Is belief a choice?

[TB2]

Why?

Can you make yourself believe?

Or, if one is spiritually dead (the natural man) and is unable to believe unto salvation, can he just make himself believe?

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I'm sure you're not, but then perhaps qualify upfront in your OP, or did I miss that too?

 

[Carbon]

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

Okay. I can see why you could think such.

I'm sure you're not,

Thanks

but then perhaps qualify upfront in your OP, or did I miss that too?

I think you may be missing something.

 

[TB2]

I think you may be missing something.

Wouldn't be the first time! Lol

 

[His clay]

Are there many here who do not like or accept Calvinism? For those who do not, do you think it is a Christian system? If not, what is suggested for the Calvinist who thinks he’s Christian? Or is it the other way around?
And the anti-Calvinist’s are wrong,
This could be quite confusing for many people.

Well I personally do not believe that any man has the ability to choose to believe. I mean. How can someone choose to believe anything?
You might like something and think it is interesting but if there really is no evidence? Why would anyone or should I say, how can anyone believe it. Can someone make themselves believe? I don’t think so.

How can someone believe then? "They must have evidence."And by another person explaining something to you is not evidence, that’s information. Which puts it right back at the beginning again.

So how do we get evidence? I think in this may be the answer. From reading/studying and thinking it over, I believed in Jesus because it became evident that he was who the scripture says he was, I just knew he was.
Not because people told me who he was or what he did. If I had to believe, or, “make myself believe” I don’t know if I could have gone it. I mean, how?

I think that we need to separate two issues here. I think that we need to make a distinction between "belief in the gospel" and "believing that Calvinism is true." The second involves mental assent to the basics of Calvinism. The first involves more than mental assent (since we all hold as true the statement in James, even the devils believe). Belief in the gospel is more than just believing the aspects of the gospel to be true. It goes considerably further. I hold to the noetic effects of sin, so I hold that people cannot believe in Jesus or the gospel when their heart is in love with sin (see Jn 3:19). Sin's perversion upon the mind renders the natural man unable to properly perceive their lostness and consequently the amazingness of the cross.

However, depravity does not rule choices; rather, depravity demonstrates that choices aren't all that simple and depravity binds a person's will. However, when God makes His light to shine in our hearts, and then we actually perceive God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6), then the person will want to believe and thusly choose to believe.

We have Romans 4, and Paul's inspired presentation of Abraham and his faith. In 4:3 we see the quote from Gen 15:6. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Let's work from the obvious to the less obvious. In response to God's reiteration of the promise--that Abram's seed would be as numerous as the stars of heaven--Abram believed God. At minimum, Abram (in spite of the later evidence of his body and Sarah's womb being dead (Rom 4:19)) believed God. In Genesis 22, Abraham's faith took the form of action as he trusted God's promise in spite of God's own command seemingly coming into conflict with the promise, but he trusted that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). Abram's faith took the form of action in Heb 11:8.

The opening post addressed the issue of evidence, so I'll mention a few things about that topic. Most notably we have Pharaoh (Exodus) and the truth suppressors in Romans 1. Pharaoh had plague after plague; he had evidence after evidence. But he did not believe. The truth suppressors have the testimony coming from the things that are made, so as to be without excuse, but the truth-suppressors push away the truth, proclaim to be wise in their own eyes (epistemological autonomy), and thusly they become fools (more demonstration of the noetic effects of sin). And Romans 1:18-32 is all about the wrath of God being revealed, until Romans 3:21 speaks of the righteousness of God being revealed. Again, an essential part of the gospel Paul is elucidating in 1:18-3:20 is that people are sinful and under the wrath of God, so that every mouth would be stopped and the whole world held accountable to God (3:19-20). An essential part of the gospel is man's sinfulness, accountability, and deserved wrath from God. The problem must be understood before the solution makes sense. But I must get back to the issue of evidence. Pharaoh and the truth-suppressors had it in abundance and still rejected it, so evidence alone is not saving. However, the proper perception of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ in the gospel is something that God makes to shine in the heart of a person; and thusly God overcomes man's depravity by the same creative power He displayed when He said, "Let there be light."

Thoughts?

 

[TB2]

I think that we need to separate two issues here. I think that we need to make a distinction between "belief in the gospel" and "believing that Calvinism is true." The second involves mental assent to the basics of Calvinism. The first involves more than mental assent (since we all hold as true the statement in James, even the devils believe). Belief in the gospel is more than just believing the aspects of the gospel to be true. It goes considerably further. I hold to the noetic effects of sin, so I hold that people cannot believe in Jesus or the gospel when their heart is in love with sin (see Jn 3:19). Sin's perversion upon the mind renders the natural man unable to properly perceive their lostness and consequently the amazingness of the cross.

However, depravity does not rule choices; rather, depravity demonstrates that choices aren't all that simple and depravity binds a person's will. However, when God makes His light to shine in our hearts, and then we actually perceive God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6), then the person will want to believe and thusly choose to believe.

We have Romans 4, and Paul's inspired presentation of Abraham and his faith. In 4:3 we see the quote from Gen 15:6. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Let's work from the obvious to the less obvious. In response to God's reiteration of the promise--that Abram's seed would be as numerous as the stars of heaven--Abram believed God. At minimum, Abram (in spite of the later evidence of his body and Sarah's womb being dead (Rom 4:19)) believed God. In Genesis 22, Abraham's faith took the form of action as he trusted God's promise in spite of God's own command seemingly coming into conflict with the promise, but he trusted that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). Abram's faith took the form of action in Heb 11:8.

