have faith and another not? Is one just more "open" to the power of God? Is one smarter? Where does that faith come from?

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

So why does one person have faith and another not? Is one just more "open" to the power of God? Is one smarter? Where does that faith come from?

God bless

They just choose. I believe each person is accountable to what they have been shown regarding the gospel, and they either accept God or they don't based on that.

I don't see why it has to be a characteristic or such that allows one to choose God over one that doesn't.

~Matt

 

[Reformationist]

They just choose.

Come on IK. Is this how you view the beginning of your relationship with Christ? You just chose? I doubt you make any decision in that blasé of a manner. I'm sure you put more thought into what you're going to have to eat than saying, "I just chose." People don't "just choose." They choose based on something. Your choices are based on something and they're not arbitrary. You have a reason for choosing one thing over another, whether it be the color of a shirt to wear or eternal life.

I believe each person is accountable to what they have been shown regarding the gospel, and they either accept God or they don't based on that.

Again, not plausible. There are people that DON'T accept the Word as the Truth and they know more of it than you and I put together.

I don't see why it has to be a characteristic or such that allows one to choose God over one that doesn't.

~Matt

It may help if we address this from a less universal standpoint. Think back to when YOU embraced Christ as Lord. Why did you do it?

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

Come on IK. Is this how you view the beginning of your relationship with Christ? You just chose? I doubt you make any decision in that blasé of a manner. I'm sure you put more thought into what you're going to have to eat than saying, "I just chose." People don't "just choose." They choose based on something. Your choices are based on something and they're not arbitrary. You have a reason for choosing one thing over another, whether it be the color of a shirt to wear or eternal life.

Sorry, I'm not being clear. Again, I've never studied this. (If you think you'll gain more discussion from someone who holds a position similar to mine yet has actually thought through these issues, let me know and I'll drop out of the conversation.)

I'm reading too much into what you're saying, as I'm expecting a certain question that's been asked of me once before (I'm expecting it because the one conversation I've had on this has been with a Reformed friend who debates this particular topic a lot).

With that said, I agree that people choose based on something.

Again, not plausible. There are people that DON'T accept the Word as the Truth and they know more of it than you and I put together.

I don't think I was positing that people will accept it because they know more. I was saying that people judge based on the information that they have. It was probably irrelevant for me to add that.

It may help if we address this from a less universal standpoint. Think back to when YOU embraced Christ as Lord. Why did you do it?

I did it because I realized it was the best option. Nothing else will ever satisfy the longings of my soul.

~Matt

 

[Covenant Heart]

Reformationalist, as I see it, you raise three issues–each of which comes back to the same point.

First, every Christian tradition has its own affective language of piety. And the terms and phrases by which every branch of the church voices its faith gives indication of how this undoubted Christian faith is held in that particular faith community. That holds for all of us.

Human volition aside, making "a decision for Christ" has never been the affective language of reformed piety. That’s just not how reformed believers express their relationship with God. To learn how reformed folk express faith, one need only return to the reformed confessions.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 194 speaks of the satisfaction of Christ that is "apprehended and applied by faith." The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of a "living, quickening faith" that "apprehends Christ" and says that "faith receives Christ" (chapter 15). Chapter 16 says that Christian faith is "a most firm trust and a clear and steadfast assent of the mind, and then a most certain apprehension of the truth of God presented in the Scriptures...and especially of God's promise and of Christ who is the fulfillment of all promises.

Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 7, Q21 asks, "what is true faith." The answer (one of my favorites) is that "true faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

While other examples exist, this shows that "decisions for Christ" has never been the language of reformed piety. Such language has affinity to Finney’s revivalism and the broader evangelical community. But the reformed interpretation of our faith has its own affective language of piety, and it is not the language of "decisions" but of a sure knowledge and of a trusting apprehension of God’s promises in Jesus Christ.

