leaving the fires for safty ~ Part II
After reading this comment from “Carol A” over at Slice about a church meeting in a bar on Sundays, my heart was pretty saddened again. This just confirmed my earlier thoughts in the original post. It says all too much about the theology of Ken, Ingrid, Slice and C?N.
Oh, Lord, how long must we witness these blasphemous abominations?
First of all, “unsaved†or “unchurched†people don’t believe in God, they don’t believe in Jesus as their Savior and Lord. Why would they want to go to a “church†to worship someone who they don’t believe in? I don’t get the reasoning for these people even going.
Second point, why do these “leaders†want to attract goats to a place where sheep are worshiping their Creator? How can they think this crazy “synthesis†of goats and sheep is going to bring about anything?
That last line killed me. Why would we want to attract “goats” to church? Wow. That’s all I have to say.
And for the record, my post asking Ingrid for scriptures backing up her claims was not approved or published.
53 Comments(+Add)
Yes, Heaven forbid we would have UNSAVED PEOPLE going to a CHURCH!!!!!
Seriously…
I think Carol’s comment perfectly illustrates the logical outworking of two misunderstandings. First, she is assuming that a church is a building, therefore it must be a “holy” place. Second she is assuming that Christians have been given the authority to separate the sheeps from the goats. Both are poisonous.
I have found more and more that “church” is wherever I am with other believers. Last week, my wife and I had some friends over who we hadn’t seen in a while, and to me it was more spiritually uplifting than any “church” service I’d been to in a while.
With some fundamentalists, I wonder why they even think Jesus came to earth. It’s like they think he came to just establish the Christian “religion”. He may have changed some Judaic rules, but He set up a bunch of other ones in their minds. It’s just sad really.
On a personal level, I find the controversy pretty funny. The place where are campus ministry meets is right beside a bar, and they just put in a “risque” lingerie shop around the corner. I guess in these people’s eyes we should run away from the sinners, but my wife I think it’s awesome we get to be around so many “goats”.
This comment, unlike part 1, illustrates not so much their theology (although you can still see the fingerprints of it), but more their methodology (perhaps they consider it doctrine, who knows).
Again it shouldn’t surprise us. They believe a service for seekers is not only unnecessary (that would be their theology), but it’s actually unbiblical. Not because the Bible condemns it, but because the Bible never condones it, and because there are no examples of “seeker services” in Christianity’s history (not including recent history). Nevermind the blatant use of the argument from silence.
They believe evangelism should be done only outside the church. An non-Christian should never be invited to church. Where do we get off letting non-Christians (or the non-elect as they are referred to) into a service where we worship God? How can the non-elect ever worship God? A church service should be for the born-again. If someone catches wind of the fact that an unbeliever is in the church services, they are given the choice to either accept Jesus or not come back (I’ve seriously heard of that happening before, as a form of “church discipline”)
And this the backwardness of both their application of their theology and their methodology leaves the rest of us scratching our heads when they insist they really do care about the lost. Huh???
Great post!
Attracting people to a meeting place is fine, Jesus gave out fish sandwiches. What they hear when they get there is of greater importance.
Nathan Neighbor writes:
“After reading this comment from ‘Carol A’ over at Slice about a church meeting in a bar on Sundays, my heart was pretty saddened again. This just confirmed my earlier thoughts in the original post. It says all too much about the theology of Ken, Ingrid, Slice and C?N.”
Fair enough. Now we should have no further complaints from CRN.(Mis)Info? amen corner when I also cite people’s comments within my own articles as indicative of the fruit e.g. in the emerging ministries of Erwin McManus and Rob Bell.
Thank you Nathan.
“Not because the Bible condemns it, but because the Bible never condones it, and because there are no examples of “seeker services†in Christianity’s history”
I wonder what the people who believe that do with 1 Cor 14:23 – “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some UNBELIEVERS come in, will they not say that you are out or your mind?”
deborah
Carol is trapped in a Platonic dualism that is actually more akin to the early Gnostics than anything else. The sacred/secular divide is nothing more than Greek dualism painted over with a veneer of piety.
