Have you accepted Jesus as YOUR personal Lord and Saviour???

[brb3]

The verses you quote from the bible are not that relevant in answering my question about Jesus twice saying, “No man CAN come to Me” except the Father draw him. These verses most definitely negate the idea of a sinner making his own “free-will” decision to come to Christ.

I would like to stay in the same chapter 6 of John to quote relevant verses:

v 37 “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.”

v 30 “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

v 44 “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

v 45 “…Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh to Me.”
(We see in this verse the requirement that only those taught by the Father can come.)

v 65 “And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

I would like to add some more negation to the free-willers here.

(Romans 9:15) “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
16 “So then (it is) NOT of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth (worketh), but of God that sheweth mercy.”

You might use human wisdom and reasoning to refute God’s words here, but they still stand and they refute the idea that your own free will can save you. Salvation is strictly God’s work according to His will only.

The Father draws us to accept/receive the Son [referred to in OT times as ‘the Lord’].

Yes, God the Father draws all by his Spirit … but, then at the foot of the Cross we must CHOOSE CHRIST. A free-will decision. This idea goes way, way back in scripture. Look up Joshua 24:15-22. Even in days of Moses, the people had to Choose to serve the Lord. ITS NOT AN AUTOMATIC, FORGONE CONCLUSION … that those draw by God with choose rightly and persevere in serving the Lord Jesus.

And, yes, even our ability to choose rightly … is inspired and enabled by the H.S. Everything in man’s destiny, has its origin and ending in God’s mercy and grace. Nevertheless, it is wrong to depict our actions as Robotic or PREDESTINED w/o our ability to make choices. God can and does influence us … but, he doesn’t DICTATE his will to us. He could, if he desired, ---- but, he chose to make us human with free wills, not automatons.

 

[rayne89]

Just one comment on this sentence.

A while back I started a thread “What is Sola Scriptura”?

There were about 8 different definitions.

This sentence is only an attribute of the most extreme definition. It is the one held by “Church of Christ”.

Yet whenever the topic is broached it is as though this sentence is the official definition.

Why?

I suggest educating yourself on the topic before you spout mischaracterizations that are just not true like “you claim that is all that is needed”.

Well then…where do you get your authority?

 

[elvisman]

The verses you quote from the bible are not that relevant in answering my question about Jesus twice saying, “No man CAN come to Me” except the Father draw him. These verses most definitely negate the idea of a sinner making his own “free-will” decision to come to Christ.

I would like to stay in the same chapter 6 of John to quote relevant verses:

v 37 “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.”

v 30 “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

v 44 “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

v 45 “…Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh to Me.”
(We see in this verse the requirement that only those taught by the Father can come.)

v 65 “And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

I would like to add some more negation to the free-willers here.

(Romans 9:15) “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
16 “So then (it is) NOT of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth (worketh), but of God that sheweth mercy.”

You might use human wisdom and reasoning to refute God’s words here, but they still stand and they refute the idea that your own free will can save you. Salvation is strictly God’s work according to His will only.

WRONG.
I already refuted your arguments in post #61 but you would not answer.
That is very telling, my friend.

 

[Catholic20064]

I prefer to profess Jesus as Savior of the world not just me.

 

[po18guy]

The verses you quote from the bible are not that relevant in answering my question about Jesus twice saying, “No man CAN come to Me” except the Father draw him. These verses most definitely negate the idea of a sinner making his own “free-will” decision to come to Christ.

I would like to stay in the same chapter 6 of John to quote relevant verses:

v 37 “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.”

v 30 “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

v 44 “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

v 45 “…Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh to Me.”
(We see in this verse the requirement that only those taught by the Father can come.)

v 65 “And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

I would like to add some more negation to the free-willers here.

(Romans 9:15) “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
16 “So then (it is) NOT of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth (worketh), but of God that sheweth mercy.”

You might use human wisdom and reasoning to refute God’s words here, but they still stand and they refute the idea that your own free will can save you. Salvation is strictly God’s work according to His will only.

What authority are your relying on for your interpretation of scripture?

 

[brkn1]

What authority are your relying on for your interpretation of scripture?

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.
I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent. I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom. God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

 

[tsering]

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.
I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent. I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom. God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

The authority of God’s word is found Scripture - I don’t think any Catholic disagrees with this statement. We must remember that Catholics see in God’s Scripture that God gave authority to Jesus’ disciples, the Apostles, who then transferred that authority to their disciples who then put together the Scriptures a few centuries after they were written and considered what they did valid because they were given the authority to do so. They also, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, relied on their oral tradition to decide which books where valid.

