Acts 2:47 and decision theology

[seajoy]

"....And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

I came across this verse the other day. It made me smile at how God just adds us to the list of those written in the book of life. :)

When did decision theology begin, and why? If you look at verse 41 in this chapter ("those who accepted his message were baptised....") you can see where perhaps the decision theology came from. This subject has always interested me, as I just can't see how "deciding" salvation can be much of a comfort. Man, I love being Lutheran. :)

My verses are taken from the NIV. Thanks in advance for your comments

[QuiltAngel]

The ESV words it this way: 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

verse 41 in the ESV says: 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Wonder if our Greek scholars can help us determine better what it says.

It would be interesting to learn when "Decision Theology" came into being or came to prominence.

Why? I would say that it has a lot to do with the idea that people can not believe that salvation is free, a gift. They feel like they have to do something to earn that.

I look forward to the discussion on this.

[seajoy]

Thanks for a good starting post to this, Quilty. Nice to have the ESV here also.

[DaRev]

The Greek word that the NIV translates as "accept" is the word "apodexomai."
In the Lexicon it has three meanings. One is (1) as giving a friendly reception to someone welcome, receive favorably. This one doesn't really fit the context of the passage. The second one is (2) as understanding and receiving a message favorably receive, accept. This holds a more passive meaning, "accepting" as in understanding instead of actively grasping or choosing. The third one (3) as being content w. what someone has done recognize, acknowledge, praise for. This one could also fit the context especially in light of the Gospel as a whole. The Gospel is what God has done for us in Christ, so it would be more of an acknowledgment of the Gospel than an active "accepting" or "choosing."

I find it interesting that the NIV is among the only English translations that uses the word "accept" here. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, and others use "receive."

[seajoy]

Thanks Rev. I appreciate your knowledge on this one. The word "receive" is surely important in this verse.

[QuiltAngel]

So, does anyone know how and when the decision theology got to be so widely accepted?

[cerette]

So, does anyone know how and when the decision theology got to be so widely accepted?

Charles Finney (1792-1875) started what is commonly known as "Altar Calls" where people are invited up front if they wish to choose Jesus.

(My Better Half mentioned that in 1824 Finney held services during which he asked people to stand up if they wished to submit to God, and remain sitting if they didn't.)

I have no idea exactly how this was spread so widely, but of course believe that Satan loves the idea of decision theology since it isn't pure gospel.

[Zecryphon]

So, does anyone know how and when the decision theology got to be so widely accepted?

My best guess is that decision theology really spread with in the 70's, when having a "personal relationship" with Jesus became the most important thing. It seems to me that people typically combine their modern knowledge of language with what is written in the scriptures. I think decision theology probably resulted from a casual reading of Acts 2:37. Look at the end of that verse and the question it poses.


37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Now, with that question the focus naturally gets put upon us and I think people are looking to themselves to do what the rest of the verses talk about, and in reality, contribute to their salvation. 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Acts 2:37-41 (ESV)

I think that's how Baptism became a symbolic work on our part to symbolize what Jesus did for us on the cross. It's now an outward display of an inward commitment. This is how every church I've ever been to in the past has explained Baptism.


Now the verses that really blow away decision theology for me are Romans 8:28-30.

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Romans 8:28-30 (ESV)

It's clear from these scriptures that God has predestined people to be called, justified and glorified. So since God is doing all of those things, what is it we have to do exactly? What do we or what can we contribute to our salvation? Nothing.

My problem with decision theology is that it places us in a position of power above God. It's like God can't act until we decide to allow Him to do so. Without our decision, God is powerless to save us. It also teaches that we contribute in some way to our salvation and if this is true, then we deserve some of the credit and glorification for our salvation and God is not and can not be fully glorified. We are actually a co-redempter along with Christ, according to this teaching. The churches that typically teach this always blast the RCC for teaching that Mary is a co-redemptrix. But they're actually more like the Catholics, they either just don't know it and if they do, they won't admit it.

[Zecryphon]

Charles Finney (1792-1875) started what is commonly known as "Altar Calls" where people are invited up front if they wish to choose Jesus.

(My Better Half mentioned that in 1824 Finney held services during which he asked people to stand up if they wished to submit to God, and remain sitting if they didn't.)

I have no idea exactly how this was spread so widely, but of course believe that Satan loves the idea of decision theology since it isn't pure gospel.

The Way of the Master, which has a good-sized audience, does promote this idea in their television programs, radio show/podcasts and various books and training materials. So let's blame them.

[QuiltAngel]

Billy Graham was a big promoter of it back in the day.

I agree that it makes us more than God.

I never have 'bought into' the decision theology, though a brother of mine has. It did provide for some interesting conversations back when. I think it is great to review this now and then since it is still so prevalent today.

[BabyLutheran]

How do you know that Billy Graham isn't an agent being used by the Holy Spirit? I am new to all this and am trying to understand it better.

[QuiltAngel]

We can't determine that. Pertaining to the topic though, he encourages people to invite Jesus into your heart. His magazine is "Decision Magazine"

I don't know, we have established that we do not decide. In our catecshism Luther summarizes the third article of the creed this way:

I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church he daily and abundantly forgives all my sins, and the sins of all believers, and on the last day he will raise me and all the dead and will grant eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. This is most certainly true.

Do I mean that those who have heard the Gospel by way of the Billy Graham crusades are not true believers? No. But, per the topic at hand, we can not decide to be saved. God does it through Jesus. There is nothing we do. See DaRev's post above.

[LilLamb219]

How do you know that Billy Graham isn't an agent being used by the Holy Spirit? I am new to all this and am trying to understand it better.

No one said that God can't use people who have bad theology.

Decision theology is my biggest pet peeve!!!

In another forum many years ago, I once asked a group of people Can God Save Us Without Our Permission? Of course, all the decision theology believers quickly said NO NO NO! They even declared it being somewhat like rape for God to take us as believers. :doh:Of course I was extremely disgusted by their imagery!!! I tried to give them the Lazarus story about Jesus calling Him to life from the dead. Lazarus didn't have to give permission or make a decision...in face, he couldn't.

[WildStrawberry]

and there was CS Lewis who, in his own words, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into faith in God. He did NOT want to believe. God wanted otherwise.

Kae

[QuiltAngel]

and there was CS Lewis who, in his own words, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into faith in God. He did NOT want to believe. God wanted otherwise.

Kae

So was Saul aka St. Paul

[BabyLutheran]

and there was CS Lewis who, in his own words, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into faith in God. He did NOT want to believe. God wanted otherwise.

Kae

Precisely, it is a decision he made to believe.

I think it's a matter of semantics in a lot of cases. It seems to me that Lutherans here make a distinction between "believing" and "deciding to believe" when in fact most people would shrug and say it means the same thing.

[BabyLutheran]

I also think that our theology is misunderstood. When i told a believer that we can do nothing to save ourselves, they took it to mean, go ahead and do whatever you want, sin or not, because God will save you anyway if it is his will.

[LilLamb219]

Decide to believe? We can ONLY believe because faith was first given to us!

[BabyLutheran]

Yes but being dragged kicking and screaming into believing implies that we choose to do so.

It's so hard to explain to non Lutherans because it is so easy for them to tie me into knots trying! lol

This free will only on the rejection side does not make the most logical sense unless you are a brilliant thinker, which I am not!

[WildStrawberry]

Precisely, it is a decision he made to believe.<snip>

No, it was a "decision" to quit fighting God on the subject. *G* God had already made him a believer by the time he decided to toss in the towel so to speak. He could have decided to fight and continue not to believe but, when dealing with God's stubbornness, I think it's best to just "give in" and "let God".

*G*

Kae

[Jim47]

BabyLutheran

I think it's a matter of semantics in a lot of cases. It seems to me that Lutherans here make a distinction between "believing" and "deciding to believe" when in fact most people would shrug and say it means the same thing.



Its not the same, that is what everyone here has said.

Here are some verses, notice where the emphesis is, not on us, but on our Lord

Jn 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.


If we were predestined, then we had nothing to do with it.


Eph 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth.


Though we were born of sinful flesh, God called those whom He chose. He gave us faith and The Holy Spirit, just as was said previously, St. Paul was called to faith at a time when he was doing great harm to the church, but Jesus had something in mind for him.


Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast

[Zecryphon]

BL, if someone or something is dragging you somewhere, are you going willingly? Have you made a decision to go where you're being dragged?

[LilLamb219]

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.
In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.
In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.
On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.
This is most certainly true.

[BabyLutheran]

Thank you for all the beautiful verses. I am going to go and read my Bible tonight!

How do I negate the people who make it sound like we can do whatever we want since God has already chosen us or not?

[QuiltAngel]

People who say that tend to come from the viewpoint that once we are saved, we no longer sin. We know that is not true. We are to daily confess and repent of our sins and to ask God to help us and keep us from the evil one. We are not to choose to do sinful things, but due to our human condition we do sin. What I don't get are those who say that once we are saved, we no longer sin. That may be a point you need to find out if they believe.

