Are we saved by not resisting the Holy Spirit?

[1689Dave]

This would be true if the flesh is neutral in its disposition. But as Luther points out, as saved people, we have such a battle raging between the Spirit and the flesh, how hopeless would we be before salvation, having the flesh only? That is, with the flesh totally having its way with us, without our having the Spirit to control it?

So the notion that we save ourselves in the flesh by not resisting the Holy Spirit is impossible according to scripture. We can only deceive ourselves into thinking we are not resisting

Scripture teaches us that the flesh is an active evil force prodding us always to do evil, especially in the good we do. Indeed, whatever is not of faith is sin. So even our attempts at doing good are sin unless performed after salvation in the faith that only comes from the Holy Spirit.

Can we as saved people resist the Holy Spirit? John says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)

If you were ever chastised by God for sinning as a Christian, you would know first hand why you cannot sin. Pray that God will not lead you into temptation.

 

[Josiah]

So the notion that we save ourselves

There are no active posters here at CH who believe we save ourselves.

I realize that radical, latter-day Calvinism was developed to counter Arminianism (each going too far in doing so) but none of that works here since there are no Arminans among the active posters here. IF you ever choose to read (and consider) the posts here, you'll discover that generally what matters is not over-reaching anti-Arminianism or the logical fallacies of radical Calvinism, what matters is Scripture - not invisible words, not correction of the words, not "what it MEANS rather than what it states", but actual Scripture. And IF you ever choose to read the posts here, you'll find that most lack the ego to insist God must submit to our "logic" (especially not the logical fallicies so often seen in both Calvinism and Arminianism) but are willing to accept that sometimes our puny brains can't explain what God says, but that's okay, most here are willing to admit God is likely smarter than we are.

You MIGHT consider going to some radical Calvinist vs. radical Arminianist debate website - where both sides fire logical fallacies and "logical constructions" at each other, both working overtime to deny much of what Scripture says cuz God just ain't right sometimes. Such sites exist. Just a suggestion. You'll have more fun there.

Blessings on your Advent.



.

 

[1689Dave]

There are no active posters here at CH who believes we save ourselves.

I realize that radical Calvinist was developed to counter Arminianism (and went too far in doing so) but none of that works here since there are no Arminians among the active posters. IF you ever choose to read the posts here, you'll discover that generally what matters is not over-reaching anti-Arminianism or the logical fallacies of radical Calvinism, what matters is Scripture - not invisible word. not correction of the words, not "what it MEANS rather than what it states, but actual Scripture. And IF you ever choose to read the posts here, you'll find that most lack the ego to insist God must submit to our "logic" (especially not the logical fallicies so often seen in both Calvinism and Armianism) but are willing to accept that sometimes our puny brains can't explain what God says, but that's okay, most here are willing to admit God is likely smarter than we are.

You MIGHT consider going to some radical Calvinist vs. radical Arminainist website - where both sides fire logical fallacies and "logical constructions" at each other, both working overtime to deny much of what Scripture says cuz God just can't be right sometimes. Such sites exist. Just a suggestion. You'll have more fun there.



.

But any involvement of your will to close the deal in your salvation makes you the savior.

 

[Albion]

But any involvement of your will to close the deal in your salvation makes you the savior.

No, it doesn't.

Not only that, but the way you worded your claim here ("any involvement of your will") represents a change from what you posted several times earlier, saying that to reject the doctrines of Limited Atonement, Predestination, or Original Sin means that the person thinks he can save himself.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

But any involvement of your will to close the deal in your salvation makes you the savior.

You're drowning at sea. Helicopter flies overhead. Ladder come down from helicopter. Rescuer climbs down the ladder. Rescuer reaches towards you and tells you to grab his hand. You grab his hand. You're pulled into the helicopter. The entire incident is filmed from a second helicopter who flies nearby. You're taken back home and given medical assistance. The news team comes to interview you. You tell the reporters that you saved yourself. What?

 

[Lamb]

You're drowning at sea. Helicopter flies overhead. Ladder come down from helicopter. Rescuer climbs down the ladder. Rescuer reaches towards you and tells you to grab his hand. You grab his hand. You're pulled into the helicopter. The entire incident is filmed from a second helicopter who flies nearby. You're taken back home and given medical assistance. The news team comes to interview you. You tell the reporters that you saved yourself. What?

