Can you 'decide' to follow Christ or are all Christians 'led' to Christ by God?

JimiTime

Christian response only please. Thanks.

Over the last while there have been quite a few posts around the forum about folk 'choosing' to reject God and in turn God giving them their wish, i.e. suffer hell.

However, it has also been alluded to, that no-one comes to Christ, unless God draws them to him.

Are these two doctrines in conflict?
Does anyone come to Christ from their own reasoning? or is it impossible? Are there exceptions?

I'd love to hear your views on this.

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

Christian response only please. Thanks.

Over the last while there have been quite a few posts around the forum about folk 'choosing' to reject God and in turn God giving them their wish, i.e. suffer hell.

However, it has also been alluded to, that no-one comes to Christ, unless God draws them to him.

Are these two doctrines in conflict?
Does anyone come to Christ from their own reasoning? or is it impossible? Are there exceptions?

I'd love to hear your views on this.

My simple understanding of the matter is that we have the free will to say yes to God and no to him.

God is the one who gives us the grace to believe, and it is a grace that comes from him and him only, but this grace is granted to us ( private opinion here ) only when we use that free will to say yes to God.

to choose not to believe is again our free will and bad reasoning in which we are led under influence by the enemy, but like adam and eve, we cannot blame someone else for our own choice, but he is the influence.

Have I made any sense at all? :o:D

Pax Christi
Stephen

PDN

There is definitely a work of God that precedes our conversion to Christ. God puts people across our path, convicts us of sin etc.

Nevertheless, I believe there is that line of free will choice that we can only cross ourselves. God will not force us to cross it.

For example, if I am praying for a loved one to find Christ as their Saviour, I believe my prayers have an effect and are not just a waste of breath. But I don't believe that my prayers can be 100% guaranteed to result in their conversion.

JimiTime

Actually an angle I never really thought of, but which you've both alluded to would make sense and rule out a contradiction. That angle is basically, God will make himself known, but we will decide if we accept him or not.

thanks for the input.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually an angle I never really thought of, but which you've both alluded to would make sense and rule out a contradiction. That angle is basically, God will make himself known, but we will decide if we accept him or not.

thanks for the input.

Of the course the input from a Calvinist (Wolfsbane may well oblige) would be very different.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Of the course the input from a Calvinist (Wolfsbane may well oblige) would be very different.

Indeed.

Our will is free to choose all that our nature wishes. So the issue is not our will but our nature. Our will, driven by guilt, may vacillate between trying to please God and ignoring Him, but it will never end up on God's side. The cost of following Him will be too much. Sinners may become fair-weather believers, but not real believers. Parable of the Soils again.

They even may have the experiences mentioned in Hebrews 6, but without a new nature they will revert to type. They will ultimately freely choose to reject God.

Here's the truth:
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

John 10: 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

To this the New Covenant witnesses:
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

A new nature, a new heart, makes certain their free-will choice to love and obey God.

Soul Winner

Don't forget what Ephesians says in Chapter 1 verse 4


"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

This verse tells us that God made up His choice in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world. And the verse where Jesus points out that nobody can come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draws that person tells us that God is the initiator of the relationship. So to answer your OP Jimi, we cannot simply decide to follow God without Him doing the tugging on the heart strings first. The "My sheep know my voice" reference I believe refers to people who are one of these chosen ones coming into the range of hearing the words of Gods and will respond accordingly, just like a receiver is able to tune into certain radio frequencies which are transmitted from the transmitter. If you haven't got the receiver then you will not be able to pick up the signal, if you have got it, then as soon as you come into contact with the signal (God's Word) that is when the connection is made and the choice made by God before the foundation of world is activated in time. The scary part is, now that we've received the Word and our election has been activated we must walk in this light and be faithful to our callings right up to the end. None of us can say that we are there yet, we must keep the faith and faint not.

Also, notice the parable of the sower points out that there are 4 types of soil yet only one type brings forth good crop. These 4 types of soil all receive the word with gladness at first but cares of this world, and Satan attacking amongst other things can rob them of the gift. We must be on guard at all times and keep our shields of faith up so that we can quench the fiery darts of the devil. Many are called but few are chosen. The four types of soil were all believers but not all made it. That tells me that of all the Christians that once professed themselves to be such, only one quarter of them produced good crop.

Peter recognized this and asked the following:

"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" 1 Peter 4:18

And the writer to the Hebrews laments as follows:

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:31

But Paul admonishes us to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," Philippians 2:12


Scary stuff and enough to keep us on our toes right till the end if we hold fast to the Gospel that we have received.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Christian response only please. Thanks.