I would recommend getting out your Small Catechism with Explanations to read through too and to look up the proof texts. Unfortunately, I don't have what I want at my fingertips right now, but I am sure someone will be along and post what I am trying to say.

[DaRev]

Yes but being dragged kicking and screaming into believing implies that we choose to do so.

:scratch: No, it doesn't. It implies that something is being done to us not of our choosing.

[cerette]

No one said that God can't use people who have bad theology.

Decision theology is my biggest pet peeve!!!

In another forum many years ago, I once asked a group of people Can God Save Us Without Our Permission? Of course, all the decision theology believers quickly said NO NO NO! They even declared it being somewhat like rape for God to take us as believers. :doh:Of course I was extremely disgusted by their imagery!!! I tried to give them the Lazarus story about Jesus calling Him to life from the dead. Lazarus didn't have to give permission or make a decision...in face, he couldn't.

"rape." That is really really disgusting and makes me very angry. How dare people speak like that about God?! That is really wicked, indeed.

[cerette]

Precisely, it is a decision he made to believe.

I think it's a matter of semantics in a lot of cases. It seems to me that Lutherans here make a distinction between "believing" and "deciding to believe" when in fact most people would shrug and say it means the same thing.

The distinction between saved by grace alone and saved by grace but you have to make a choice is a very important distinction. It doesn't matter if all the people in the whole world shrug and say there's no difference, there is a huge difference.

[cerette]

Yes but being dragged kicking and screaming into believing implies that we choose to do so.

It's so hard to explain to non Lutherans because it is so easy for them to tie me into knots trying! lol

This free will only on the rejection side does not make the most logical sense unless you are a brilliant thinker, which I am not!

What a relief for us that we do not need to limit God to our human logic! Sure would be difficult to do so.

[cerette]

Thank you for all the beautiful verses. I am going to go and read my Bible tonight!

How do I negate the people who make it sound like we can do whatever we want since God has already chosen us or not?

We don't believe in double predestination (= God has chosen some to be saved and others to be condemned). We believe that God has chosen the saved ones, and his wish is for the whole world to come to faith (see John 3:16, Jesus died for all people, not just the chosen ones), and the reason why some people are going to hell is their own sin, their unbelief. It is NOT God's fault that they are condemned.

[LutheranMafia]

No, it was a "decision" to quit fighting God on the subject.Repentance and contrition have been spoken of before in such a paradoxical fashion on the conservative side of the isle (by LilLamb saying that contrition leads to faith). Which prompts me to ask, how can repentance be a choice if faith is not a choice and only faithlessness is a choice? That would associate repentance with faithlessness rather than faith.

In another forum many years ago, I once asked a group of people Can God Save Us Without Our Permission? Of course, all the decision theology believers quickly said NO NO NO! They even declared it being somewhat like rape for God to take us as believers. :doh:Of course I was extremely disgusted by their imagery!!! That is a backwards analogy. Preventing someone from going to Hell is not exactly a violation. That requires harm.

I think a more poignant question along their lines is, does God force the unrepentant to feel repentance, why, and how often would it really be a good idea for God to ever do this? Even if those who lack faith are given divinely contrived repentance, it will evaporate over time because it is not sustained by their own innate faith. “A man convinced against his will is not convinced still.” I think that this is mainly done for evil people who are oppressing the faithful, exclusively for the benefit of the faithful and not for the benefit of the faithless tyrant.

If we were predestined, then we had nothing to do with it.
We are fully predestined in all matters and yet we have free will. The Bible is clear about both of these facts. It is possible to fully reconcile these to seemingly antithetical points without contradicting one’s self or leaving big blurry gaps. The LCMS favors self-contradiction while the ELCA prefers big blurry gaps. I think that both sides are missing the mark.

Though we were born of sinful flesh, God called those whom He chose. He gave us faith and The Holy Spirit, just as was said previously, St. Paul was called to faith at a time when he was doing great harm to the church, but Jesus had something in mind for him.
I doubt that Paul was ever shameless or unrepentant, he thought he was righteous in persecution. That is quite a bit different sort of conversion than forcing someone that is shamelessly unrepentant while in full acknowledgment of their immorality.

[LutheranMafia]

We don't believe in double predestination (= God has chosen some to be saved and others to be condemned). We believe that God has chosen the saved ones, and his wish is for the whole world to come to faith (see John 3:16, Jesus died for all people, not just the chosen ones), and the reason why some people are going to hell is their own sin, their unbelief. It is NOT God's fault that they are condemned.I thought the LCMS believed in absolutes, but now you assert that God is not in complete control of everything that unfolds in the universe? If so then the universe has potentially gone out of control and slipped out of God’s hands.

Free will vs. predestination is a dicey issue that can cut either way if understood only halfway. If you focus on free will rather than God’s complete control then you end up with one set of wrong answers, but if you focus on God’s complete control and ignore the existence of free will you come up with a different set of wrong answers. It seems to me that the LCMS is trying to avoid this by taking one argument from each side of the paradox and joining them in a rather harem-scarem manner that does not really resolve any of the paradoxes. In this case you end up giving logic that suggests that the universe is potentially out of God’s control.

[DaRev]

Repentance and contrition have been spoken of before in such a paradoxical fashion on the conservative side of the isle (by LilLamb saying that contrition leads to faith). Which prompts me to ask, how can repentance be a choice if faith is not a choice and only faithlessness is a choice? That would associate repentance with faithlessness rather than faith.

Contrition and repentance is not a choice we make. Rather it is a work of God in us.

I thought the LCMS believed in absolutes, but now you assert that God is not in complete control of everything that unfolds in the universe? If so then the universe has potentially gone out of control and slipped out of God’s hands.

Free will vs. predestination is a dicey issue that can cut either way if understood only halfway. If you focus on free will rather than God’s complete control then you end up with one set of wrong answers, but if you focus on God’s complete control and ignore the existence of free will you come up with a different set of wrong answers. It seems to me that the LCMS is trying to avoid this by taking one argument from each side of the paradox and joining them in a rather harem-scarem manner that does not really resolve any of the paradoxes. In this case you end up giving logic that suggests that the universe is potentially out of God’s control.We don't have free will in spiritual matters. And God is certainly in control of all things. Our salvation is totally His work. Our damnation is totally ours which He allows. See, full control.

[LilLamb219]

Repentance is gift talk, just like faith is gift talk. We can't work it within us and as DaRev pointed out, it is something God works within us and He does so with Law and Gospel.

[LutheranMafia]

He does it mainly by awaking the spirit of love which is the spark of God within us.

[synger]

From my reading, the idea of a "decision" or at least a pivotal event of acceptance can be traced back to early Methodists, in the late 18th century.

They had a "mourner's bench" or "anxious bench" at the front or side of the church, where those who wished to could go and pray for salvation.
"It was a little bench that sat in front of the pulpit, to which penitent sinners went and kneeled to pray for the forgiveness of their sins and salvation by faith in Christ."


Charles Finney, who was basically an Arminian Calvinist in his doctrine, adopted the anxious bench as one of his New Measures during the great revivals:
, Finney developed what came to be known as "New Measures." He allowed women to pray in mixed public meetings. He adopted the Methodists' "anxious bench": he put a pew at the front of the church, where those who felt a special urgency about their salvation could sit. He prayed in colloquial, common, and "vulgar" language. Most of these New Measures were actually many decades old, but Finney popularized them and was attacked for doing so.

These were further solidified into the Sinner's Prayer we now know, through Dwight Moody using the "Inquiry Room" (a more private venue than the axious seat), to Billy Sunday, to Billy Graham, to Bill Bright and his Four Spiritual Laws. The Living Bible paraphrase even had this decision stuff added in!

"Even in his own land and among his own people, the Jews, he was not accepted. Only a few welcome and received him. But to all who received him, he gave the right to become children of God. All they needed to do was to trust him to save them. All those who believe this are reborn! --not a physical rebirth resulting from human passion or plan--but from the will of God."(John 1:11-13, Living Bible, bolds mine)

So the idea is neither as old as most of its proponents like to think, nor as new as we might imagine. It's been slowly growing for a while now. But when there's a choir singing and yet you hear one voice above the others, that's the voice you listen to... it's no wonder this false doctrine has gained so much ground.
http://www.bible.ca/g-sinners-prayer.htm

Five Great Needs: The Mourners Ben (http://www.raptureready.com/resource/morrison/HM-04-02.htm)ch (Henry Clay Morrison (http://www.raptureready.com/resource/morrison/morrison.html))
http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Bench.htm

[LutheranMafia]

Contrition and repentance is not a choice we make. Rather it is a work of God in us.
Then why does it take SO much effort to make some people feel ashamed of themselves? Granted, some people just have no faith or shame, but in cases where there is innate faith, it still requires enormous effort often. That sounds like the stubborn will to me, even in the presence of faith.