Jesus did use Scripture to refute Satan, but it’s unfortunate that we have to use them to refute each other. This is not a good argument in your favor, because Satan tried to use Scripture to refute Jesus and he was pretty good I must say. How does one know which side you are on? It is very presumptuous to say that Jesus endorses your argument. (I believe you don’t really mean this, but people can easily draw this conclusion by your loaded statement).

Now if God’s word was clear, then a majority of Christians who read the words and take them in their natural meaning would agree on some of the key points, correct? My question would be, why do the majority of Christians who read the word, not agree with your interpretation? I even know of many protestants, who believe in Scripture alone as you do, who do not agree with you.

Listen, John Calvin took a long time to write his Institutes…have you read them? Are you a five point Calvinist? I’m sure whether you’ve admitted or not, you have been influenced by certain extra-Biblical systematic theologies and methods of interpretation. What about Luther? I know he believed in predestination. Augustine wrote a lot about predestination…have you read his perspective? I know the Church had to reconcile Augustine’s strong emphasis on predestination with Palagius’ strong emphasis on free-will. Not all of Augustine’s perspectives were accepted - and I respect him for not throwing a fit over it and secluding himself from the Church by pushing his own interpretation over others.

Peace

 

[po18guy]

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.
I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent. I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom. God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

The printed word, without authoritative interpretation, is a foundation of sand. Satan quoted scripture (Luke 4:10-11, Matthew 4:6), but lacked authority. Was he correct in his interpretation? If he was not correct in his interpretation, how can anyone else hope to be correct in their interpretation? Consider:

The bible itself says that it needs interpretation (Acts 8:30-31), and that private interpretation is prohibited (2 Peter 1:20). Neither Philip nor Peter had “authority” from a bible, since the bible as we have it did not yet exist. Both had something superior: Authority, directly from Christ, to teach what they taught.

Which is better: God-given authority, or easily misinterpreted printed words? If the bible is actually self-interpreting, why are there fundamental disagreements among each and every “bible Christian” church?

 

[elvisman]

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.
I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent. I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom. God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

Ummm . . . are you EVER going to answer post 61 & 103 that refute your claims?

I didn’t think so . . .

 

[JonNC]

=AmateurPianist;6489871]As I read this thread, it has struck me that y’all should allow those that use this phrase the same courtesy that y’all gripe about when it is not applied to your pet belief or term as it were. And that would be to allow those who use the phrase the courtesy to define what it means as opposed to defining the phrase for them.

I can understand this, and that’s why I said that “for me”, it sounds like pelagianism. I think, actually, for some that it is, too.

(Jon this isn’t directed necessarily at you but more a response to reading this thread as a whole).

I didn’t take it that way (like it was directed at me), but thanks.

Now neither myself or my church happen to use this phrase that often, but at the same time I know folks who do and have attended churches that do. And I think you will find that the verbs “accept” and “receive” are used interchangeably.

And this would be consistent with the English language (I receive a gift … I accept a gift).

For a Lutheran, “accept” describes an active role (speaking now of justification), where we see it as monergistic. I have no capablility of accepting Christ. We see free will as only the capability of rejecting faith. So, I receive faith that is a gift of grace. I do, however, accept my role in sanctification, in which I play an active role.

While I am still in my my sins, Christ accepts me as His, and I receive Him.

So, you can see why I wouldn’t view it as straining at gnats, but instead a significant difference. There are those who use the term accept in this way. They are, of course, welcome to. I’m just not comfortable with it for the reasons I have given.

Jon

 

[rayne89]

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.
I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent. I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom. God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

And where in the Bible does it give which books belong in the Bible. Where is the authority coming from that decided which books would be in the Bible. There were others that did not make into the Bible. Who decided which books were inspired and which weren’t. The New Testament did not exist in Jesus’ time. He was not quoting the New Testament. Who had the authority to decide which letters, which writings would be part of the canon of the Bible?

 

[po18guy]

The authority of God’s word in His Scripture.
Jesus used Scripture to refute Satan and we are supposed to do likewise.

Satan used scripture, too, but Jesus was able to refute it. I know that you don’t claim to be as good as our Lord in this regard.

I have quoted Scripture verses to prove the points made and the arguments against those verses are weak or non-existent.

Nothing of the sort! You have given only your private opinion of what those passages really mean. The bible commands you not to use your opinion (or private interpretation).

I do not buy into the nonsense that God’s Word is not clear and must be interpreted using man’s wisdom.

