← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 14774 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-08-21
2004-08-21 20:26 | User Profile
[url=http://www.concordtx.org/cpapers/become.htm]How Do You Become a Christian?[/url]
The logical and most popular answer today is that you decide to accept Jesus into your heart. Some churches will have what’s known as an “altar call” at the end of the service where they invite people down to the front of the sanctuary (where the altar is) to receive Christ. This practice has been tremendously popularized by Billy Graham crusades. After Dr. Graham preaches his message, he invites non-believers out of the audience to come down to the main floor to make a decision for Christ. They pray what’s known as the “sinner’s prayer,” which acknowledges their sinfulness before God and asks Jesus to come into their hearts.
What’s wrong with this?
We obviously would applaud the emphasis on human sin and the need for forgiveness through Jesus Christ alone. In this respect, Dr. Graham and others who engage in this practice are correct. The problem with an altar call and “making a decision for Christ” is that many people are mislead into believing that faith is the result of a decision. Saint John clearly refutes this teaching in his Gospel when he writes that we are, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or of a man’s will, but born of God (1:13).
The Scriptures teach that man’s nature is totally depraved. A decision assumes that man is morally neutral and that he has the ability to simply choose between good and evil. This is untrue. The Scriptures emphasize that man is turned in upon himself. He is sinful before he is even born (Psalm 51:5) and is inclined towards evil from the moment of his conception! He is unable to make a decision to receive Christ because…
He is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1)
His nature is hostile and resistant to God (Rom 8:7)
There is no good left within him (Rom 3:10, 7:18)
Where did “decision theology” come from?
During the Middle Ages, society saw the rise of a new way of thinking known as “humanism.” From Spain to Italy, all of Europe quickly became captivated by this new way of thinking. The basic premise of humanism called for people to re-evaluate commonly held truths in light of their original sources and writings. This innovative approach was critical for launching the Reformation as the “undisputed” teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy now also came under fire.
Over time, humanism grew past such healthy limits and boundaries. The words, “We can become what we will” spoken by Pico della Mirandola in the 14th century foreshadowed a dangerous future. As its name suggests, humanism also emphasized the individual and his achievements. It allowed man to view himself as the master of his own destiny and the architect of his own universe. Philosophy, art, literature and culture were all heavily influenced. Predictably, so was the Church.
In the 16th century, an Augustinian monk named Erasmus wrote a book called The Freedom of the Will, which blended humanist thinking with the Church’s teachings on salvation. Erasmus argued that man had the capacity to decide to accept or reject grace. Specifically, he defined free will as the capacity “to associate oneself with that which leads to eternal blessedness or to turn away from it.” This freedom refers to the ability to do good (in the spiritual sense) or the power to chose between good and evil.
Martin Luther was so horrified that he said to Erasmus, “You alone have attacked the real matter at issue, that is, the heart of the case.” Luther recognized that Erasmus was, in essence, stealing from God. He argued that Erasmus’ claims bestowed the credit for salvation upon man — as the one with the ultimate power to save himself through his own decision. Luther responded by writing the most famous book of the Reformation, The Bondage of the Will. In it, he argued that man’s will is not free, but rather is enslaved to his sinful nature. Luther pointed out that original sin is not simply an inclination towards evil, but it is the corruption of man in his entirety. Man cannot choose, decide or cooperate with God in his salvation because man’s nature resists and is hostile to God. Salvation then, can only come as the result of God’s doing and His grace alone.
How does God do this? He uses what Lutherans call “means of grace.” Isaiah 55:11 reads, So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. The Scriptures tell us that God converts people through the preaching of the Gospel, the message that Christ died on the cross for our sins. The Holy Spirit always attends the proclamation of this message. The Spirit seeks to convert the heart and give birth to faith. There is no human decision here, it is all God’s work. As it is written, “The flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6).
Baptism is another means of grace. In Baptism, the Spirit is again at work to unite us with the saving accomplishments of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-6). Baptism makes us heirs to the promise of God’s salvation because we receive the blessings of His atoning work.