We don't have free will in spiritual matters. And God is certainly in control of all things. Our salvation is totally His work. Our damnation is totally ours which He allows. See, full control.If we have no free will in our salvation then it is a self-contradiction to say we have free will in damnation. Turing left is a choice, but turning right is not. That is just a slogan, not a resolution to the free will/predestination dilemma. Your answer doesn’t solve any of the free will/predestination dilemmas, it just sweeps them under the rug and makes you feel better about not seeing it.

[QuiltAngel]

Thanks Synger, that was interesting. I did not think it was a very old concept.

[DaRev]

Then why does it take SO much effort to make some people feel ashamed of themselves? Granted, some people just have no faith or shame, but in cases where there is innate faith, it still requires enormous effort often. That sounds like the stubborn will to me, even in the presence of faith.

Our will is bound to our sinful nature. The "effort" is the sinful nature battling against God's work of repentance.

If we have no free will in our salvation then it is a self-contradiction to say we have free will in damnation. Turing left is a choice, but turning right is not. That is just a slogan, not a resolution to the free will/predestination dilemma. Your answer doesn’t solve any of the free will/predestination dilemmas, it just sweeps them under the rug and makes you feel better about not seeing it.

No contradiction at all. No dilemmas either. It's actually very simple if you have the mind to grasp it. Our will is bound to the sinful human nature. It is all we can do on our own, apart from God. Our salvation is wholly the work of God. Our damnation is wholly our own work. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's as clear as crystal.

[LutheranMafia]

Our will is bound to our sinful nature. The "effort" is the sinful nature battling against God's work of repentance.
How is our will not even more bound by our divine nature? You make it sound as though the devil has more influence on our will than God does.
No contradiction at all. No dilemmas either.
The simultaneous existence of both free will and predestination is an apparent contradiction that is a very significant point of division among the 3000 Christian denominations, many of which have their own unique approach. That is a serious dilemma, which the devil uses to divide and conquer.
It's actually very simple if you have the mind to grasp it. Our will is bound to the sinful human nature. It is all we can do on our own, apart from God. Our salvation is wholly the work of God. Our damnation is wholly our own work. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's as clear as crystal.Why is it that you can't fully acknowledge the basic dilemma involved before attempting to answering it? If your answer is so straight forward and compelling then why is it the minority view even among Lutherans, much less Christians as a whole?

[QuiltAngel]

Might I suggest reading the book, "The Bondage of the Will"? This is Luther's writing on the subject. If it is a minority of Lutherans, then those who disagree or the majority (as you say), have strayed from our church fathers.

[DaRev]

How is our will not even more bound by our divine nature? You make it sound as though the devil has more influence on our will than God does.

We have a divine nature? Where do you get that from? Only Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature. We have no divine nature.

The simultaneous existence of both free will and predestination is an apparent contradiction that is a very significant point of division among the 3000 Christian denominations, many of which have their own unique approach. That is a serious dilemma, which the devil uses to divide and conquer.
Why is it that you can't fully acknowledge the basic dilemma involved before attempting to answering it? If your answer is so straight forward and compelling then why is it the minority view even among Lutherans, much less Christians as a whole?

It's the minority among Lutherans? Where do you get that? What I have been explaining is the Lutheran doctrine on the matter.

[cerette]

I thought the LCMS believed in absolutes, but now you assert that God is not in complete control of everything that unfolds in the universe? If so then the universe has potentially gone out of control and slipped out of God’s hands.

Free will vs. predestination is a dicey issue that can cut either way if understood only halfway. If you focus on free will rather than God’s complete control then you end up with one set of wrong answers, but if you focus on God’s complete control and ignore the existence of free will you come up with a different set of wrong answers. It seems to me that the LCMS is trying to avoid this by taking one argument from each side of the paradox and joining them in a rather harem-scarem manner that does not really resolve any of the paradoxes. In this case you end up giving logic that suggests that the universe is potentially out of God’s control.

I am absolutely not saying that God isn't in control, of course he is in control, he is God!
But God is not limited to our human logic and ways of thinking.

[LutheranMafia]

We have a divine nature? Where do you get that from? Only Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature. We have no divine nature.
Then what does it mean that we are an image of God?
It's the minority among Lutherans? Where do you get that? What I have been explaining is the Lutheran doctrine on the matter. You are explaining your interpretation of Luther. The ELCA seems to have a very different interpretation of Luther. As Quilted Angel said, maybe the ELCA has strayed from Luther, but at present I'm not convinced which side has strayed the most, nor who's side I would ultimately on.

[LutheranMafia]

I am absolutely not saying that God isn't in control, of course he is in control, he is God!
Yes, of course, I know that. My point is that the LCMS argument that it is impossible to choose God with one's own free will has some very contradictory implications about God.

But God is not limited to our human logic and ways of thinking.Logic comes from God, not humans. God has to make sense, even if it is very complex. God is not illogical and any appearance of illogic in God's creation is a result of a human lack of comprehension of God's logic.

This slogan that God can defy logic, is really claiming that 'God follows my logic, not yours'. The Solas are all an overt appeal to logic, an attempt to define theological axioms. You can't get much more logical than a mathematical approach.

[DaRev]

Then what does it mean that we are an image of God?

The "image of God" means that humans were created righteous. That "image" was lost in the Fall. Humans are no longer in the image of God.

You are explaining your interpretation of Luther. The ELCA seems to have a very different interpretation of Luther. As Quilted Angel said, maybe the ELCA has strayed from Luther, but at present I'm not convinced which side has strayed the most, nor who's side I would ultimately on.

I am explaining the Lutheran doctrine. Read the Confessions before you try to tell us what Lutherans believe. It's obvious you have no clue and it doesn't speak well of you at all. (BTW, the ELCA is not orthodox Lutheran.)

[QuiltAngel]

I would suggest you read Luther's Small Catechism with explanations and study the Bible passages given them. Read The Bondage of the Will. Through in the Book of Concord and The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. Start with the Catechism and the Bondage of the Will.

[Melethiel]

No one said that God can't use people who have bad theology.

Decision theology is my biggest pet peeve!!!

In another forum many years ago, I once asked a group of people Can God Save Us Without Our Permission? Of course, all the decision theology believers quickly said NO NO NO! They even declared it being somewhat like rape for God to take us as believers. :doh:Of course I was extremely disgusted by their imagery!!! I tried to give them the Lazarus story about Jesus calling Him to life from the dead. Lazarus didn't have to give permission or make a decision...in face, he couldn't.
Yep...and going along with that is "the Holy Spirit is a gentleman". I dunno, reading the Gospels, I don't see God as much of a gentleman....

[Melethiel]

Then what does it mean that we are an image of God?
You are explaining your interpretation of Luther. The ELCA seems to have a very different interpretation of Luther. As Quilted Angel said, maybe the ELCA has strayed from Luther, but at present I'm not convinced which side has strayed the most, nor who's side I would ultimately on.
Um...I've been attending an ELCA church for several years, and have been taught exactly what DaRev is explaining. This IS Lutheran doctrine. (If the LCMS and ELCA agree, it must be right ^_^ )

[Till]

Yes, of course, I know that. My point is that the LCMS argument that it is impossible to choose God with one's own free will has some very contradictory implications about God.

Logic comes from God, not humans. God has to make sense, even if it is very complex. God is not illogical and any appearance of illogic in God's creation is a result of a human lack of comprehension of God's logic.

This slogan that God can defy logic, is really claiming that 'God follows my logic, not yours'. The Solas are all an overt appeal to logic, an attempt to define theological axioms. You can't get much more logical than a mathematical approach.

LM,

I think you would like the "Foolishness of God - The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther" by Siegbert Becker. Published at Northwestern Publishing House.

http://online.nph.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?10418&productID=150383


From the description:

"This NPH Classic book was originally published in 1982. Dr. Siegbert Becker (1914-1984) has gone a long way in clearing up the confusion over Luther's concept of reason. All who read this monograph will be convinced that while Luther may have been antirationalistic, he was not irrational. It would be difficult to find a better description of Luther's view of reason than that given by Becker: It is not Christianity that needs to be made reasonable. It is reason that needs to be made Christian."

[BabyLutheran]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, "It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that."

[Zecryphon]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, "It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that."

But it is so obvious. Read the scriptures that have been posted. What in those scriptures would lead anyone to believe that we have to make a choice or that we even have the ability to choose? Can you recall anything from the scriptures where someone is shown as making a decision for Christ?

[RadMan]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, &quot;It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that.&quot;Probably because people's intellect get in their way of hearing and seeing God's word. Are we allways right? Not really but this is about as close as we're going to get to the truth.

[WildStrawberry]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, "It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that."

Well, the Bible IS clear on the subject.

As Rad said, people allow their intellect and their own shallow knowledge to get in the way of God's simple elegance.

We humans are so bent on doing things FOR OURSELVES that we push and push against a God that is SO LOVING that HE did it all FOR us. We want to have control of our own lives so we make ourselves into personal redeemers.