Good. Neither do Catholics. But, in saying this, it appears that you make yourself superior to the Ethiopian eunuch and equal to the Apostle Philip.

God knows how to make Himself clear and I find His Word to be so.

You certainly have come up with an interpretation that you are comfortable with. But, is it the truth?

IF the bible is so clear, how come there is so much protestant disagreement over its content? I thought that Luther took all of this corrupt Pope stuff out of scripture and made it easy. I’m really confused in this regard!

 

[rev_kevin]

The difference is Catholics have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church) - for us the words don’t have to be in the Bible. The Church gave us the Bible, it constructed the Bible and had the authority to decide which books would be contained in it. I assume since your are Baptist you believe in “the Bible alone.” You have no other authority except the Bible so it must be in the Bible. What you believe must be in the Bible because you claim that is all that is needed, we as Catholics do not claim that.

Who wrote the Scriptures that make up the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God?
Why do you have to have other authority besides the Bible? Do you believe what is in the Bible? Why do Catholics use the Bible to justify their beliefs?

 

[po18guy]

Who wrote the Scriptures that make up the Bible?

Men inspired by God - some using the Oral Apostolic Tradition. It is this Tradition which allowed Luke and Acts to be written, since Luke was not an eyewitness.

Is the Bible the word of God?

Catholic Church councils, lead by the Holy Spirit, declared the assemblage of scriptures which we have to be the word of God, so, yes. Remember that a lot of writings were tested, but did not make it in. And, 1,500 years later, one MAN, by his own rebellious authority, altered the Holy Spirit’s work.

Why do you have to have other authority besides the Bible?

Because Jesus sent Apostles, not a bible. The bible is incomplete and tells us so in many places.

Do you believe what is in the Bible?

Jehovah’s Witnesses sure do. Properly interpreted, absolutely.

Why do Catholics use the Bible to justify their beliefs?

Actually, the teaching of the Church justifies the bible. The Catholic Church is not bible based, it is Christ based.

 

[brb3]

Perhaps the best way to visualize what Protestants mean by this question is @ these two links.

www.4laws.com/laws/english/flash

www.4laws.com

I’d venture to say that more souls have been won to Christ thru these links/tracts in last 40years, than just about any other method we could propose, except for ‘personal testimonies’. Pentecostal preaching will probably ALWAYS remain # 1 means of converting the lost.

So, if it WORKS …it must have validity. It’s hard to argue against success. When the Catholic Church [and Catholics] starts to encorporate these ideas into our Evangelism, we will grow our Church very rapidly. Pictures and well-designed Religious Tracts are VERY EFFECTIVE in helping sinners visualize their condition and need for repentance.

A lost person is not convinced of their status and need for God … until the issue becomes PERSONAL to them. An impersonal god, is not the Christian God of the Bible, and ‘theoretical’ testimony about an impersonal Saviour will not be very convincing to the lost.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So, you can see why I wouldn’t view it as straining at gnats, but instead a significant difference. There are those who use the term accept in this way. They are, of course, welcome to. I’m just not comfortable with it for the reasons I have given.
Jon

If you are not comfortable with the phrase, then don’t use it. There is nothing magical about the phrase “accept/receive Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour” that something else can’t communicate.

What I meant by “straining at gnats” is criticizing other groups for using a phrase, particularly without understanding what it means from their perspective.

For example I am not comfortable with the phrase “Mother of God” for a number of reasons which I will not get into. But for me to be critical of the Catholics and others for using this phrase (particularly since I do understand what it means from their perspective) would to me be “straining at gnats”.

 

[elvisman]

Who wrote the Scriptures that make up the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God?
Why do you have to have other authority besides the Bible? Do you believe what is in the Bible? Why do Catholics use the Bible to justify their beliefs?

Because Catholic knows that the Bible is the Word of God.
We also know that the Word of God is NOT limited to the Bible.

**Tell me something - what do you make of John 21:25, where the Apostle tells us, *"***There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written"?

**What about **2 Thess 2:15, where Paul tells us to "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT OR by a letter from us"?
**He says OR a letter - he doesn’t say ONLY by a letter of ours.
Paul says that the Church is "the pillar anf foundation of truth" - NOT the Bible.
**The Bible is a record of many of the things they taught, but not ALL of what they taught. **

---

NOWHERE in all of Scripture does the Bible claim to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
NOWHERE in all of Scripture does the Bible claim to be the last authority.
NOWHERE in all of Scripture does the Bible claim that it can forgive or retain our sins.

It DOES say, however, that the Church is all these things with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23).

