=======================================================
Bill Hamilton wrote:
>> Men's hearts have to be changed before they can
perceive God. >>
Let me sharpen this just a little.
"A person must be willing to have his/her heart
changed before he/she can perceive God."
The gender change is important in its own right; the
addition of "willing to" is more important.
At least IMO. <G>
Burgy
=======================================================
John is right that the insertion of "willing to" in Bill's
original statement is important. This insertion is at the
root of the difference between a Calvinistic and Arminian
understanding of the doctrine of grace. Do we believe that
man's (and woman's) fall is so complete that he (she) needs
the spiritual equivalent of a heart transplant in order to
perceive and trust in God through Christ, or can man in his
fallen condition contribute *in his own power* a certain
"willingness" to have his heart changed?
Both views agree that in conversion a person's heart is
changed in some way, and that this change results in an
active trust in Christ which goes beyond mere intellectual
assent to the truths of the gospel. What is at issue is the
origin of this change. The Calvinistic view attributes the
origin to God himself, who must first give us a new heart
in order that we can trust and believe. In our own hardness
of heart, that is something we simply would never do, apart from
God's "intervention" (a nasty word to some on this reflector,
but the right word in this case nonetheless). The Arminian
view, on the other hand, assumes that we have the ability to
believe or trust *apart from* any intervention on God's part,
beyond the persuasive effects of the command of the gospel to
"repent and believe".
This is tangential to the subject of the reflector (and I have
almost certainly oversimplified the two views above), but has
serious implications for one's understanding of what *really*
took place when Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead.
Did His death and resurrection simply *make it possible* for
people to be saved, provided they fulfill the conditions of
trust and faith, or did it *guarantee and secure* the salvation
of His people, who in due time would be drawn to faith by the
action of the sovereign God?
I'm not really arguing this one way or the other, but to any
who have not considered this issue, it is worth some serious
thought. It has a lot to do with your fundamental view of
Christ's work on the cross and why God sent Him, which seems
appropriate at this time of year.
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University