Look at some of the pagan religions. Why is Wicca so popular? I theorize that it's because the Wiccans DO the stuff themselves. "If I do this spell I'll get happiness/love/money/to the Summerlands/etc."

But we Christians don't have to DO that. We know that God has saved us. That Christ did it ALL from the cross. We can't do ANYTHING else to "win" our salvation. We can't even come to that decision if we don't have the Holy Ghost poking and prodding us. God has done it all.

But again, because we're so used to doing for ourselves (if you don't work, you don't eat. *sigh* except for in this day and age.) that we place our own limitations, our own understandings on God instead of letting HIM put HIS understandings on us.

Kae

[LilLamb219]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, "It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that."

I've seen a lot of people on the Christian Forums from the other denominations who do not believe in Decision Theology.

[DaRev]

I see LM's point, if it's so crystal clear, why do only Lutherans believe it out of the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

It can't be that clear or everyone would understand it and believe it.

Not arguing that it's wrong, just saying it's not obvious.

You can't just keep telling people, "It's so obvious and simple, what is wrong with you that you can't see that."

Lutherans are among the very few that actually take God's word at face value. So many people/denominations try to add human reason to the mix. Human reason is inherently flawed. Perhaps the pure simplicity of it boggles their minds because they are too busy trying to reason it out with a flawed intellect.

Those who are properly catechized in Lutheran doctrine and practice don't have much trouble understanding this.

[RadMan]

Look up "choose" in the OT and NT and you will see that 9 times out of ten it is God doing the choosing. Then look up the word "ask" and you will find that most of the time it is a believer asking and not an unbeliever.

[LilLamb219]

Also, the scriptures that have choose in them...look to see if they're already believers or not. Go ahead...I dare you :)

[LutheranMafia]

But it is so obvious. Read the scriptures that have been posted. What in those scriptures would lead anyone to believe that we have to make a choice or that we even have the ability to choose? Can you recall anything from the scriptures where someone is shown as making a decision for Christ?Where in the Bible does it say that we are robotic automations with no ability to choose right from wrong? THAT would be a VERY interesting verse that would convince me immediately of your assertions.

Sure, we absolutely require God's help in determining right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that we are incapable of determining right from wrong. We are more genuinely ourselves when we are with God because we were always a part of God. Yes, people that don't have the love of God in them, which no one has perfectly, have a limited capacity to determine right from wrong, but it is not non-existent.

Even you folks say that turning away from God IS a choice. If turning to God is not a choice then neither is turning away. This slaughtering of basic common sense may be quite simple, but the contradictions that it inevitably leads to are not simple at all. It is the theological equivalent of spaghetti code in programming.

[LutheranMafia]

If this point were really so simple, then what did Luther mean when he said that he almost pulled his hair out over the First Book of John, because he had so much trouble reconciling it with his notions of Sola Fide? That sounds like it was anything but a simple and easy to arrive at conclusion.

[LilLamb219]

If this point were really so simple, then what did Luther mean when he said that he almost pulled his hair out over the First Book of John, because he had so much trouble reconciling it with his notions of Sola Fide? That sounds like it was anything but a simple and easy to arrive at conclusion.

Remember how Luther started out though...he was very ingrained with what was being taught to him at the time.

[LilLamb219]

Where in the Bible does it say that we are robotic automations with no ability to choose right from wrong? THAT would be a VERY interesting verse that would convince me immediately of your assertions.

Sure, we absolutely require God's help in determining right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that we are incapable of determining right from wrong. We are more genuinely ourselves when we are with God because we were always a part of God. Yes, people that don't have the love of God in them, which no one has perfectly, have a limited capacity to determine right from wrong, but it is not non-existent.

Even you folks say that turning away from God IS a choice. If turning to God is not a choice then neither is turning away. This slaughtering of basic common sense may be quite simple, but the contradictions that it inevitably leads to are not simple at all. It is the theological equivalent of spaghetti code in programming.

Don't you see where YOU are getting things mixed up? You say that people can choose right from wrong, yet you also say that we absolutely require God's help to determine right from wrong, then you return to people being capable of choosing right from wrong.

HELLO! Your middle sentence is the correct one...only because God intervened first could anyone choose...and at that point, it's not a choice, but an acknowledgment that salvation has occurred and the person has too much joy in his heart to want to leave!

[LutheranMafia]

Don't you see where YOU are getting things mixed up? You say that people can choose right from wrong, yet you also say that we absolutely require God's help to determine right from wrong, then you return to people being capable of choosing right from wrong.
Who exists fully independently from God? Absolutely no one. To attain full “independence” from God is to achieve Annihilation. By your logic, annihilated souls have a choice while eternal souls do not. We absolutely require God’s help to exist in the first place, so posing the notion of an existence that is completely separate from God is a meaningless hypothetical abstraction.

HELLO! Your middle sentence is the correct one...only because God intervened first could anyone choose...and at that point, it's not a choice, but an acknowledgment that salvation has occurred and the person has too much joy in his heart to want to leave!God’s intervention took our choices away? Quite to the contrary, that is what gave us a choice. If we were all annihilated then we would have no choice.

[LutheranMafia]

Remember how Luther started out though...he was very ingrained with what was being taught to him at the time.Yes, I understand, but never the less it was a titanic struggle that he went through to arrive at his conclusions, which dispels the notion that they are so simple and straight forward.

[LilLamb219]

The only ones who had true free will to make the choice to turn to God were Adam, Eve and Jesus Christ. Everyone else is bound to sin as the members here keep telling you. That is the Lutheran belief.

[LilLamb219]

Yes, I understand, but never the less it was a titanic struggle that he went through to arrive at his conclusions, which dispels the notion that they are so simple and straight forward.

Why? Just because someone struggled with it so much? Some struggle, others grasp it easily, it's just how it is.

[DaRev]

Where in the Bible does it say that we are robotic automations with no ability to choose right from wrong? THAT would be a VERY interesting verse that would convince me immediately of your assertions.

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good. 2 God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, To see if there is anyone who understands, Who seeks after God. 3 Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

Matthew 19:17b No one is good but One, that is, God.

Mark 10:18b No one is good except God alone.

Luke 18:19b No one is good except God alone.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one."

Sure, we absolutely require God's help in determining right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that we are incapable of determining right from wrong. We are more genuinely ourselves when we are with God because we were always a part of God. Yes, people that don't have the love of God in them, which no one has perfectly, have a limited capacity to determine right from wrong, but it is not non-existent.

What do you base this on?

Even you folks say that turning away from God IS a choice. If turning to God is not a choice then neither is turning away. This slaughtering of basic common sense may be quite simple, but the contradictions that it inevitably leads to are not simple at all. It is the theological equivalent of spaghetti code in programming.

Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.

Who said anything about common sense? Common sense is a human attribute which is naturally flawed due to sin.

We are born sinful, spiritually dead. Dead people cannot choose anything. God chooses to bring us to life. It is wholly and totally His work. We don't choose it. He does it totally by His mercy and grace. At that point our only active option is to reject him.

Luther explained it very well in his explanation of the third article of the Creed. "I believe that I cannot, by my own strength or reason, believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified me, and kept me in the one true faith." There is nothing there whatsoever about our "choosing" Him. When we sin and fall away, the Holy Spirit is the One who calls us back. We don't choose, He does it for us.

[DaRev]

Who exists fully independently from God? Absolutely no one. To attain full “independence” from God is to achieve Annihilation. By your logic, annihilated souls have a choice while eternal souls do not. We absolutely require God’s help to exist in the first place, so posing the notion of an existence that is completely separate from God is a meaningless hypothetical abstraction.

God’s intervention took our choices away? Quite to the contrary, that is what gave us a choice. If we were all annihilated then we would have no choice.

Now you believe that it is God acted on us first? There may be hope for you yet!

Separation from God is spiritual death, not annihilation. We are conceived and born spiritually dead, spiritually stillborn. God is the One who gives us life, otherwise we are doomed to eternal separation from Him.

[Zecryphon]

LM, show us all the scriptures you're using to that we must make a choice to accept Christ in order to be saved. I and others have pointed to the scriptures that say we do nothing and God does everyhting. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. Read Romans 8:28-30. If you need the scriptures to say that you're an 'automaton with no choice' or whatever it is that you wrote before YOU get it, you'll have to take that up with the author. Now, if you, to use your words, "absolutely require God's help in determining right from wrong" then that means that, yes, you are incapable of determining on your own what is right and wrong. But the ability to distinguish right from wrong is not what we're currently discussing. The topic of this thread is: decision theology and whether or not it's valid in light of what is written in Acts 2.

[seajoy]

I would like to thank almost everyone who has contributed to this thread. But.....it really wasn't meant to be a thread on what's wrong with decision theology....as Lutherans, that's already a given. Thanks to those who have brought forth the biblical teaching that God chooses us.
This thread was really meant to find out how and when decision theology started.

[WildStrawberry]

Remember how Luther started out though...he was very ingrained with what was being taught to him at the time.