Faith does not come about because a person decides to receive a gift. This would imply that man takes the first step in his salvation and God completes it. Faith is instead created by the Holy Spirit’s action through the means of grace. Man is not an active participant in his salvation. He is only a weak and humble beggar who is lifted out of his spiritual poverty by the Grace of God.
In Christ,
Pastor Christopher Bramich Messiah Lutheran Church Keller, Texas
2004-08-21 23:05 | User Profile
1- Believe in Jesus.
2- Believe that he is the son of God.
3- Believe that he die in the cross for all of us.
If you were to study religion you would find out that everything that is in the Bible (as told by the Jews) goes back at least 2,000 to 3,000 before the Bible in almost word for word.
The part about Jesus being a holy man? it was there before. That he is the son of God? it was there before. That he died on a cross (tie to a tree) it was there before. Noah and his ship? it was there before. The 12 disciples? it was there before.
To you Christians, I am glad that you find peace in religion but as long as you allowed the Jews to treat others as they are doing then you only believe in yourselves and not in the word of God.
I for one only believe in man and what they could do if they were nice people but as long as the Jews poison the mind of man there will be no peace.
2004-08-22 02:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]1- Believe in Jesus.
2- Believe that he is the son of God.
3- Believe that he die in the cross for all of us.
If you were to study religion you would find out that everything that is in the Bible (as told by the Jews) goes back at least 2,000 to 3,000 before the Bible in almost word for word.
Excuse me Ponce, but the Bible is now acknowledged to be a pretty ancient book, whose origins go back at least 1500 to 2000 years befre the birth of Christ. Even the most critical scholars are having to push this date back far before what they once asserted. The Quumram (Dead Sea Scrolls) were instrumental in this respect. So you go back 2000 to 3000 years before the Bible, you're saying you can go back 3500 to 5000 years before Christ. Which is really before any known writings.
You need to check your dates. I think the worse you can reasonably state about the Bible narratives and metaphors is they were contemporary with other metaphors. Which itself wouldn't be unexpected - God speaks in the language of the times to be understood. In many cases though they are clearly anticipatory and enexpected from the time period, as one would expect for divine prophecy.
2004-08-22 04:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]1- Believe in Jesus.
2- Believe that he is the son of God.
3- Believe that he die in the cross for all of us.
If you were to study religion you would find out that everything that is in the Bible (as told by the Jews) goes back at least 2,000 to 3,000 before the Bible in almost word for word.[/QUOTE]
Fragments of the book of Job was found in the dead sea scrolls. The book was written in paleo-Hebrew. Which I think would make it just about the oldest of all known books.
I think the point you are trying to make is that other religions that predate Christianity often have the same details that Christianity has. The Apostle Paul explains that such details are prophesied in the OT and that Satan knowing the scriptures fabricated false religions using those details. However, none of those stand up against Christianity.
2004-08-23 04:32 | User Profile
The Scriptures emphasize that man is turned in upon himself. He is sinful before he is even born (Psalm 51:5) and is inclined towards evil from the moment of his conception! He is unable to make a decision to receive Christ If this is true, then it's not man's fault that he is that way. It's God's fault. Therefore, it is unjust for God to blame any man for being the way God created him.
God could have created all men such that they had 100% free will, yet would so abhor the idea of disobeying God that they would never even think of doing so. Just as each human being has the [u]perfectly free will[/u] to drink horse urine but won't do it -- on account of man's innate tendency to recoil in horror from the very thought of doing such things -- God could have made a world in which every man would recoil in horror at the very thought of sinning while still leaving them the free will to sin. That would have made sin nearly nonexistent (or even totally nonexistent, if God so chose) while still perfectly preserving free will. But God didn't do this. Therefore, sin -- including the original rebellion of Lucifer -- is ultimately caused by God, which in turn means that God has no reason to complain about sin.
Christians don't understand this reasoning because they don't even want to think about it. They can't think about it -- it's too painful to watch everything you were brought up to believe in vanish into thin air. But the logic is there, in black and white, and it's not going anywhere.
Either Christianity is false, or God is ultimately the author of sin. Take your pick. There is no middle ground.
2004-08-23 04:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Christians don't understand this reasoning because they don't even want to think about it. They can't think about it -- it's too painful to watch everything you were brought up to believe in vanish into thin air. But the logic is there, in black and white, and it's not going anywhere.