Second, you say that many Protestants wholly disagree with historic Protestant faith. This means that they no longer know the confessional documents in which their reformed faith is preserved (so are they still Protestants?). In my opinion, that relates directly to the adoption of an affective language of piety that is alien to the reformed faith, namely, the broader evangelical language of "making decisions for Christ."

The adoption of such language further erodes a reformed view of faith. That language is not suited to express the system of doctrine preserved in reformed confessional statements. Such language has an incurable, inherent bent toward the faith of the broad, non-reformed community. After all–that affective, faith-language was forged in the non-reformed community in order to express, serve and propagate the theology of the broader evangelical, non-reformed and non-confessional community.

Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 1 asks what I must know to live and die in God’s comfort. In answer, I must know the greatness of my sin and misery, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery, and how I am to thank God for such redemption. Why change that?

That is the language which reformed believers should use. It avoids the language of "decision" altogether in order to affirm our misery (which includes inability), God’s provision for salvation (as embraced on the terms expressed in Scripture and summed in the confessions) and the call to live to God (as the necessary fruit of faith). Why change that?

The remedy needed today is to return to the confessional documents that define the reformed faith. Pastors should be held accountable to preach Biblical messages geared to the confessions on a regular basis. Church school materials should be developed to instruct our covenant youths in reformed doctrine. And ordinarily, candidates for Profession of Faith in reformed churches should show at least some acquaintance with the defining doctrines of the reformation.

Reformed faith has its own affective language of piety that has served the reformed family of churches well for 450 years. Why change now?

Third and lastly, you ask what is the defining difference between those that do and do not embrace the Gospel. Again, my answer is the same.

"Go back to the confessions!"

Granting that this doctrine is "to be handled with special prudence and care" (Westminster Confession, Ch 3, para 8), the Canons of Dort, Head 1, Article 6 says: "that some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree." And that, my friend, is your answer–just as Synod stated it centuries ago.

That statement was framed in 1619-20. We have never improved on it. But not only do the Canons admirably define the reformed faith, they also reply masterfully to objections against it. No, these answers don’t satisfy all. But just as we have not improved our answers, neither have critics improved their objections. I am ever amazed at the superlative character and abiding relevance of our reformed confessional heritage. What a rich and powerful tradition we have!

17 years ago, a very wise man whom I loved deeply but recently went to be with the Lord told me that a man of average intelligence–whom he defined as a one with a 12 grade academic education–who mastered the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms (one can substitute the 3 Forms of Unity–the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort)–had sufficient grasp of the truth to test the orthodoxy of any man alive. (Are you listening to this, people?).

It is sad that even in the reformed family of churches, many do not see the richness of their heritage. And among those who do, many are not ready to state or defend it. On the other hand, it is very heartening to know that we have in our hands already all the tools that we need. Like Jacob who was jealous of his birthright, we need to take back what is ours–our affective language of reformed piety, the theology of which it was born, and the confessions in which it is defined. Let us take back our birthright and make these things truly our own once again.

This will strengthen our identity, let us serve Christ better and give us more to share with the broader community. If we're going to be reformed, study those confessions!

Covenant Heart

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationalist, as I see it, you raise three issues?each of which comes back to the same point.

First, every Christian tradition has its own affective language of piety. And the terms and phrases by which every branch of the church voices its faith gives indication of how this undoubted Christian faith is held in that particular faith community. That holds for all of us.

Human volition aside, making "a decision for Christ" has never been the affective language of reformed piety. That?s just not how reformed believers express their relationship with God. To learn how reformed folk express faith, one need only return to the reformed confessions.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 194 speaks of the satisfaction of Christ that is "apprehended and applied by faith." The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of a "living, quickening faith" that "apprehends Christ" and says that "faith receives Christ" (chapter 15). Chapter 16 says that Christian faith is "a most firm trust and a clear and steadfast assent of the mind, and then a most certain apprehension of the truth of God presented in the Scriptures...and especially of God's promise and of Christ who is the fulfillment of all promises.

Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 7, Q21 asks, "what is true faith." The answer (one of my favorites) is that "true faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

While other examples exist, this shows that "decisions for Christ" has never been the language of reformed piety. Such language has affinity to Finney?s revivalism and the broader evangelical community. But the reformed interpretation of our faith has its own affective language of piety, and it is not the language of "decisions" but of a sure knowledge and of a trusting apprehension of God?s promises in Jesus Christ.

Second, you say that many Protestants wholly disagree with historic Protestant faith. This means that they no longer know the confessional documents in which their reformed faith is preserved (so are they still Protestants?). In my opinion, that relates directly to the adoption of an affective language of piety that is alien to the reformed faith, namely, the broader evangelical language of "making decisions for Christ."

The adoption of such language further erodes a reformed view of faith. That language is not suited to express the system of doctrine preserved in reformed confessional statements. Such language has an incurable, inherent bent toward the faith of the broad, non-reformed community. After all?that affective, faith-language was forged in the non-reformed community in order to express, serve and propagate the theology of the broader evangelical, non-reformed and non-confessional community.

Heidelberg Catechism, Lord?s Day 1 asks what I must know to live and die in God?s comfort. In answer, I must know the greatness of my sin and misery, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery, and how I am to thank God for such redemption. Why change that?

That is the language which reformed believers should use. It avoids the language of "decision" altogether in order to affirm our misery (which includes inability), God?s provision for salvation (as embraced on the terms expressed in Scripture and summed in the confessions) and the call to live to God (as the necessary fruit of faith). Why change that?

The remedy needed today is to return to the confessional documents that define the reformed faith. Pastors should be held accountable to preach Biblical messages geared to the confessions on a regular basis. Church school materials should be developed to instruct our covenant youths in reformed doctrine. And ordinarily, candidates for Profession of Faith in reformed churches should show at least some acquaintance with the defining doctrines of the reformation.

Reformed faith has its own affective language of piety that has served the reformed family of churches well for 450 years. Why change now?

Third and lastly, you ask what is the defining difference between those that do and do not embrace the Gospel. Again, my answer is the same.

"Go back to the confessions!"

Granting that this doctrine is "to be handled with special prudence and care" (Westminster Confession, Ch 3, para 8), the Canons of Dort, Head 1, Article 6 says: "that some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree." And that, my friend, is your answer?just as Synod stated it centuries ago.

That statement was framed in 1619-20. We have never improved on it. But not only do the Canons admirably define the reformed faith, they also reply masterfully to objections against it. No, these answers don?t satisfy all. But just as we have not improved our answers, neither have critics improved their objections. I am ever amazed at the superlative character and abiding relevance of our reformed confessional heritage. What a rich and powerful tradition we have!

17 years ago, a very wise man whom I loved deeply but recently went to be with the Lord told me that a man of average intelligence?whom he defined as a one with a 12 grade academic education?who mastered the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms (one can substitute the 3 Forms of Unity?the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort)?had sufficient grasp of the truth to test the orthodoxy of any man alive. (Are you listening to this, people?).

It is sad that even in the reformed family of churches, many do not see the richness of their heritage. And among those who do, many are not ready to state or defend it. On the other hand, it is very heartening to know that we have in our hands already all the tools that we need. Like Jacob who was jealous of his birthright, we need to take back what is ours?our affective language of reformed piety, the theology of which it was born, and the confessions in which it is defined. Let us take back our birthright and make these things truly our own once again.

This will strengthen our identity, let us serve Christ better and give us more to share with the broader community. If we're going to be reformed, study those confessions!

Covenant Heart

CH, while I completely agree with everything you eloquently stated here, let me clarify that "make a decision for Christ" is not my expression, nor is it one that I give credence to. However, when engaging in discussion with non reformed Christians I have come to realize that I must phrase things as they phrase them for the discussion to move forward. While I appreciate your obvious zeal for, and knowledge of, the reformed faith I did not intend this thread to be a discussion of the reformed view of the irresistable grace of God. To my knowledge, non reformed Protestants (which I agree is, in and of itself, a misnomer) do not submit to the doctrines of man's inability to desire a relationship with God, much less the ability to overcome His righteous wrath.