More like Jesus scoops you up like he does with the sheep that fall onto a ledge of a cliff. You wake up already in the hospital (or with the rest of the sheep).

The reason this analogy works better is because dead men can't reach out. We are spiritually dead until God brings us to life with the Gospel. A sheep can't scoop himself up into the arms of the Savior. The Savior does the scooping.

 

[1689Dave]

More like Jesus scoops you up like he does with the sheep that fall onto a ledge of a cliff. You wake up already in the hospital (or with the rest of the sheep).

The reason this analogy works better is because dead men can't reach out. We are spiritually dead until God brings us to life with the Gospel. A sheep can't scoop himself up into the arms of the Savior. The Savior does the scooping.

Which means he must save you before you can believe. Resist at this point and you will either die and go to heaven or be chastised to the point you will not wilfully sin again.

 

[Lamb]

Which means he must save you before you can believe. Resist at this point and you will either die and go to heaven or be chastised to the point you will not wilfully sin again.

The promise of the Savior in Genesis is what began God's plan to scoop up the lost sheep.

The plan continued with the birth of the Savior.

And then more of His plan coming to light with the death and resurrection.

Faith is given to us to see what He accomplished. Those who reject that faith damn themselves. No one can save himself.

 

[Albion]

Which means he must save you before you can believe.

So...does that mean that one of the Elect will just automatically believe in Christ and his work of salvation, etc. simply because of a pre-determined decision on God's part to save this person but not other ones??

 

[1689Dave]

The promise of the Savior in Genesis is what began God's plan to scoop up the lost sheep.

The plan continued with the birth of the Savior.

And then more of His plan coming to light with the death and resurrection.

Faith is given to us to see what He accomplished. Those who reject that faith damn themselves. No one can save himself.

But faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a choice of the flesh. You cannot have saving faith unless you are saved.

 

[1689Dave]

There are no active posters here at CH who believe we save ourselves.

I realize that radical, latter-day Calvinism was developed to counter Arminianism (each going too far in doing so) but none of that works here since there are no Arminans among the active posters here. IF you ever choose to read (and consider) the posts here, you'll discover that generally what matters is not over-reaching anti-Arminianism or the logical fallacies of radical Calvinism, what matters is Scripture - not invisible words, not correction of the words, not "what it MEANS rather than what it states", but actual Scripture. And IF you ever choose to read the posts here, you'll find that most lack the ego to insist God must submit to our "logic" (especially not the logical fallicies so often seen in both Calvinism and Arminianism) but are willing to accept that sometimes our puny brains can't explain what God says, but that's okay, most here are willing to admit God is likely smarter than we are.

You MIGHT consider going to some radical Calvinist vs. radical Arminianist debate website - where both sides fire logical fallacies and "logical constructions" at each other, both working overtime to deny much of what Scripture says cuz God just ain't right sometimes. Such sites exist. Just a suggestion. You'll have more fun there.

Blessings on your Advent.



.

If you force them to admit it, they come clean if they are honest.

 

[Lamb]

But faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a choice of the flesh. You cannot have saving faith unless you are saved.

We can't choose to have faith. It's a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).

 

[1689Dave]

We can't choose to have faith. It's a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).

But you must be saved first. Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a choice of the flesh.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

More like Jesus scoops you up like he does with the sheep that fall onto a ledge of a cliff. You wake up already in the hospital (or with the rest of the sheep).

The reason this analogy works better is because dead men can't reach out. We are spiritually dead until God brings us to life with the Gospel. A sheep can't scoop himself up into the arms of the Savior. The Savior does the scooping.

Plenty of people have heard the Gospel and did not find it convincing enough to trust it. Not because they wanted to live in sin (some of them actually chose another religion that is just as - if not more - sin-restrictive as Christianity, such as Islam or Judaism), nor because they didn't want to accept it (some of them actually prayed for God to convince them for years), but because the Gospel simply did not make any rational sense to them, and their faculty of reality assessment could not believe the veracity of the Gospel while maintaining intellectual honesty.