Too painful? Worst case, I end up like you. Are you in pain?
Either Christianity is false, or God is ultimately the author of sin. Take your pick. There is no middle ground.[/QUOTE]
As Paul explains in Romans 9> 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory
Not Politically Correct, but good enough for me.
2004-08-23 18:58 | User Profile
[url]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1464/luther_warns_about_the_dangers_of_decision_theology.html[/url]
Those who preach that man must "make a decision for Christ" invariably defend their teaching on the basis that man has "free will." Luther recognized this concept as a dangerous one. In his book, Bondage of the Will, Luther argues against such free will. In order to understand exactly what Luther was arguing against, one must understand how exactly free will is defined.
Erasmus, whom Luther wrote Bondage of the Will to refute, defined free-will as "a power of the human will by which man may apply himself to those things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same" (Packer & Johnston, 48). It is this that Luther denies. While Erasmus leaned more towards the Semi-Pelagianism of Rome than he did towards what later would become the decision theology of Arminianism, it can be seen that both had one fundamental error in common. Both asserted that man indeed had free will, thus putting some of the responsibility for eternal salvation on man himself. Therefore, much of the arguments directed against Erasmus apply equally to those who teach decision theology. Both the Semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus and the decision theology of Arminius and his modern-day devotees deny man’s total inability to save himself and the sovereignty of Divine grace in salvation. Luther defended the pure teaching of Scripture; namely that man through sin has ceased to good. As Paul said in Romans, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one" (Ro 3:10-12). Furthermore, man has no power to please God. He is unable to do anything but continue in sin. Therefore, man can, of himself, contribute nothing to his salvation. The salvation of man is wholly the work of God and to him belongs all the glory, praise and honor. The teaching of those who espouse decision theology deny the truth of Scripture and burden man with a load he is totally incapable of carrying.
**Luther rightly claims that those who teach that man has free-will misunderstand the importance of knowing that God necessitates all things, that is that the things God wills are immutable. What God wills must take place. Luther says, "To lack this knowledge is really to be ignorant of God—and salvation is notoriously incompatible with such ignorance" (Packer & Johnston, 83). To not know, or not trust that God’s will is immutable and necessary endangers one’s faith. Again as Luther asked, "For if one hesitates to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust, and rely on His promises" (Packer & Johnston, 83-84). Luther further defends this point when he says, "Not only should be sure that God wills, and will execute His will, necessarily and immutably; we should glory in the fact as Paul does in Rom. 3 –‘Let God be true, but every man a liar’" (Packer & Johnston, 84). Luther sums up the danger of not knowing that God necessitates all things this way:
If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ingorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian’s chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded. (Packer & Johnston, 84).**
Assigning the term free-will to man, elevates man to being equal with God. Luther said, "It follows, therefore, that free-will is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) whatever he wills in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6). If free will is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be—and no blasphemy could exceed that" (Packer & Johnston, 105). He further states that the term free-will is misleading when we apply it to mankind for "free-will without God’s grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil" (Packer & Johnston, 104).
Luther does an excellent job of exposing the flaw of those who claim man has free will and yet claim that man cannot will good without grace. This is exactly the position of those who teach decision theology. They claim that God bestows on man prevenient grace and that man can choose to accept or reject this grace. "But if there were enough good in man to apply itself to good then man would have no need of grace" (Packer & Johnston, 145).
To prove their doctrine of free-will those who teach decision theology often cite Deuteronomy 30: 19, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." They with Erasmus claim that these words would be inappropriate if man’s will were not free for good. In response Luther says, "The words quoted are imperative, and tell us merely what ought to be done. Moses does not say: ‘you have the power and strength to choose’, but, ‘choose’, ‘keep’, ‘do’; he is conveying commandments to perform, not describing man’s ability" (Packer & Johnston, 145). If one was to examine this argument and accept that man indeed has a choice to choose good or evil then Christ’s work would be in vain.