Yes, I understand, but never the less it was a titanic struggle that he went through to arrive at his conclusions, which dispels the notion that they are so simple and straight forward.


LM...if I remember correctly, you're a software coder right? Have you ever had a piece of code that frustrated the living jingles out of you and you wrestled and wrestled with it and then *Ping!* the lightbulb came on and it was just so simple that when you explained it to your co-worker or whomever they got it right off? Even though it may have taken you weeks or even months to figure it out?

It's the same thing with Luther. Perhaps he was working so hard to understand this with his human intellegence that he neglected to to see what was right under his nose.

We all do that. Heck, I do it on an almost hourly basis with just about anything. :D Today a friend sent me a link to the weather radar in her area and I looked at it and thought "what the heck is that big blue area??" and I stared and stared at it wondering just WHAT kind of weather was heading their way that would be DARK BLUE for a full minute before I went "Ping!" uh DUH Kae,it's Lake Michigan!

That might be over simplifying things...but really...when it comes down to it and you trust in the Bible, it really really IS that simple.

I would like to thank almost everyone who has contributed to this thread. But.....it really wasn't meant to be a thread on what's wrong with decision theology....as Lutherans, that's already a given. Thanks to those who have brought forth the biblical teaching that God chooses us.
This thread was really meant to find out how and when decision theology started.

Awww but MooooMMM! We LIKE to debate this stuff! :D

Kae

[Edial]

I think decision theology started from this verse ...

JOS 24:14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

It eventually graduated to deciding in matters of salvation, which is incorrect.

DaRev presented accurately that Acts 2 word means receive, not accept.
So, one receives that what is given ... or rejects it, as the Jerusalem did.

In Joshua's text people decided (chose) whom they will serve.
Yet, in that text we are not talking about salvation of the souls, but serving God (through Jewish customs) as compared to idols (through their customs).

The Hebrews text (NT) presents this ...

HEB 3:7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
HEB 3:8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert, ...

Some preachers that preach the altar calls believe that they speak for God.
Other preachers hope that through their speech, Holy Spirit would prompt the individuals.

There is a great difference between the two.

In my "trek" as a practicing atheist, when my life went really bad due to my choices in life I was prompted to consider God.
My sister (who was a believer by then) was praying for me.
So, she suggested her mother-in-law to give me a Bible for Christmas.

Through reading it (and I understood very little, but from what I understood made me somehow believe the whole book), I saw a hope in Christ. Hope from my way of life.

I remember reading just a verse or two (somehow red letters made more sense to me than the black) and thinking about this for a week.

It is the first time I read the Bible, in 1990.

So, my way of life disappointed me, to say the least, I decided to turn to Christianity (Joshua's text) after I developed that newfound hope from reading the Bible.

I did not know about salvation and theology.

Then, I was prompted one more time by my sister to turn TV on to Billy Graham crusade.
I did not know who Billy Graham was, yet saw his name in TV programming all the time.
I loved professional wrestling at the time and there was a wrestler Billy Graham Superstar.
So, when I was seeing "Billy Graham crusade" in TV Guide, I thought it was wrestling and was always disappointed when instead I was hearing some guy talking.
I though it was a "rainout" of a sort, and wrestling was cancelled. :)

So, I waited for that guy to stop talking and wrestling to start up.

So, as I was ironing I was hearing odd words like "soul", "salvation", "Jesus Christ".
I was not understanding what that guy was saying, but these words sounded important to me.

So, that day when my sister called me, I developed a strong urge to call that number.
I called, it was busy.
I called again and again. I finally got through.

There was a guy on the other end called Leo.
He asked my why I called.
I said I saw the phone number on TV.
Then he asked me a question that shook me up a little.
He asked: "Are you a Christian?"

I thought, since I was not a Jew I certainly was one by default.
But since reading the Bible, I was not sure.
So, I said: "I don't know".

Then he asked me that what was sitting deeply in my heart.
He asked: "Do you want to become a Christian?"

I readily said: "Yes".

Then he asked me to repeat after him what was (now that I know) the sinner's prayer.
I did.
And vaguely understood that I was asking Christ for salvation.
(I remember that my knees started shaking. :))
It was a short prayer, but it seemed to me like it lasted for eternity. :)

Then he said that I need to find a church.
I did not know where to go.
So Leo said he'll send something to mr in the mail.
He did. It was a list of places where not to go - Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.

Eventually, through the incredible string of events I went to a Baptist church and settled there. One family that also went there and lived just a few blocks away "adopted" me.
They were always inviting me to their house and so forth.

One day, when I was in church we had a guest speaker.

As he was speaking something hit me like a lightning bolt. I became very emotional (I do not get emotional) and was crying.
I was incredibly embarassed of it and started looking down.
He was talking about how people in other lands have no Bibles and how readily they receive Bibles from their distributions.

Then that preacher asked for people that want to put their faith in Christ to raise thair hands.
I raised my hand while looking down, since I did not want people to see my tears.

After that my life changed dramatically.

I said all this to say this.

Decision theology is being misapplied on occasions to instances like these.

Since God kept an eye on me since my baptism (I did not understand it then, but I do now), He watched over my life.

I remember now how He protected me from harm that should have happened to me in my atheistic life.

He prompted my sister to pray for me.
He prompted her mother-in-law to buy a Bible and give it to me.
He opened my eyes to a verse or two in the Bible for me to understand.
He prompted my sister to call me to watch Billy Graham.
he found that church for me.
He found that family for me.
He sent that preacher to me.
And He affected me to raise my hand.

Salvation of an adult convert is different from that who knew themselves to be Christians as long as they remember. Very different.

Acts 2 text is a very good text for adult converts.

I am certain that each and every one of these 3000 new converts had a story to tell how God was working in their lives prior to Peter's speech.

Decision theology is not good when one is pressured into salvation or scared into salvation by promising heaven as an escape from hell.

Yet when time comes, when one is ripe - God sends the final servant who will reap that harvest.

Prior to it there were many servants of God that were being sent to that person to prepare him for the Day of his salvation.

Salvation must be a smooth road that is usually paved by many people of God from all walks of life in one's life.

Even Paul, former Saul, prior to meeting Christ on the road to Damascus already had God working in his life when he heard the words of Stephen and saw his face that looked like a face of angel, while they were stoning him.

Thanks,
Ed

[seajoy]

Awww but MooooMMM! We LIKE to debate this stuff! :D

Kae
Oh, alright.....have at it. :) It might help someone see.

[Till]

If this point were really so simple, then what did Luther mean when he said that he almost pulled his hair out over the First Book of John, because he had so much trouble reconciling it with his notions of Sola Fide? That sounds like it was anything but a simple and easy to arrive at conclusion.

I will try again:


LM,

I think you would like the "Foolishness of God - The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther" by Siegbert Becker. Published at Northwestern Publishing House.

http://online.nph.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?10418&productID=150383


From the description:

"This NPH Classic book was originally published in 1982. Dr. Siegbert Becker (1914-1984) has gone a long way in clearing up the confusion over Luther's concept of reason. All who read this monograph will be convinced that while Luther may have been antirationalistic, he was not irrational. It would be difficult to find a better description of Luther's view of reason than that given by Becker: It is not Christianity that needs to be made reasonable. It is reason that needs to be made Christian."

[DaRev]

I think decision theology started from this verse ...

JOS 24:14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

It eventually graduated to deciding in matters of salvation, which is incorrect.

DaRev presented accurately that Acts 2 word means receive, not accept.
So, one receives that what is given ... or rejects it, as the Jerusalem did.

In Joshua's text people decided (chose) whom they will serve.
Yet, in that text we are not talking about salvation of the souls, but serving God (through Jewish customs) as compared to idols (through their customs).



If you notice in the Joshua verse it doesn't say anything about choosing Yahweh, but rather choosing false gods.

[QuiltAngel]

But, it is easy for someone not reading the entire passage or not really studying it to come to the conclusion that they are to choose God. We know that is wrong, but I can see how someone may get that out of the passage.

[Edial]

If you notice in the Joshua verse it doesn't say anything about choosing Yahweh, but rather choosing false gods.
Yes. :)

I was doing this from memory (I posted that verse without reading it :)).

The actual verse was that just above it (v.14) where they were told to serve the LORD and throw away their gods.

JOS 24:14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

Thanks, :)
Ed

[BabyLutheran]

How would we Lutherans rebut this statement by Jesus? We have to act according to the words, unless it is mistranslated from the Greek (which would not surprise me)

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

[LilLamb219]

How would we Lutherans rebut this statement by Jesus? We have to act according to the words, unless it is mistranslated from the Greek (which would not surprise me)

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.



Who is he talking to? Aren't they already believers?

[BabyLutheran]

I don't know.

I do know this verse is used all the time in the evangelical churches. "Jesus is knocking, won't you just open the door and let him in? He is a gentleman and won't enter unless asked, he gave us free will to choose or reject him."

I am just telling you what i used to hear.