 

[brkn1]

You are right - as far as you say, “no man can” without god - we can’t.
Where you go off the deep end is in thinking that because we need God to see the gift - we can’t reject it - we CAN.

You are right that man can reject God. That is the specialty of all mankind that has not been given the gift of regeneration (born from above).

The Bible says that anything we do which is not of faith is sin.
Sin means to miss the mark in any form, such as lawlessness or any other inadequacy.
The Bible also says that without charity (love…Christ in us), all of our works are empty, even if we do what appears wonderful in man’s eyes.
If a person is not born again, he is spiritually dead and nothing he does or chooses will be good in God’s eyes.
Such a spiritually dead person can never use his free will to chose God. He is incapable of even understanding enough to make any such a choice.
The Holy Spirit must first bring about the new birth in a sinner’s heart before that person can even have saving faith in Jesus.
It is strictly by God’s Will and not our will that this happens.
Saving faith is the result or first fruit of the new birth. Both the new birth and the resulting faith are a gift by the grace of God.
We can not be said to have chosen that gift by our free will, since we did not have the necessary gift of faith beforehand to do so. Our free will is not the means of salvation.
Salvation is the work of God as Jesus said to those who asked Him how they might work the works of God. The very work of God is “that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” Notice that it is not described as being our work, but God’s work. That is why there can never be any boasting on the part of those who are drawn by God to Christ.

 

[elvisman]

You are right that man can reject God. That is the specialty of all mankind that has not been given the gift of regeneration (born from above).

The Bible says that anything we do which is not of faith is sin.
Sin means to miss the mark in any form, such as lawlessness or any other inadequacy.
The Bible also says that without charity (love…Christ in us), all of our works are empty, even if we do what appears wonderful in man’s eyes.
If a person is not born again, he is spiritually dead and nothing he does or chooses will be good in God’s eyes.
Such a spiritually dead person can never use his free will to chose God. He is incapable of even understanding enough to make any such a choice.
The Holy Spirit must first bring about the new birth in a sinner’s heart before that person can even have saving faith in Jesus.
It is strictly by God’s Will and not our will that this happens.
Saving faith is the result or first fruit of the new birth. Both the new birth and the resulting faith are a gift by the grace of God.
We can not be said to have chosen that gift by our free will, since we did not have the necessary gift of faith beforehand to do so. Our free will is not the means of salvation.
Salvation is the work of God as Jesus said to those who asked Him how they might work the works of God. The very work of God is “that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” Notice that it is not described as being our work, but God’s work. That is why there can never be any boasting on the part of those who are drawn by God to Christ.

Wrong**.**
We either accept or reject the gift of God’s grace. This is how we are able to believe in the first place. As** John 6:29**** says, the work of God is that we believe the one whom he sent. This means that God gives us the means to have faith.**

---

You’re mistaking “believing”** for having faith – they are NOT the same. James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe in God and tremble – but they don’t have faith in God.**
I believe in a lot of things but I do not have faith in them.

---

**God’s will within us is never forced. We must cooperate with the will of God for it to come to fruition. God is not a spiritual rapist who forces his love on us, but rather, he gives us the *****means ***to have an enduring faith in him. The mere fact that we can fall away tells us that he doesn’t MAKE us stay faithful.

 

[brkn1]

Wrong**.**
We either accept or reject the gift of God’s grace. This is how we are able** to believe in the first place. As**** John 6:29**** says, the work of God is that we believe the one whom he sent. This means that God gives us the means to have faith.**

You’re mistaking “believing”** for having faith – they are NOT** the same. James 2:19** tells us that even the demons believe in God and tremble – but they don’t have faith in God.**
I believe in a lot of things but I do not have faith in them.

**God’s will within us is never forced. We must cooperate with the will of God for it to come to fruition. God is not a spiritual rapist who forces his love on us, but rather, he gives us the *****means ***to have an enduring faith in him. The mere fact that we can fall away tells us that he doesn’t MAKE us stay faithful.

I understand why you must believe what you do about free will etc.
The whole system of your church requires a faith plus works process to eventually maybe bring a Catholic to salvation, if the Catholic dies in the state of grace etc.

What I don’t understand is the need to use the analogy you used in your last paragraph.
You did not need to make your point with such an insultingly crude reference.

“Believing in” and “having faith in” mean the same thing as far as I can see. You will find many references in the Bible that say “believe and you will be saved.” Such faith or belief in Christ must not just be the intellectual kind. It must be from the opening of the spiritual heart, which only God can do according to His Will and not ours.

I think we have all made our points and I expect to leave it at that for now. Thanks.