Wesley ran into the OPPOSITE problem when he began to preach in the fields and streets; he was condemned and instructed “if people want to become Christians, let them come to church (the building). The Gospel is too holy to be taken into sinful places.”
So, Carol is defecating on one of the Reformers, and promoting Gnosticism.
Nasty.
Attending a church does not save anyone. Being their friend has never saved anyone. Methods have never saved anyone. We do not save anyone. J
esus told the church that we are to make disciples. God saves, and we disciple.
Read the end of Acts 2 again. They met how they met, and GOD added to their number daily those who were being saved. Let us make ourselves available to God’s working in the earth.
Paul asked, “what IF some unbelievers walked in?”
He did not say that unbelievers will come thronging to get in.
As for sheep and goats that is taken in the context of Matthew 25 when Jesus tells how the nations will be assembled as sheep and goats, the sheep being those who perform the works of faith on behalf of Jesus’ brothers. The goats being those who do not. Matthew 25 is a whole separate issue which I will not go into here.
As far as I am concerned most of our churches are filled with unbelievers, who think that they are saved because they said a prayer at altar call. Most of the pulpits would be included in that number. If I had my way we would wll be back meeting house to house.
RM – With that last statement you are guilty of plagiarism without footnotes.
In the correct context the “make disciples” command from our Lord is the same as saying see people saved. Of course we don’t save anyone, and neither do we disciple if one wants to remain technically congruent.
Jesus wasn’t saying go all over the world and find saved people and then teach them. Do a cross reference with the other Great Commission commandments.
Nathan says: “They believe evangelism should be done only outside the church. An non-Christian should never be invited to church.”
Yeah, we “fundies” are the ones who overstate people’s positions and take their statements out of context. LOL!
Let us be fair. The orthodox (reformed et. al.) group eschew much surface advertisemnt to the lost to attend church, being watchful of the works of man supplanting the work of the Spirit.
On the other hand, many church growth camps draw no such line and use almost any and all methods to attract people (clowns, horse rides, etc.)
The problem with the first is that many do not see people come to Christ because of their inflexibility and possibly their theology.
The second camp see multitudes of surface professions with little “fruit that remains” because of their over-flexibility and possibly their theology.
Chris P’s statements reminds me of the old joke about the tour of heaven. When they get to a group of reformed bloggers Peter says, “shhhh, they don’t know anyone else is here”.
Ken,
I would presume, based on your statement, that you actually DO encourage your members to invite non-Christians to church, right? I would also presume that you do so as well. Yes? No?
Nathan,
Why thanks for asking. Sure I tell them to. And absolutely I do. In fact one particular morning I had many of the young men who were on the football team I was coaching in attendance.
There were no frills to get them there and they heard the real Gospel.
Ken, very glad to hear that your football team was invited — and actually came. That must have been exciting. I pray you have more opportunities to share your faith with them, in the church or outside the church.
Just don’t let Carol hear that you did this; it’s entirely possible that unregenerate football players might be goats (by her definition, not Matthew 25).
Thanks robbbymac. And just to ease your concerns. In His strength I’m not going to let anyone deter me from what the Master gives me to do.
Ken,
Perhaps you’re not in the segment I’m referring to then. Good for you.
Although I believe it’s save to assume that you do believe seeker services are not right, correct? You know, telling your members something like “if you have unsaved friends, be sure to get them here next Sunday because the message will be geared toward evangelizing the lost in our midst”.
Or “worse”, using things like bars, taverns, coffee shops, and night clubs to meet in for church.
I don’t want to mischaracterize you, so I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Rick
I never suggested that we scour the earth looking for the saved to disciple. I said we do not save anyone. Apparently the church of Acts 2 undestood God’s sovereignty something the post modern behemoth has no understanding of.
