Choose To Believe??

[Arial]

I first encountered this idea of the means of salvation in a conversation with a Unitarian, Open Theist, Charismatic (yes they were all three the same person) who kept wording it in the same way as the OP title. Always before, I had heard the free choice argument as "choosing Christ". I can give a bit of leeway to choosing Christ, because even the Reformed acknowledge that we choose Christ. The difference in the theology is that in Reformed the reason we choose Christ is because we have been regenerated by God, which comes with the gift of faith in the person and work of Christ. The other side says either enough grace is given to all to understand and believe the gospel and then choose whether or not to accept Christ as Lord. Or, as in Pelagianism, there is no need of grace at all. All men without exception have the ability within themselves to accept or reject Christ.

So I pressed the issue with him, did he mean choose Christ rather than choose to believe? The answer was an emphatic "NO!". Since then I have encountered this same statement of choosing to believe with every "Arminianist", of whatever theologgical/doctrinal persuasion, even among Trinitarians, non Open Theists, non Charismatics. Every time, I double check with them if they are using the intended wording of "choose to believe" rather than "choose Christ". Always with the same result. We choose whether to believe or not. We can resist the grace that is given for salvation.

Which begs the question: Don't we have to believe something before we accept it? Isn't not believing it the same as rejecting it? And didn't Jesus, and the apostles after him, say that believing in him gives eternal life? So if we believe something that has given us eternal life, don't we now have eternal life. How then can we believe it and reject it at the same time?

It would be like saying, "Yes I believe in the person and work of Jesus, and that this gives me eternal life and saves me from the wrath of God against my sins on judgement day, but no thanks, I choose not to believe and go to hell and eternal punishment." Which of course is a completely illogical and impossible statement.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[makesends]

Whether it is possible to choose to believe something other than to choose to believe in Christ, is irrelevant, I say.

The ability to choose to believe things, in my opinion is valid. As a kid, I used to play volleyball nearly every day. When the ball landed close to the line, those who believed the ball was IN vs those who believed it was OUT was pretty much obviously according to what team they were on. I say they chose to believe it.

When I was in love, and she did something that to me was hateful, I would choose to believe, since she always told me so, that she did it because she loved me.

But that isn't at all the same thing as having salvific faith.

Subsequent to being regenerated, I do say that we choose Christ, pretty much all day long, continually turning back to him, submitting, but the believing is already done. Submitting is a result.

 

[Dave]

@Arial @makesends

When Jesus says believe, isn't that kind of a loaded word?

I googled that question just to see if they would lay out my thoughts better than I could. It wouldn't let me post the results, but try it. Interesting reply.

Even demons believe and shutter (James 2:19). Romans 10:13-14 goes in this order, hear, believe, and then call on Him.

Romans 10:13-14 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

I'm guessing that since the word faith can also be kind of a loaded word that normally we would attach to "believed", but in this instance should also be attached "calls on Him". Just different contexts. Words overlapping. Saved, saves is used that same way. Context.

This brings to mind the evidence of works for a true faith. When Jesus said 'Why do you say Lord Lord and do not do what I ask?' They believed, and even called on Him, but the evidence suggested something else. Isn't that what James said. So while faith is evidenced by works, it is the faith alone (believe, call on Him), that justifies us.

Dave

 

[Arial]

When Jesus says believe, isn't that kind of a loaded word?

Not when Jesus says it. People use it however they want to. What Jesus meant is spiritually discerned, and it has nothing to do with what the world means in its pep talks, or when Satan believes. Jesus isn't the Savior of Satan or angels. When they fall, they stay fallen.

 

[Arial]

But that isn't at all the same thing as having salvific faith.

And that is the crux of the matter as to how those who prefer free choice over their salvation, can never understand that they are stating the impossible by saying they chose to believe. They make no distinction between the spiritual things of salvation and the natural things of the world. Which is what makes theirs a man centered religion.

 

[makesends]

And that is the crux of the matter as to how those who prefer free choice over their salvation, can never understand that they are stating the impossible by saying they chose to believe. They make no distinction between the spiritual things of salvation and the natural things of the world. Which is what makes theirs a man centered religion.

Yep. We do so because it is so!

 

[makesends]

@Arial @makesends

When Jesus says believe, isn't that kind of a loaded word?

I googled that question just to see if they would lay out my thoughts better than I could. It wouldn't let me post the results, but try it. Interesting reply.

Even demons believe and shutter (James 2:19). Romans 10:13-14 goes in this order, hear, believe, and then call on Him.

Romans 10:13-14 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

I'm guessing that since the word faith can also be kind of a loaded word that normally we would attach to "believed", but in this instance should also be attached "calls on Him". Just different contexts. Words overlapping. Saved, saves is used that same way. Context.

This brings to mind the evidence of works for a true faith. When Jesus said 'Why do you say Lord Lord and do not do what I ask?' They believed, and even called on Him, but the evidence suggested something else. Isn't that what James said. So while faith is evidenced by works, it is the faith alone (believe, call on Him), that justifies us.

Dave

I'd be careful not to pursue the overlapping too much. True, that we have a hard time describing the supernatural 'ordo salutis' from the temporal human point of view, but we need to be careful about taking license to say what 'seems so' at the moment. But yes, the overlapping seems evident, from our POV.

Funny thing about 'loaded words' like "believe". If we were to try to figure out all the details and boundaries of meaning, we couldn't do it, yet I am sure that it is maybe even the most simple thing in the world.

We must —but we do, because he did it in us, and we are in him.

 

[brightfame52]

When Jesus gives the imperative to believe, its to one of His redeemed regenerated sheep, and its obeyed. Like for instance Acts 16:31

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.