Choose Conversion??

[cricket]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What may appear to be a "decision" from a human perspective is actually the result of the work of the Holy Spirit through the power of the Gospel.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Thoughts? What is the official "Adventist" position on choice of acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior?

[Bravus]

(can you attribute the quote, Cricket?)

Not sure about the official Adventist position, but I personally believe the Spirit asks, rather than coerces, and the final choice remains ours. Any other alternative is repugnant.

[Gerr]

While bringing a sinner to repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner still has the final say of "yes" or "no". If this were not the case, then ALL would be in repentance.

Gerry

[cricket]

I can, but I really wanted to hear other's opinions on the idea, and not their opinions of the organization with whom it originated.

I will reveal the source shortly.

[Halfstep Denise]

I've always been taught that God gave us the free will to choose and I am positive it includes conversion. The Holy Spirit can impress us all He wants, but we have to make the choice.

Halfstep Denise <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Cricket,

The Holy Spirit calls us from the day we are born and the angels are constantly protecting us from that day. There comes a day in our lives when we make a life and death decision. We either choose to have God as God or we choose Satan.

Once we Choose God we are led by the Holy Spirit to conversion. Remember Peter? Luk 22:32 "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Yet when Jesus prayed that same night look at how He referred to Peter and the other 10 disciples:

Joh 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Notice what Jesus said, "none of them is lost but Judas." So they were saved but not converted, Peter and the whole lot. Peter failed Christ and Love never fails.1 Cor 13:8

We can be Christians and not converted and during this time the Holy Spirit works on our hearts and reveals to us the beauty of God. At any time we can reject His working in our lives and if we continue we will be lost.

There is a choice at every step and we either surrender our will or we do Satan's will. There's no gray here, even though we may think there is. Without the capacity to refuse we don't have the capacity to love.

Norman

[cricket]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Joh 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Notice what Jesus said, "none of them is lost but Judas." So they were saved but not converted, Peter and the whole lot. Peter failed Christ and Love never fails.1 Cor 13:8

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Whoa. I need to step back.

They were saved, but not converted?

[David Koot]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Cricket said:

They were saved, but not converted?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Not 'saved,' in the sense of having eternal life. They were saved from falling away for good, after Jesus' arrest and crucifixion. They still had a road to walk for years afterwards. And, yes, they still needed conversion, at the time Jesus spoke to them.

Dave

[Nicodema]

Say nothing of the biochemical processes of the brain and the responses to various emotional and mental stresses, not the least of which is the foreknowledge of death...

[cricket]

As promised, the quote taken above comes from The Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod

Cricket

[Bravus]

Hmmm, well, I'd say those good people are a bit confused... Gerry's response made a lot of practical sense to me.

[cricket]

That's why I didn't want to post the reference. Just wanted comments on the idea--not the people. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

Oops, I was imprecise: I meant to say those good people have a confused idea! Honestly, no attack on them was intended at all.

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

Not sure about the official Adventist position, but I personally believe the Spirit asks, rather than coerces, and the final choice remains ours. Any other alternative is repugnant.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think you're right about how it works, Bravus, but why would the alternative be repugnant? If I had a brain disease that robbed me of all capacity to objectively make decisions in my own best interest, and someone could give me a shot that would cure that disease, only I would have to be able to make the decision to have that shot before receiving it ... the one thing I could not do ... do you get what I'm driving at here? I don't think it would be so repugnant for them to give me the shot regardless of my response, and then, after the disease is gone, ask me how I felt about what they did. I'm sure I'd be grateful for them saving my life and sanity -- once it was no longer the disease talking.

I don't find the "alternative" repugnant in the least.

[Gerr]

But suppose that after you are cured from the disease of not being able to choose the good, you are now afflicted with a similar but opposite (oxymoron?) malady, i.e. now you can't choose the bad? Would that be acceptable?

Gerry

[Nicodema]

That's not how my illustration works, Gerry, so your question is moot where it is concerned.

However, in some respects, doesn't your scenario already exist because of consequences? I am "afflicted" even here and now, in this imperfect and corrupt world, with a "malady" that I "can't" choose, for example, to slay someone when they displease me, because then I would have to sacrifice the rest of my life and physical freedom to rot in a jail cell (or be executed) -- or alternatively, map the rest of my life around elaborate lies and scheming to not be caught as the one who eliminated that life. So even though every fiber of my being might scream with stark raving gnawing need to slaughter, I am not free to choose that course, and thus, not able to do so.

And all without ever having been given any magickal "shot" to "cure" me of this "brain disease" that makes me desire to slaughter anyone in the first place, so to speak.

Anyone who has ever been unable to do what they desire to do, what their whole being SCREAMS at them to do, knows the kind of torture I'm talking about. If something were to free me absolutely from that type of torture I would not complain. If there is something I absolutely have no freedom to pursue or fulfill, I would much rather not have to endure the bombardment of impulse-turning-to-craving-turning-to-stark-raving-screaming-NEED to pursue it. And I'm not just talking about extreme things like murder, but everything that we are circumstantially not free to choose already. KnowwhatImean?

The above paragraphs are just hashing thoughts & musing. The simple answer to your question is NO, it would not bother me in the slightest to have all capacity to "choose bad" removed from me, either in hypothetical examples or real life. It would be a relief. I don't know about you, but when I think of the word "salvation" that is exactly what I picture: God doing for me what I have no ability whatsoever to do for myself, wiping out of me what I cannot eradicate in myself. If He cannot or will not, we are all doomed.