Tim,
You know nothing either. The “reformed” strawman (I will hate myself tomorrow for using that word) does not wash. Anyone who understands God’s sovereign will is a reformer, or anyone who reads the scriptures as if they make sense is a pharisee. Never mind that these things are actually taught in the Scriptures. What a crock. Read your Bible.
Preach the Gospel.Those whom God is calling in on a daily basis will come in. We need to be teaching the scriptures properly, not studying how to feed the hungry and cloth the poor. Those things are a no-brainer for those who know the Scriptures. Argue from the Word. Our opinions are of no relevance.
I tire of everyone putting words in my mouth.
Here are some links re: “free will” a matter solved by Romans 7, btw.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/35/1505_Prayer_and_Predestination/
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/06/libertarian-free-will-and-absurdity-of_24.html
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/06/libertarian-free-will-and-absurdity-of_24.html
Sorry for not responding quicker. I was out seeing TRANSFORMERS, (which was probably one of the best movies ever of all time…anyhow).
Ken,
Ingrid said this in a recent post:
“Church used to be a house of prayer for believers to come together, hear the preaching of the Word, worship the Lord corporately as those who belong to Jesus, share the Lord’s Supper and go out into the world as witnesses, strengthened and empowered by what the Lord had done in their midst. That’s all gone now. Church is now for the unbeliever.”
hmmmm… sound like her and Carol would see eye to eye. So, I see that you believe that church gatherings are for the believer as well as the non-believer. I retract my lumping you in with Ingrid and their unbiblical theology.
The more I read this stuff, the more it sickens me. It once again demonstrates how reformed theology makes for BAD orthopraxy. I can hear it now. “How dare the “goats” (i.e. unelect) attempt to reach God at our (the elect) church gathering! Their sinful nature is making me loose focus on the ultimate supreme sovereignty of God that has chosen me and damned them.”
Chris P,
I am having trouble following you line of logic (and I am not trying to be mean here). Do church services and befriending sinners interfere with God’s sovereign will? It seems to me that if we follow out your logic, we should do nothing, and God should just save people as he pleases.
“Second point, why do these “leaders†want to attract goats to a place where sheep are worshiping their Creator? How can they think this crazy “synthesis†of goats and sheep is going to bring about anything?”
Very, very poorly worded, granted.
What did Jesus say in John 6? He said essentially, “You aren’t seeking me because you saw my miracles — you ate the bread and for a moment your tummies were full.” We want people to come to church, Bible studies, small groups, etc. because they are interested in Christ, because someone they know has loved them enough to make a difference in their lives and invite them, etc. The reason they come should not be for a free beer or drink. We shouldn’t cater to those who simply want to eat the loaves and be filled (no pun intended) — furthermore, drinking the beer is an ENTIRELY differently subject and in this post I will not even open that can (no pun intended)…
Chris P,
The problem is that you, Ken, and Ingrid are acting more like the Pope than you are like Luther or any of the reformers. Even going so far as to speak to who is in the kingdom of God and who isn’t, and you’ve actually closed all discussion on scripture. At least with the Catholic church I can find where those traditions have codified. With you guys the traditions have been passed down orally and I just have to wait for the next hit piece to be published to see what the Popes of the Holy Roman Watchbloggers have cooked up as they speak ex cathedra.
OH, and BTW, that’s exactly why Rob Bell has a higher view of scripture than Ken, Ingrid or Chris P. He’s doing his best to allow the scriptures to shape him, and inform his theology instead of deciding what the scriptures and wielding them like a bloody axe.
“doing his best to allow the scriptures to shape him, and inform his theology.” Precisely what I’m doing.
Really Ken? Cause it seems to me that I see a lot of proof texting in justification for why things should stay the same as they were 50 years ago without much actual discussion of scripture.
Nathan,
I’ve only got a moment here, but (and I knew there would be a time I would have to write this): Ken is right insofar as we need to be careful in attributing comments from SoL as the position of the writer(s) of SoL/C?N. As I posted last week, I think we need to be careful not to be so polarizing in our criticism that we make the same kind of broad-brush comparisons (a la – “fightin’ fundies all are…” or “the ECM’ers believe this…”). I am guilty of this far more often than anyone sees, because I have the power of the backspace and delete keys before I publish, and I use them liberally (though not always liberally enough).