Over the last while there have been quite a few posts around the forum about folk 'choosing' to reject God and in turn God giving them their wish, i.e. suffer hell.

However, it has also been alluded to, that no-one comes to Christ, unless God draws them to him.

Are these two doctrines in conflict?

In my view, no.

God drawing a person to himself doesn't necessarily mean they will arrive at him. A pretty decent analogy is the fisherman and the fish. The fisherman draws the fish to himself but the will of the fish is geared towards escape.

If the will of the fish is exhausted by the fisherman then the fish will be landed - the fisherman drew the fish to himself. If the fish escapes it is because of the exertions of it's own will.

Thus, are the two doctrines reconciled. If saved, because God drew - the glory goes to God. If lost because man rejected - the ignominy goes to man.

(Clearly, God could ensure that the fish come to him no matter what. He could do the equivilent of dynamiting the lake. But that wouldn't be fishing.)

Does anyone come to Christ from their own reasoning? or is it impossible? Are there exceptions?

I don't hold so. Unless God draws then no man will come to God by himself - his nature is geared against it.

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

God is the one who gives us the grace to believe, and it is a grace that comes from him and him only, but this grace is granted to us ( private opinion here ) only when we use that free will to say yes to God.


...Have I made any sense at all?

Hmmm.

Speaking for the unbelieving brethern here gathered; without being given the grace to believe first, what basis would I have for freely saying yes to a God I didn't yet believe in?

It sounds a bit chicken & eggish?

Graces7

For some, Jesus is a constant presence . He chooses them for a way of life.

For all, truly we can never be fulfilled in life unless we know Jesus and choose that life.

Only then do you see how He has been behind and around you all the days of your life.

NB CS Lewis tried the intellectual way as many have; "Surprised by Joy" means just what is says.

Not our will or ways. But His.

Nevyn

But wasn't it Christs role to bring people back to God his father?

homer911

You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink!

Graces7

homer911 wrote: »

You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink!

Isn't that so true?

But then why would you want to ?

It will get thirsty in its own time.

And if it sees you drinking and how good that water is..

The Water of Life....

dermothickey

Thaedydal wrote: »

But wasn't it Christs role to bring people back to God his father?

Exactly so.

antiskeptic

Thaedydal wrote: »

But wasn't it Christs role to bring people back to God his father?

What I do know is that it was the fathers role to give people to his son.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

There is definitely a work of God that precedes our conversion to Christ. God puts people across our path, convicts us of sin etc.

Nevertheless, I believe there is that line of free will choice that we can only cross ourselves. God will not force us to cross it.

For example, if I am praying for a loved one to find Christ as their Saviour, I believe my prayers have an effect and are not just a waste of breath. But I don't believe that my prayers can be 100% guaranteed to result in their conversion.

I really like this explanation to a great question. I'm no biblical scholar but I would imagine there is no conflict here with free will and what the bible teaches. Was it St. Paul who said each of us is given 'our measure'?

I think it's the Holy Spirit in others that we recognise more than anything else...a reflection of that 'measure' within perhaps...

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I really like this explanation to a great question. I'm no biblical scholar but I would imagine there is no conflict here with free will and what the bible teaches. Was it St. Paul who said each of us is given 'our measure'?

Not sure. It was however St. Paul who kind of kicked the idea of freewill into touch a far as the unbeliever goes.

ISAW

P: God calls us
Q: We have a choice to go to God

P and Q don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

One can argue that P precedes Q or Q precedes P or that one takes precedence over the other and maybe that is where many of the "faith vs. good works" or "free will vs. predestination" arguments stem but they are separate arguments as to whether P and Q can co exist.

Your question did lead me to think of the following.
suppose there is a planet with no sunlight and only one island on it and you build a lighthouse on the island. The likelihood that people will just stumble (well "flounder" rather then "stumble" I suppose to be pedantic but I meant metaphorically as well as literally since the metaphor is literal - but I digress) upon the island is very small although it could happen especially if they have heard of it are looking for it. If they haven't they are like the people who never heard about Christianity say. Now suppose you turn on the light which indicates where you are. They still may come or not depending on their choice. Is it really important whether the light was not on at some stage in the past or whether people could not see it? The fact is the light is on.

wolfsbane

ISAW wrote: »

P: God calls us
Q: We have a choice to go to God

P and Q don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

One can argue that P precedes Q or Q precedes P or that one takes precedence over the other and maybe that is where many of the "faith vs. good works" or "free will vs. predestination" arguments stem but they are separate arguments as to whether P and Q can co exist.