Of course, at my most recent non-Lutheran church, they did not necessarily conflict with Lutheran doctrine. They never used the "accepting" Christ statement. It was always, "pray and let Jesus know that you realize He is the Lord, and you want him to be Lord of your life. That you want him to be your Master."

[LilLamb219]

If you read Revelation 3 you'll see that the letters were written to the Churches...those are already believers.

Here is Rev. 3:14-22
The Letter to Laodicea

14This is what you must write to the angel of the church in Laodicea: I am the one called Amen! [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203#fen-CEV-27146d)] I am the faithful and true witness and the source [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203#fen-CEV-27146e)] of God's creation. Listen to what I say. 15I know everything you have done, and you are not cold or hot. I wish you were either one or the other. 16But since you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17You claim to be rich and successful and to have everything you need. But you don't know how bad off you are. You are pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
18Buy your gold from me. It has been refined in a fire, and it will make you rich. Buy white clothes from me. Wear them and you can cover up your shameful nakedness. Buy medicine for your eyes, so that you will be able to see.
19I correct and punish everyone I love. So make up your minds to turn away from your sins. 20Listen! I am standing and knocking at your door. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and we will eat together. 21Everyone who wins the victory will sit with me on my throne, just as I won the victory and sat with my Father on his throne.
22If you have ears, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.

[BabyLutheran]

Yes, I see. But yet, we take verse like that (cherry pick) all the time to back up our positions. I am just throwing that out there as one of the ones used to support decision theology. Look at this entire webpage constructed on that verse:

http://www.christians.org/salvation/salvat05.html

A quote from there:

His Plea: "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door" Notice who must open the door: you! The latch is on the inside. Christ speaks and knocks, but will never kick the door in. He gave you the awesome freedom to say, "No! Get out of my life. Leave me alone." Oh, it is rarely said in those words, but actions speak louder than words. Your behavior may be saying to God right now, "Get lost."
The horrible truth is that someday God will take you at your word, and abandon you to your self-destructive ways forever. Today, though, he is knocking at your door. The day will come when you will knock at his door saying, "Open to me." And Jesus will say, "Depart from me. I never knew you" (Matthew 25:11). He will open the door only to those who open the door to him. Your eternal destiny is in your hands right now, while Jesus knocks.

[RevCowboy]

"....And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

I came across this verse the other day. It made me smile at how God just adds us to the list of those written in the book of life. :)

When did decision theology begin, and why? If you look at verse 41 in this chapter ("those who accepted his message were baptised....") you can see where perhaps the decision theology came from. This subject has always interested me, as I just can't see how "deciding" salvation can be much of a comfort. Man, I love being Lutheran. :)

My verses are taken from the NIV. Thanks in advance for your comments

I will weigh in on this thread a little late. Maybe I will get into the debate in another post, but in this one I would like to point that decision theology had its genesis in 1525 with the Anabaptists.

On January 21st 1525, George Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to re-baptized him in the town square and the vice-versa as a sign of the decision and commitment to be Christians.

And then again on April 16th (Easter Day), 1525 Balthazr Hubmaier was re- baptized out of a milk bucket placed on top of the regular baptismal font.

I believe Blaurock, Grebel and Hubmaier were all former Roman priests. They began the Anabaptist movement or rep-baptizing movement because of their frustration with the bulk of society being only nominal in their faith. In that time most people only went to church only on occaision and while just about everyone had been baptized at children (part of the state's way of keeping track of people), most people did not "live" their faith. The early Anabaptists felt that re-baptizing (because everyone had been baptized as an infant) was the way in which they demonstrated their choice, their commitment, their faithfulness to God. They flouted the traditional practice and theology of baptism, which is where the distinction between decision theology and Lutheran theology begins.

[LilLamb219]

Yes, I see. But yet, we take verse like that (cherry pick) all the time to back up our positions. I am just throwing that out there as one of the ones used to support decision theology. Look at this entire webpage constructed on that verse:

http://www.christians.org/salvation/salvat05.html

A quote from there:

His Plea: "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door" Notice who must open the door: you! The latch is on the inside. Christ speaks and knocks, but will never kick the door in. He gave you the awesome freedom to say, "No! Get out of my life. Leave me alone." Oh, it is rarely said in those words, but actions speak louder than words. Your behavior may be saying to God right now, "Get lost."
The horrible truth is that someday God will take you at your word, and abandon you to your self-destructive ways forever. Today, though, he is knocking at your door. The day will come when you will knock at his door saying, "Open to me." And Jesus will say, "Depart from me. I never knew you" (Matthew 25:11). He will open the door only to those who open the door to him. Your eternal destiny is in your hands right now, while Jesus knocks.


Again, the verses were aimed at Christians within the Church, not for unbelievers to come to Christ. Unbelievers are spiritually dead, so they can't even see a door!

[DaRev]

I don't know.

I do know this verse is used all the time in the evangelical churches. "Jesus is knocking, won't you just open the door and let him in? He is a gentleman and won't enter unless asked, he gave us free will to choose or reject him."

I am just telling you what i used to hear.

Here's one good rule to follow with such things. Scripture cannot and does not contradict itself. There is enough in the Bible that tells us that we have no free will in spiritual matters. We cannot "open the door" unless the Spirit prompts us, which means that we are already believers.

Of course, at my most recent non-Lutheran church, they did not necessarily conflict with Lutheran doctrine. They never used the "accepting" Christ statement. It was always, "pray and let Jesus know that you realize He is the Lord, and you want him to be Lord of your life. That you want him to be your Master."

That's not necessarily wrong since it can be interpreted in a passive way. It's simply an acknowledgment of what God has already done for us.

[seajoy]

I will weigh in on this thread a little late. Maybe I will get into the debate in another post, but in this one I would like to point that decision theology had its genesis in 1525 with the Anabaptists.

On January 21st 1525, George Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to re-baptized him in the town square and the vice-versa as a sign of the decision and commitment to be Christians.

And then again on April 16th (Easter Day), 1525 Balthazr Hubmaier was re- baptized out of a milk bucket placed on top of the regular baptismal font.

I believe Blaurock, Grebel and Hubmaier were all former Roman priests. They began the Anabaptist movement or rep-baptizing movement because of their frustration with the bulk of society being only nominal in their faith. In that time most people only went to church only on occaision and while just about everyone had been baptized at children (part of the state's way of keeping track of people), most people did not "live" their faith. The early Anabaptists felt that re-baptizing (because everyone had been baptized as an infant) was the way in which they demonstrated their choice, their commitment, their faithfulness to God. They flouted the traditional practice and theology of baptism, which is where the distinction between decision theology and Lutheran theology begins.

Thanks RC :)

[LutheranChick]

Yes, I see. But yet, we take verse like that (cherry pick) all the time to back up our positions.

However, I would like to point out that 'we' - as in confessional Lutherans - do not really 'cherry pick'. Yes there are many denominations that will pick a few verses out of the Bible, out of context, and base beliefs on them, and ignore the verses that obviously contradict their interpretation of that verse. I may appear to cherry pick a verse out to show a point, however, it is only for brevity's sake, as I can also show the whole 'tree' and it does not change the meaning of the verse that was picked.

[BabyLutheran]

Sorry, I meant WE as a church as a whole problem, not a Lutheran problem.

[LutheranChick]

Sorry, I meant WE as a church as a whole problem, not a Lutheran problem.
Ahhh, gotcha! ;)

[LutheranMafia]

"Yes, I understand, but never the less it was a titanic struggle that he went through to arrive at his conclusions, which dispels the notion that they are so simple and straight forward."

Why? Just because someone struggled with it so much? Some struggle, others grasp it easily, it's just how it is.Is that how Luther himself described it?

[LutheranMafia]

Now you believe that it is God acted on us first? There may be hope for you yet!
The fact that God acts first doesn't make it less of a choice. Only God knows for certain in all cases what is His prompting and what is not. Your assertion that God's prompting removes our choices assumes that there is a human that perfectly understands God’s prompting. We stumble blindly in the night and hope that we are responding to God’s prompting, but the only certainty the Bible gives us is that at very best our response to God’s prompting is profoundly flawed.Separation from God is spiritual death, not annihilation. We are conceived and born spiritually dead, spiritually stillborn. God is the One who gives us life, otherwise we are doomed to eternal separation from Him.What is the second death?

[seajoy]

The fact that God acts first doesn't make it less of a choice. Only God knows for certain in all cases what is His prompting and what is not. Your assertion that God's prompting removes our choices assumes that there is a human that perfectly understands God’s prompting. We stumble blindly in the night and hope that we are responding to God’s prompting, but the only certainty the Bible gives us is that at very best our response to God’s prompting is profoundly flawed.

Please stop doing this. You are driving at least some of us nuts.

The only way we can have faith is from the Holy Spirit. One who is spiritually dead in their sins cannot bring themselves to life.

Even you can't possibly know what it is that you are trying to say. You are speaking elloquent nonsence.