 

[1689Dave]

Plenty of people have heard the Gospel and did not find it convincing enough to trust it. Not because they wanted to live in sin (some of them actually chose another religion that is just as - if not more - sin-restrictive as Christianity, such as Islam or Judaism), nor because they didn't want to accept it (some of them actually prayed for God to convince them for years), but because the Gospel simply did not make any rational sense to them, and their faculty of reality assessment could not believe the veracity of the Gospel while maintaining intellectual honesty.

The gospel is for people whom God saved, giving them a new heart of love, and eyes that can see. If you are one of these you will believe and repent when you hear it, into a new Christ-centered lift. The rest will develop a false gospel from it and perish.

 

[Albion]

The gospel is for people whom God saved, giving them a new heart of love, and eyes that can see. If you are one of these you will believe and repent when you hear it, into a new Christ-centered lift. The rest will develop a false gospel from it and perish.

You reject Faith, although it is talked about as critically important all over the New Testament.

At the same time, however, you describe it in your post here...just without using that word!

 

[1689Dave]

You reject Faith, although it is talked about as critically important all over the New Testament.

At the same time, however, you describe it in your post here...just without using that word!

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that saved people have.

 

[Albion]

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that saved people have.

You already said that.

The Bible disagrees. Then too, I'm trying to think of any Christian denomination that agrees with the Church of Dave on that matter, and it's not easy.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The gospel is for people whom God saved, giving them a new heart of love, and eyes that can see. If you are one of these you will believe and repent when you hear it, into a new Christ-centered lift. The rest will develop a false gospel from it and perish.

And God chooses to save only some people because...?

 

[Josiah]

You're drowning at sea. Helicopter flies overhead. Ladder come down from helicopter. Rescuer climbs down the ladder. Rescuer reaches towards you and tells you to grab his hand. You grab his hand. You're pulled into the helicopter. The entire incident is filmed from a second helicopter who flies nearby. You're taken back home and given medical assistance. The news team comes to interview you. You tell the reporters that you saved yourself. What?

@Lucian Hodoboc



Understood and respected, but I disagree.

What you are conveying here is synergism, and I think this was condemned by the Early Church.
Now, if you changed it to "and God caused the man who grab onto the ladder," now you've moved into classic, traditional Christianity.


Years ago, I read this illustration:

In India, there is a very unusual branch of Hinduism that teaches that salvation can never be achieved by self (regardless of the number of reincarnations or level of tapping into divine help) but that a divne Savior is needed. BUT there are two very different ways this is understood. The two ways are called "The Way of the Monkey" and "The Way of the Cat."

Way of the Monkey: A baby monkey is in a hut, and the hut is on fire - the baby monkey is in grave danger and surely will die. But the mother Monkey runs into the hut, tells her baby to jump on her back and hang on tight, and the mother runs out of the hut - saving her baby.

Way of the Cat: A kitten is in a hut, and the hut is on fire - the kitten is in grave danger and surely will die. But the mother cat runs into the hut, grabs the kitten with her teeth, and carries it out of the hut - saving her baby.

The first is synergistic and essentially means that the baby saved itself via obedience and hanging on. The mother made it POSSIBLE but the baby did the part that actually resulted in salvation. It is essentially the veiw of all non-Christian religions: God makes salvation POSSIBLE but each actually saves self. The second embraces the biblical view that Jesus is the SAVIOR (not just possibility-maker, not just helper, not just inspiration, not just teacher). It embraces that our works do not result in salvation (including grabbing on to that ladder).

Now, IMO, there is mystery here. Because the faith I have is MY faith, I'M trusting/relying on Christ. But this is (as the Bible verbatim states) the work and gift of God (just like the Cross I'm trusting). I agree it's MY faith, that I'M doing the trusting - but only because the Holy Spirit gave me that ability.

I've had many conversations with Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, including a priest on another website and a good friend I had in college (we actually dated for awhile) and I understand that the EOC has a tradition of being quite tolerant of at least mild forms of synergism... even mild forms of Pelagianism. So what you post doesn't surprise me. But I hold to monergism, that Jesus is the Savior and Jesus does the saving; we are not saved by what we do but by what He does/did. I suspect we'll just disagree on that.

Plenty of people have heard the Gospel and did not find it convincing enough to trust it.

The Bible states that without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand the Gospel, and certainly to be "convinced enough." "It is nonsense to them" St. Paul says.



.