Your question did lead me to think of the following.
suppose there is a planet with no sunlight and only one island on it and you build a lighthouse on the island. The likelihood that people will just stumble (well "flounder" rather then "stumble" I suppose to be pedantic but I meant metaphorically as well as literally since the metaphor is literal - but I digress) upon the island is very small although it could happen especially if they have heard of it are looking for it. If they haven't they are like the people who never heard about Christianity say. Now suppose you turn on the light which indicates where you are. They still may come or not depending on their choice. Is it really important whether the light was not on at some stage in the past or whether people could not see it? The fact is the light is on.

P and Q are not mutually exclusive. But that does not mean our choice is going to be other than that our nature determines, if left to ourselves. Evil hearts will only choose to ultimately reject God's call. A new heart is needed if one is going to choose to go to God.

I'm not sure exactly what your parable meant, but let me offer a comment. Yes, the heathen who have never heard the gospel perish without it. They are judged for the sins they committed, but not for rejecting the gospel. Those who see the lighthouse shining but refuse to go will be judged for the sins they committed, including that of rejecting the gospel. And as said above, their choice is free, not forced against their will - but always according to their nature/heart.
Luke 8:
11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

P and Q are not mutually exclusive. But that does not mean our choice is going to be other than that our nature determines, if left to ourselves. Evil hearts will only choose to ultimately reject God's call.

As discussed elsewhere, the facts of the matter are that these evil hearts don't reject God's general call (issue through conscience) at all times - if they did then the world would be far worse than it is currently is.

This 'inevitability of choice' position doesn't actually square with reality.

A new heart is needed if one is going to choose to go to God.

One need not choose God in order not to reject God.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

As discussed elsewhere, the facts of the matter are that these evil hearts don't reject God's general call (issue through conscience) at all times - if they did then the world would be far worse than it is currently is.

Quite so. But I was using it in the ultimate sense - no matter the temporary compliance, ultimately the unregenerate heart will reject the gospel. The Parable of the Soils illustrates this.

This 'inevitability of choice' position doesn't actually square with reality.

Not if one includes temporary choices. But we are speaking of bottom line, ultimate decisions. The sinful heart will never submit totally. It may do so for a time, outwardly, but it always reverts to type.

Quote:
A new heart is needed if one is going to choose to go to God.
One need not choose God in order not to reject God.

We are born rejecting Him. Our nature is alienated from Him:
Colossians 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. But I was using it in the ultimate sense - no matter the temporary compliance, ultimately the unregenerate heart will reject the gospel. The Parable of the Soils illustrates this.

I'm not sure it's fair to take such a large doctrine from this parable (or better said perhaps, from but one of the four soil types in the parable).

What precisely is unregenerate heart? What precisely is the gospel?

What we seem to agree is that lost man can respond positively to Gods general conviction regarding what is and isn't sinfulness. In which case I see no barrier to man arriving at saving levels of conviction of sin - whilst still being lost.

Not if one includes temporary choices. But we are speaking of bottom line, ultimate decisions. The sinful heart will never submit totally. It may do so for a time, outwardly, but it always reverts to type.

I'm not sure a 'decision' is involved in arrival at conviction of sin. Perhaps one could have prevented arrival at conviction by ducking and diving so as to prevent conviction obtaining purchase. But arrival itself requires no decision. It requires only that God attempt to present convicting evidence.

I understand your position but see you as reiterating it rather than showing it (something I do too it must be said). The sinful heart left to it's own devices wouldn't of course submit. But no one is saying it is left to it's own devices - the idea is that God attempts to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement.

We are born rejecting Him. Our nature is alienated from Him:
Colossians 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Again, there is no suggestion that the carnal mind contributes positively to salvation - I'm not saying we choose salvation.

The fact that we are by nature enemies doesn't prevent our being defeated by God. Nor does the fact we can be defeated by God mean that we necessarily must be defeated. In which case you have potential for a mans salvation (his defeat) or his damnation (his preventing defeat).

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. But I was using it in the ultimate sense - no matter the temporary compliance, ultimately the unregenerate heart will reject the gospel. The Parable of the Soils illustrates this.
I'm not sure it's fair to take such a large doctrine from this parable (or better said perhaps, from but one of the four soil types in the parable).