Again for clarity, my usage of the non reformed verbiage "make a choice for God" was to open the discussion in a fashion that non reformed Protestants would be able to take part in.

Third and lastly, you ask what is the defining difference between those that do and do not embrace the Gospel. Again, my answer is the same.

"Go back to the confessions!"

Granting that this doctrine is "to be handled with special prudence and care" (Westminster Confession, Ch 3, para 8), the Canons of Dort, Head 1, Article 6 says: "that some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree." And that, my friend, is your answer?just as Synod stated it centuries ago.

And that is the answer I wholeheartedly embrace as the Truth of the Lord's Gospel. This thread was just an attempt to get the reformed community of this MB discussing this topic with those of the non-reformed Protestant community.

Again, I appreciate your comments. Surely they are a light unto my path.

God bless,
Don

 

[WashedClean]

Hello everyone,

Interesting thread. Reformationist, I have always been blessed by your posts. Very informative.

As someone who is married to a non-believer, I feel the only thing that's missing is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6:44. Only the Holy Spirit can show us our need for Jesus. When that becomes irresistible, we surrender. Instead of "making a decision for Christ", we surrender our will to His. This is where the difference lies, I believe. Then God gives us the faith to believe in Him.

My husband believes in God and knows he's a sinner. But I think there is a difference between knowing you're "not perfect" and realizing you've offended a Holy God and there's nothing you can do to make up for it on your own. Then the Holy Spirit makes you grievous over your sin and want to repent.

Am I making sense?

WashedClean

 

[BarbB]

My husband believes in God and knows he's a sinner. But I think there is a difference between knowing you're "not perfect" and realizing you've offended a Holy God and there's nothing you can do to make up for it on your own. Then the Holy Spirit makes you grievous over your sin and want to repent.

Am I making sense?

WashedClean

You are making perfect sense. I can still remember what it felt like to be like your husband.

Don, what about God using brokenness to show us how much we need him. I loved him and Jesus and was determined to walk in His way (i.e. an emotional committment), before I made the intellectual committment to "be a Christian".

 

[Reformationist]

Hello everyone,

Interesting thread. Reformationist, I have always been blessed by your posts. Very informative.

That's very kind of you. Thank you for the encouragement.

As someone who is married to a non-believer, I feel the only thing that's missing is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6:44. Only the Holy Spirit can show us our need for Jesus. When that becomes irresistible, we surrender. Instead of "making a decision for Christ", we surrender our will to His. This is where the difference lies, I believe. Then God gives us the faith to believe in Him.

So you believe we surrender first, and THEN God gives us faith to believe?

My husband believes in God and knows he's a sinner. But I think there is a difference between knowing you're "not perfect" and realizing you've offended a Holy God and there's nothing you can do to make up for it on your own. Then the Holy Spirit makes you grievous over your sin and want to repent.

Am I making sense?

WashedClean

Sure, you're making sense. However, if your husband truly believes that God is what He says He is then He's already saved. The things of the Spirit are discerned by the Spirit. An unregenerate person has not the moral faculty to acknowledge the Lordship of God. The Gospel itself says that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to carnal man. If your husband truly believes that the Word of God is the revelation of the Almighty then that is not a carnal admission. Only by the indwelling of God may we recognize the truth of our depravity.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Don, what about God using brokenness to show us how much we need him. I loved him and Jesus and was determined to walk in His way (i.e. an emotional committment), before I made the intellectual committment to "be a Christian".

Of course. However, we must not confuse the moment we made an "intellectual committment to be a Christian" with the moment the Lord rebirths us from above. We may know the exact moment of the former while being unaware of the exact time of the latter. What we can acknowledge, though, is that the latter must proceed the former.

God bless