[LilLamb219]

No choice can even be made unless God first gives the gift of faith in order to believe...but then again, that truly isn't a "choice" at all, but more of a realization of look what God has done!

[LutheranMafia]

No choice can even be made unless God first gives the gift of faith in order to believe...but then again, that truly isn't a "choice" at all, but more of a realization of look what God has done!Yes, that makes sense. This sounds like the same kind of statement as the others, but it distinctly avoids creating a false dichotomy between one action being a choice and another action not being a choice, which has been driving me nuts.

[seajoy]

which has been driving me nuts.
Oh, ha ha.

[seajoy]

Yes, that makes sense.
Good, now perhaps you will stop making the same points over and over and expect a different answer.

Way to go LilLamb! :clap:

[cerette]

Great job, LilLamb

[RadMan]

Yes, that makes sense. This sounds like the same kind of statement as the others, but it distinctly avoids creating a false dichotomy between one action being a choice and another action not being a choice, which has been driving me nuts.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

[seajoy]

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
Excellent, Rad. :)

[LutheranMafia]

It doesn't appear to mean what you think because it goes on to extol wisdom that is personally understood:

13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding,
14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.

[RadMan]

But read on what wisdom and understanding really are. They are not vain knowledge or trying to second guess God. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". That's just a starter.

[LilLamb219]

It doesn't appear to mean what you think because it goes on to extol wisdom that is personally understood:

13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding,
14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.


Gains understanding...it's more gift talk. It doesn't rely on us to try to figure it out.

[LutheranMafia]

Gains understanding...it's more gift talk. It doesn't rely on us to try to figure it out.You are referring to Proverbs as extolling gift talk...?

[LutheranMafia]

But read on what wisdom and understanding really are. They are not vain knowledge or trying to second guess God. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". That's just a starter.
The Bible is extremely clear that both predestination and free will exist at the same time. The existence of one does not contradict the other, and nowhere in the Bible does it say otherwise.

I am not second guessing God, I'm second guessing a self-contradictory interpretation of God. Wanting to avoid self-contradiction is hardly a matter of vanity. Being content to live with a self-contradictory belief in God on the other hand...

[LilLamb219]

Have you even read Luther's Bondage of the Will?

[LutheranMafia]

Have you even read Luther's Bondage of the Will?I've been trying, but the on-line version is hard on my eyes. I need a printed copy.

[LutheranMafia]

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"Yes, I very much fear the consequences of my own misunderstandings about God's wishes and I vigilantly try to root it out as best I can.

[seajoy]

Yes, I very much fear the consequences of my own misunderstandings about God's wishes and I vigilantly try to root it out as best I can.
Christ took care of all your sins, LM. We can never root out all the answers to our questions about God. What God wants us to know is really quite simple.
We sin,
Jesus came to earth,
He died on the cross,
He rose again,
He gives us the faith
to trust in that truth
so we can be saved.

All your "working it out in your head" will never gain you the way to heaven. It's already been taken care of in Christ alone.

[seajoy]

John 3:16 :)

[WildStrawberry]

Have you ever noticed that God has given us everything we NEED to know in His Word?. Notice I didn't say everything we WANT to know.

God doesn't come right out and spoon feed us stuff. He wants us to read His Word and to think about it in context of what is said elsewhere. We can't "lean on our own understanding" because HIS understanding is RIGHT THERE in His Word.

For example, think about the Old Earth creationists and the New Earth creationists and the "the earth is a billion years old"** folk. What does God say? HE created the heavens and earth. He doesn't tell us how other than what He did on each day. He doesn't tell us just how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Could they have only been there a couple of days? A millennium? Two or three? Or just an hour? We don't know because we don't HAVE to know. We'll figure it out when we come to glory. We just have to trust in Him and in His Word. When we trust in God with all our hearts, the peace of the Lord that passes all understanding will come to us.

Kae

**this post may contain hyperbole. :D

[LutheranMafia]

Christ took care of all your sins, LM. We can never root out all the answers to our questions about God. What God wants us to know is really quite simple.
We sin,
Jesus came to earth,
He died on the cross,
He rose again,
He gives us the faith
to trust in that truth
so we can be saved.

All your "working it out in your head" will never gain you the way to heaven. It's already been taken care of in Christ alone.Then what is the value of Luther's answers in this regard? I don't think that I am reaching beyond the kinds of questions that Luther sought answers to.

[LutheranMafia]

Have you ever noticed that God has given us everything we NEED to know in His Word?. Notice I didn't say everything we WANT to know.
How about your gut wrenching martial/financial/health question about insurance? That was a need to know kind of thing. No wonder they made Marv an elder, he was the only one with an answer and it was spiritually essential for you to get a concrete answer like that. Even if it was clearly beyond the knowledge of most pastors it was a vital spiritual matter.

I view the Bible the way I view the Constitution, which I also believe is a product of the direct hand of God. The Constitution contains hardly any legal code, and yet all legal code in the US must conform to the Constitution. It hardly lays out any laws at all, it is instead an abstract framework for laying out laws. I see the Bible as a similar kind of comprehensive framework. It’s the shorted religious scriptures in the world and if you try to apply it like a legal code instead of applying it like a Constitutional framework, you’ll come up empty handed, just as if you tried to apply the Constitution as a legal code.

God doesn't come right out and spoon feed us stuff. He wants us to read His Word and to think about it in context of what is said elsewhere. We can't "lean on our own understanding" because HIS understanding is RIGHT THERE in His Word.
The Bible is extremely advanced, terse and compact--comparable in some ways to a book of math equations in terms of terseness combined with density of meaning. It sure isn’t spoon fed, which is precisely why there are 3000+ radically different Christian opinions of Biblical doctrine. It isn’t all right there in plain sight, or there would be little disagreement, it has to be understood and fathomed, which few are capable of, though many try.

For example, think about the Old Earth creationists and the New Earth creationists and the "the earth is a billion years old"** folk. What does God say? HE created the heavens and earth. He doesn't tell us how other than what He did on each day. He doesn't tell us just how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Could they have only been there a couple of days? A millennium? Two or three? Or just an hour? We don't know because we don't HAVE to know.
God didn’t write the Bible as a science textbook. The absence of scientific details in the Bible is beside the point, it also leaves out a lot of spiritual details out. We just have a lot more on our plate than the ancient Christians who mostly lived at the level of subsistence. They did not need the kind of detail in the answers to their spiritual questions that we need.

[seajoy]

Then what is the value of Luther's answers in this regard? I don't think that I am reaching beyond the kinds of questions that Luther sought answers to.
The answers Luther came up with IS what I mentioned. After all his searching.....it was Christ Alone all along.

[RadMan]

God didn’t write the Bible as a science textbook. The absence of scientific details in the Bible is beside the point, it also leaves out a lot of spiritual details out. We just have a lot more on our plate than the ancient Christians who mostly lived at the level of subsistence. They did not need the kind of detail in the answers to their spiritual questions that we need.Faith and understanding comes from hearing and reading the Word of God. It's not a matter of intelligence or more advanced knowledge. God came for sinners and not for someones intellectual understanding.

[seajoy]

Faith and understanding comes from hearing and reading the Word of God. It's not a matter of intelligence or more advanced knowledge. God came for sinners and not for someones intellectual understanding.
Amen and Amen

[DaRev]

Faith and understanding comes from hearing and reading the Word of God. It's not a matter of intelligence or more advanced knowledge. God came for sinners and not for someones intellectual understanding.

:thumbsup::amen:

[LutheranMafia]

Faith and understanding comes from hearing and reading the Word of God. It's not a matter of intelligence or more advanced knowledge. God came for sinners and not for someones intellectual understanding.The hardest things to understand are impervious to high IQs. Theology is not a subject for geeks and nerds. That is not what I was referring to at all. I was referring to wisdom, not geek intellect.

This is precisely my complaint with a portion of LCMS doctrine, it is too intellectually based. The argument that, "faith is not a choice but faithlessness is" sounds like northing more than intellectual manipulation of words to me, I can't get any concrete meaning out of it that I can apply in a practical way.

[RadMan]

The hardest things to understand are impervious to high IQs. Theology is not a subject for geeks and nerds. That is not what I was referring to at all. I was referring to wisdom, not geek intellect.

This is precisely my complaint with a portion of LCMS doctrine, it is too intellectually based. The argument that, "faith is not a choice but faithlessness is" sounds like northing more than intellectual manipulation of words to me, I can't get any concrete meaning out of it that I can apply in a practical way.Don't believe us. Read the Bible in Greek in context for yourself. I've just read small excerpts, with other people's help, and it sure is an eye opener.