The opening post addressed the issue of evidence, so I'll mention a few things about that topic. Most notably we have Pharaoh (Exodus) and the truth suppressors in Romans 1. Pharaoh had plague after plague; he had evidence after evidence. But he did not believe. The truth suppressors have the testimony coming from the things that are made, so as to be without excuse, but the truth-suppressors push away the truth, proclaim to be wise in their own eyes (epistemological autonomy), and thusly they become fools (more demonstration of the noetic effects of sin). And Romans 1:18-32 is all about the wrath of God being revealed, until Romans 3:21 speaks of the righteousness of God being revealed. Again, an essential part of the gospel Paul is elucidating in 1:18-3:20 is that people are sinful and under the wrath of God, so that every mouth would be stopped and the whole world held accountable to God (3:19-20). An essential part of the gospel is man's sinfulness, accountability, and deserved wrath from God. The problem must be understood before the solution makes sense. But I must get back to the issue of evidence. Pharaoh and the truth-suppressors had it in abundance and still rejected it, so evidence alone is not saving. However, the proper perception of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ in the gospel is something that God makes to shine in the heart of a person; and thusly God overcomes man's depravity by the same creative power He displayed when He said, "Let there be light."

Thoughts?

I know your comment wasn’t directed to me but very interesting nonetheless. I will have to contemplate more deeply

 

[His clay]

I think that we need to separate two issues here. I think that we need to make a distinction between "belief in the gospel" and "believing that Calvinism is true." The second involves mental assent to the basics of Calvinism. The first involves more than mental assent (since we all hold as true the statement in James, even the devils believe). Belief in the gospel is more than just believing the aspects of the gospel to be true. It goes considerably further. I hold to the noetic effects of sin, so I hold that people cannot believe in Jesus or the gospel when their heart is in love with sin (see Jn 3:19). Sin's perversion upon the mind renders the natural man unable to properly perceive their lostness and consequently the amazingness of the cross.

However, depravity does not rule choices; rather, depravity demonstrates that choices aren't all that simple and depravity binds a person's will. However, when God makes His light to shine in our hearts, and then we actually perceive God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6), then the person will want to believe and thusly choose to believe.

We have Romans 4, and Paul's inspired presentation of Abraham and his faith. In 4:3 we see the quote from Gen 15:6. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Let's work from the obvious to the less obvious. In response to God's reiteration of the promise--that Abram's seed would be as numerous as the stars of heaven--Abram believed God. At minimum, Abram (in spite of the later evidence of his body and Sarah's womb being dead (Rom 4:19)) believed God. In Genesis 22, Abraham's faith took the form of action as he trusted God's promise in spite of God's own command seemingly coming into conflict with the promise, but he trusted that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). Abram's faith took the form of action in Heb 11:8.

The opening post addressed the issue of evidence, so I'll mention a few things about that topic. Most notably we have Pharaoh (Exodus) and the truth suppressors in Romans 1. Pharaoh had plague after plague; he had evidence after evidence. But he did not believe. The truth suppressors have the testimony coming from the things that are made, so as to be without excuse, but the truth-suppressors push away the truth, proclaim to be wise in their own eyes (epistemological autonomy), and thusly they become fools (more demonstration of the noetic effects of sin). And Romans 1:18-32 is all about the wrath of God being revealed, until Romans 3:21 speaks of the righteousness of God being revealed. Again, an essential part of the gospel Paul is elucidating in 1:18-3:20 is that people are sinful and under the wrath of God, so that every mouth would be stopped and the whole world held accountable to God (3:19-20). An essential part of the gospel is man's sinfulness, accountability, and deserved wrath from God. The problem must be understood before the solution makes sense. But I must get back to the issue of evidence. Pharaoh and the truth-suppressors had it in abundance and still rejected it, so evidence alone is not saving. However, the proper perception of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ in the gospel is something that God makes to shine in the heart of a person; and thusly God overcomes man's depravity by the same creative power He displayed when He said, "Let there be light."

Thoughts?

In paragraph 2 I had a monster typo. The "monster" is that it is very significant and screws up my actual position significantly. I apologize for miscommunicating so severely. The above post states.

"However, depravity does not rule choices; rather, depravity demonstrates that choices aren't all that simple and depravity binds a person's will."

What I meant to say is the following.

"However, depravity does not rule out choices; rather, depravity demonstrates that choices aren't all that simple and depravity binds a person's will."

The first statement makes it seem like I'm saying depravity does not rule choices, which is actually the opposite of my position. What I was trying to say was that the ruling nature of depravity over choices does not make choices non-existent. I apologize for the confusion that my comment here may have caused. What I meant and what I typed were two very different things.

 

[His clay]

I know your comment wasn’t directed to me but very interesting nonetheless. I will have to contemplate more deeply

I'm glad that your thinking has been provoked. As always, I hope that you will examine my post (like the Bereans) against the standard of scripture and conform your thinking and conduct to the parts you believe are in accord with scripture and leave the parts that may not adhere to scripture.