Only the last type was genuine. The good ground is a noble and good heart. So repentance and faith come only to a new heart, as the New Covenant teaches. They do not cause it.

What precisely is unregenerate heart?

The (spiritual) heart we have by physical birth. It is naturally hostile to God and cannot be otherwise.

What precisely is the gospel?

These examples show it is that Christ is the Saviour and our need to repent and trust in Him:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Acts 20:21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

What we seem to agree is that lost man can respond positively to Gods general conviction regarding what is and isn't sinfulness.

Correct.

In which case I see no barrier to man arriving at saving levels of conviction of sin - whilst still being lost.

We disagree on conviction having any saving levels.

Quote:
Not if one includes temporary choices. But we are speaking of bottom line, ultimate decisions. The sinful heart will never submit totally. It may do so for a time, outwardly, but it always reverts to type.
I'm not sure a 'decision' is involved in arrival at conviction of sin.

It's not. Choice follows conviction, it does not generate it.

I understand your position but see you as reiterating it rather than showing it (something I do too it must be said). The sinful heart left to it's own devices wouldn't of course submit. But no one is saying it is left to it's own devices - the idea is that God attempts to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement.

When I say the sinful heart will never submit totally, I mean no matter what guilt it feels, what glory of Christ is presented, what reality of eternal punishment is revealed, it will still ultimately reject God. He is its enemy. Any profession of submission is only temporary, not of the heart.

You seem to say that the natural man can savingly repent and believe, if only enough pressure of conscience is applied. If only he sees the gospel clearly enough, if only he feels his sinfulness enough, if only he fears the reality of hell enough.

If that is the case, should all not be given equal chance to be saved? Is one saved because of all the witness he had from his Christian family and friends; and another perishes because he only heard the gospel one or twice, if at all, and in the most unhelpful situations?

And what determines one to obey and one to reject, given equal conviction? Is one smarter than the other? Or has a better character? Is salvation then partly down to merit? Do we have something to boast of?

The fact that we are by nature enemies doesn't prevent our being defeated by God.

Indeed!

Nor does the fact we can be defeated by God mean that we necessarily must be defeated.

True.

In which case you have potential for a mans salvation (his defeat) or his damnation (his preventing defeat).

Agreed.

Now all we need to see is if this potential lies in the man or in God.

Can a man prevent his defeat if God has chosen to defeat Him? The Calvinist says NO. God defeats him by giving a new heart, one that loves God and gladly chooses to obey the gospel.

Where God has not chosen him, He lets the man's old heart continue its implacable opposition to every call of the gospel.

Both freely choose their responses - the outcome is determined by their hearts/natures.
________________________________________________________________
Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Soul Winner

Thaedydal wrote: »

But wasn't it Christs role to bring people back to God his father?

Not primarily. His primary purpose was to do the will of the Father who sent Him. And this purpose was to destroy the works of the devil. In doing so yes many people have come to God through Him because in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself but it was His Father's will (not ours) that he was doing even though we are the beneficiaries of His obedience to His Father.

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:8

"So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." II Corinthians 5 16:21


.

Michael G

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm.

Speaking for the unbelieving brethern here gathered; without being given the grace to believe first, what basis would I have for freely saying yes to a God I didn't yet believe in?

It sounds a bit chicken & eggish?

It does, but that is what happened to me. I was given (or had) the wish to believe; some time later I decided to believe. Now I believe without effort. I have no idea how I could describe that to you in rational terms.

StealthRolex

Michael G wrote: »

It does, but that is what happened to me. I was given (or had) the wish to believe; some time later I decided to believe. Now I believe without effort. I have no idea how I could describe that to you in rational terms.

Likewise and I don't thing the work of the Holy Spirit can be rationalized as God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Maybe one day we will see one of the committed atheists here pop up under a new handle proclaiming they have found the Truth. Maybe we already have

antiskeptic

Michael G wrote: »

It does, but that is what happened to me. I was given (or had) the wish to believe; some time later I decided to believe. Now I believe without effort. I have no idea how I could describe that to you in rational terms.

Yours is a slightly different case. Stephentlig (to whom I was responding) suggested we need to freely choose God first, then we'll be given the grace to believe. Which is why I suggested a bit of chicken/egg: I mean, why would someone freely choose God without God somehow providing reason to freely choose him.

In your case there is a logical sequence: first there's an act of God > then there's your choice ... and no chicken egg.



(when you say you "decided" you must have had some reason or other for doing so. I mean, people don't decide to do things for no reason at all.)