[LutheranMafia]

I will try again:


LM,

I think you would like the "Foolishness of God - The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther" by Siegbert Becker. Published at Northwestern Publishing House.

http://online.nph.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?10418&productID=150383


From the description:

"This NPH Classic book was originally published in 1982. Dr. Siegbert Becker (1914-1984) has gone a long way in clearing up the confusion over Luther's concept of reason. All who read this monograph will be convinced that while Luther may have been antirationalistic, he was not irrational. It would be difficult to find a better description of Luther's view of reason than that given by Becker: It is not Christianity that needs to be made reasonable. It is reason that needs to be made Christian."I never saw Luther as irrational, I use to see him as a geeky hyper-rational academic type, but I'm not so inclined to relegate him to impracticality now that I am older and starting to realize how deeply ingrained many of his ways of thinking are in me. Also, I'm more inclined to doubt that the hyper-rational reasoning I see is really Luther's, since most Lutherans aren't on the same page as the conservatives, and I'm not at all convinced that Luther would be considered a religious conservative if he were here today.

[LutheranMafia]

Don't believe us. Read the Bible in Greek in context for yourself. I've just read small excerpts, with other people's help, and it sure is an eye opener.Delving into the original Hebrew words has been more eye opening for me, it doesn't seem to me like the Greek-to-English is lacking as much as the Hebrew-to-English. You folks quote the Bible a lot, but in a one side way with regards to predestination vs. free will, and when free will quotes are mention from the Bible it seems to me like the counterarguments are not explanations of the Bible but rather an attempt to explain away the Bible's surface meaning and to look for something elusive and tenuous that isn't so obviously there.

[RadMan]

Well then why do rely on Luther's teaching of the Bible and not on our own intellect? You're not making sense.......again.

[LutheranMafia]

Well then why do rely on Luther's teaching of the Bible and not on our own intellect? You're not making sense.......again.You mean why don't I really on Luther's intellect rather than my own? I'm not convinced that I don't.

[LilLamb219]

Let's look at it this way...decision theology places too much emphasis back on man...which is what man wanted in the first place (remember Adam? He wanted to make his own choices). That's why decision theology is not correct theology.

Scriptures even state, you did not choose me but I chose you in John 15:16. This rightly puts God in charge as it should be. He is the one who gives faith...but man rejects.

[LutheranMafia]

But two verses before he says, "You are my friends, if you do what I command." Notice the if, which means that they can choose either to do as he commands or they can choose not to. They get a choice too, but Christ chose first. Thus the fate of Judas Iscariot whom Jesus chose.

What is meant by Decision Theology? I don't really understand the classification. It sounds like you are saying that any belief that it is possible to make spiritual mistakes is Decision Theology. That is an extraordinarily broad definition that would include the great majority of Christianity.

[DaRev]

But two verses before he says, "You are my friends, if you do what I command." Notice the if, which means that they can choose either to do as he commands or they can choose not to. They get a choice too, but Christ chose first. Thus the fate of Judas Iscariot whom Jesus chose.

We can only do what Christ commands by the power of the Holy Spirit within us. When we don't do as Christ commands we are rejecting the work of the Spirit, we are rejecting the God-given faith that produces the desire and ability to do so. When we follow Christ's commands it is our passive acknowledgment of the faith and the work of God in us. When we do not follow Christ's commands, that is our active refusal and active rejection. Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because he actively chose to reject the faith given to him.

One cannot "choose" something that they already possess.

[LutheranMafia]

We can only do what Christ commands by the power of the Holy Spirit within us. When we don't do as Christ commands we are rejecting the work of the Spirit, we are rejecting the God-given faith that produces the desire and ability to do so. When we follow Christ's commands it is our passive acknowledgment of the faith and the work of God in us. When we do not follow Christ's commands, that is our active refusal and active rejection. Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because he actively chose to reject the faith given to him.

One cannot "choose" something that they already possess.Did Judas Iscariot loose something that he already possessed?

[WildStrawberry]

Did Judas Iscariot loose something that he already possessed?

He didn't trust Jesus enough to know that Jesus would forgive him for his betrayal.

By CHOOSING not to trust, Judas turned his back on God and made his own (poor) decision.

Kae

[LutheranMafia]

He didn't trust Jesus enough to know that Jesus would forgive him for his betrayal.

By CHOOSING not to trust, Judas turned his back on God and made his own (poor) decision.

KaeHaving trust is not a choice but not having trust is a choice? How is one a choice and the other not a choice?

"One cannot 'choose' something that they already possess", this is a semantic trick based on defining choice as a change. You can choose to stick with what you've got, which is every bit as much of a choice as choosing something different.

[WildStrawberry]

Having trust is not a choice but not having trust is a choice? How is one a choice and the other not a choice?

"One cannot 'choose' something that they already possess", this is a semantic trick based on defining choice as a change. You can choose to stick with what you've got, which is every bit as much of a choice as choosing something different.

God gives you the trust, the faith, the belief that you need. It's already there for you...but when you turn your back, THAT is when you make the choice.

It's there. Period. You have it. You don't need to chose to do anything because it's already there. All you do is realize "hey! Look! I've got faith! W00t!" (or whatever.)

The only time a choice is made is when you realize that God's tapping at your window saying "hey, I'm giving you somethin' here!" and you decide to leave the window closed.

We've all said pretty much the same things over and over again and you haven't gotten it yet. Could you try making some clear and concise questions about what you're still not understanding?

Kae

[DaRev]

Did Judas Iscariot loose something that he already possessed?

He rejected it.

[Tofferer]

Sounds like it to me.

[Edial]

Did Judas Iscariot loose something that he already possessed?
Judas Iscariot was chosen to be the student of Christ. One of only 12.

(Other disciples that left Christ (John 6) left because they did not understand His teachings concerning body and blood. Philosophers.)

You see, Judas did not disbelieve Christ in a philosophical way or even skeptical way like Thomas.
He did not like Christ even as a man.

1CO 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!

Here "love" is phileo, one of the extremely rare instances in the NT when it is not agape.
Phileo is brotherly love.
(I know. We had this conversation before. Just take it for what it is).

Judas also publicly challenged Jesus concerning not selling the nard that the woman anointed Him with.

Peter also argued with Jesus. But the arguments that Peter had with Him were because Peter did not want Jesus to die. Peter loved Jesus.
Judas hated the man for no good reason.

JN 15:25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: `They hated me without reason.'

Judas knew that Jesus was a good man, yet He irritated him.
That text when he wanted to keep the nard money instead of having Jesus anointed (John 12:3-7) was perhabs the peak of Judas irritation and hatred towards the man.
Because after that event he went to betray Him.
(Mk 14:10,11)

You see, 1Cor.16:22 text above is telling us that a curse comes upon a man who does not love Jesus as a man.
And if there is a curse, Satan is involved. It is his calling card.

So, Satan was involved in Judas life to betray Jesus.

LK 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

... and then he entered him the 2nd time when Judas took the bread from Jesus hand.

JN 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

... and he committed a suicide.

Did Judas lose something that he already possessed?
I do not know what he possessed. You are looking at it from a theological perspective.
Don't. Theology is confusing. Much of it is based on our personal understanding.

If it is not written what Judas lost that he already possessed, we don't know what he possessed that he later lost.

We just know he lost Heaven because he rejected the call of God.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

[FONT=Arial]RadMan]
Faith and understanding comes from hearing and reading the Word of God. It's not a matter of intelligence or more advanced knowledge. God came for sinners and not for someones intellectual understanding.

To add to what Rad said, I would say that the Bible is written purposely for the intelligent people not to understand and just believe.

1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

(I am reflecting at what Wildstrawberry said in another post).
I know one intellgient man for about 17 years who knew that the Bible is true yet did not understand how the world was made.
It practically tortured his mind.
Then, one day he went to the library and started reading the Bible from the beginning.
And after reading the first chapters of Genesis he exclaimed in his mind: "So that's how it was made!". ... And then he experienced peace.

Once one believes the book for what it says regardless of what the world around him says, his intellect is somehow redirected and then he/she understands the book.

In my opinion, in Heaven we will not have brains :doh::) but these three ...
1CO 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Hard to comrehend, isnt't it.

Brains and understanding exists in order to get new information or develop a conclusion. But once we're in Heaven we'll have all the information there is and no conclusions to conclude.

We will finally function as complete human beings.

Once all the knowledge is known, only faith, hope and love are needed in order to exercise and apply that knowledge.

You see, God Himself will be our understanding, our "brain" so to speak and our source for all.

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

And through our obedience, which is by faith, we will function.

Some might object, "But this is like being a robot!"

Not at all. This is like (in my opinion) an OT slave who volunteers to be with his master forever even when the 6 years of volunary service expired.

DT 15:16 But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.

We, as believers, openly volunteer for God to be in us. Why?
Because we want to be led by God. It is pleasing to us, even though we are sinners.

Others, often rely on their brain and intelligence to lead them, since they hate being led. "What am I, a sheep!?"
Yet they are being foolish not realizing that anything that they reject which is holy (things like being led by God), Satan will use. It is his open door.
So, they often end up being led by Satan (I mean his demons) without even realizing it.

Intelligence is confusing, since it relies on data. And in this world there is much of conflicting data.
Some of the most misled and confused people are intelligent people that question God and/or the plain understanding of the Bible.

S