Another argument, often expounded today for man having free-will, is that if man does not have free-will then a righteous God could not condemn him for not choosing to believe in him. They quote such passages as 1 Ti 2:3-4, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Luther’s argument against Erasmus using the words of Ezekiel, where God said, "I desire not the death of a sinner" (Ez 18:23), applies here too. Luther once again points out that this is the "sweetest voice of the gospel" (Packer & Johnston, 145). This is intended to provide consolation to sinners who are feeling godly sorrow over their sins. Luther argued:
If those Divine promises did not stand firm, to raise up consciences tormented with a sense of sin and terrified by fear of death and judgment, what place would there be for pardon or for hope? What sinner would not sink in despair? But as ‘free-will’ is not proved by any of the other words of mercy or promise or comfort, so neither is it proved by this: I desire not the death of a sinner", etc. (Packer & Johnston, 167).
As Luther points out those who use these verses to justify free-will turn the gospel into law. They restate the 1 Timothy passage to read that God wants all men to stop sinning and be saved. "Nothing, therefore could be quoted in support of free-will’ less appropriately than this passage of Ezekiel; indeed it makes most strongly against ‘free-will’" (Packer & Johnston, 168). The same could be said of those who attempt to use the passage from Paul’s first letter to Timothy.
As to the question of why some are saved and others are condemned, Luther rightly says:
As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace, that is another question which Ezekiel does not here discuss. He speaks of the published offer of God’s mercy, not of the dreadful hidden will of God, Who according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered. This will is not to be inquired into, but to be reverently adored, as by far the most awesome secret of the Divine Majesty. (Packer & Johnston, 169)
While Bondage of the Will was Luther’s most complete treatment of the topic of free-will, it is by far not the only time he remarked on the topic. In the Seven Penitential Psalms, written as early as 1517, Luther said, "If God’s mercy is be praised, then all [human] merits must come to naught. Not such are blessed as have no sins or extricate themselves by their own labors, but only those whose sins are graciously forgiven by God" (Trig, 125). Luther considered the matter of free-will something that was important to discuss. In many of his sermons, he also addressed the topic. For Luther, proper understanding of the will of man was fundamental to faith. Even in his Small Catechism,
Luther treats this topic in his explanation to third article of the Apostle’s Creed when he says, "I believe that I cannot by own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith" (Trig, 545).
Luther recognized the many problems that result from attributing free-will to man.
It leads to a denial of man’s inability to save himself. It leads to a denial of the sovereignty of God’s grace in salvation. These two things deny God the glory, praise and honor do him. In addition, attributing free-will to man, and therefore requiring man to "make a decision for Christ, burdens man with a load that he is incapable of carrying. This will ultimately lead man to despair instead of the cross.
Attributing free-will, to man also creates doubt. The Papists always have to wonder "have I done enough?" The decision theology devotees must always ask the question, "Do I believe enough or Do I really truly believe?" The apostle John wrote, "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name"(Jn 20:31). The faith which John speaks of here is not a faith which comes from man. It is not a faith that entertains doubt. It is the faith that is "sure of what it hopes for and certain of what it does not see" (He 11:1). This kind of faith can only come when God is in total control
Attributing free-will to man is also the ultimate in blasphemy because it elevates man to a status of being equal with God. Luther rightly pointed out that one can only assign free-will to God himself. Finally attributing free-will to man nullifies the need for grace at all. If man can choose good of his own will, then grace is not necessary and Christ’s sacrifice for sin, his suffering and shedding of his precious blood, is useless.
Luther finally demonstrates that one can only come to this conclusion by confusing Law and Gospel. Improper use of the means of grace is not the way to call the sinner to repentance and faith in our Savior. One should constantly strive towards properly applying the Law and the Gospel, rather than confusing them to promote a doctrine that is more palatable to man’s reason. Luther understood the dangers of those who attribute free-will to man. May that always be said of us.
Bente, F. Concordia Triglot. St. Louis, MO. Concordia Publishing House, 1921.
Packer, J.I., M.A,. D.Phil & Johnston, O.R. M.A., Martin Luther on The Bondage Of The Will. Westwood, NJ. Fleming H. Revell Company. 1957.
Thompson, Frank Charles, D.D., Ph.D. The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible. New International Version. Indianapolis, IN. B.B. Kirkbridge Bible Co., Inc. 1990.