As for ’sheep’ and ‘goats’, it seems to me as I read Jesus’ context in Matthew that the determination of ’sheep’ and ‘goats’ happens in a time of judgement – not here and now – so just because someone has not yet come to know Jesus does not mean that they are a “goat”. It was this specific line of rhetoric (with an entire class of people labeled as ‘goats’ by the Judean Jews because they handled Roman money, worked in some way for Rome, or because they suffered some sort of infirmity which made them perpetually ‘unclean’.
Meeting as a church community in a pub? I’m not sure what the issue is, because I’ve not yet heard what is actually said and done in the pub. The place is not so important as what is said and done there. I recall someone talking about judging merely by external appearances, and adding some clarity about what this says about the judges, themselves…
OK – I had to run back to the keyboard for one more thing:
You will note that Jesus never refers to living people as goats, but instead, he tells a parable about a ‘lost sheep’, and in his response to Zaccheus, he uses a remez from Ezekiel which refers to his (Jesus) role in seeking and saving the ‘lost sheep’.
And, to my previous comment, Greg Boyd noted at Mars Hill last month that if something is made of flesh and blood, it is not our enemy. Our enemy is not of flesh and blood, but is made of principalities and powers within this present darkness. Our ‘enemy’ is not human, but of spirit – both in the spiritual realm in Satan, and in the realm of this world in the form of ideas, powers and dominions apart from the kingdom.
We need to keep this in mind. ALL of us, no matter the “side” of a discussion we are on…
Chris – Your links got stuck in the filter, from which I rescued them. I went over the Piper example with Jim Bublitz in a discussion over on ‘fishing’ earlier this year. I don’t think it is as simple as these attempt to show – they one prove the point made earlier.
Is it ‘predestination’ or ‘free will’? The answer is most likely “yes” – because BOTH views are supported by scripture, and BOTH views completely fall apart when taken to extremes (which your second link demonstrates on one end of the spectrum, and other discussions have demonstrated on the other end). I do not think we can fully understand HOW both work, but we just have to accept that they do, and live accordingly.
I always thought the sheep/goats thing was referring to all people who thought they were Christians, of which the goats were not really known by Christ (an clunky way of saying that…). I didn’t think the sheep/goats was saved/unsaved strictly, but rather “we all think we’re saved but about half of us really aren’t and are in for a surprise.”
Keith Green’s song about the sheep and the goats is fairly powerful and some of the things spelled out in that parable are often the things that get naysayed by those who want to avoid the “social” gospel. The goats didn’t realize they weren’t sheep. i.e. perhaps “Carol A” is a goat since she doesn’t seem to care about those in true need, nor want to mix with them, in the way she worded her comment.
Perhaps my understanding of this has been all wrong.
And God forbid they put up an American or :GASP: a Christian flag in the bar-church!
Chris L,
I did apologize for lumping Ken in with Ingrid and Carol. However, when I said “It says all too much about the theology of Ken, Ingrid, Slice and C? N”, I was referring to their reformed theology and the orthopraxy that naturally follows. If you believe that God will save the elect no matter what, then you can afford to tell anyone who doesn’t know Christ to get the heck out of the worship service.
Nathan,
Very true – though I would say that not all who follow Reformed theology take it to its logical, fatalistic ends – the same way that not all who follow Arminianism take it to its logical ends, as well: The extremes of both fail to produce a proper orthopraxy…
Julie,
While I think that most (if not all) of Jesus’ parables have many applications, and multiple possible interpretations (more than one of which are probably true for each, by design), I think that the most straightforward one for the parable of the sheep and the goats places it in a framework of final judgement: From the beginning of the parable in Matthew 25:
This is also square with Jesus’ criticism of the social system which categorized some people as ‘goats’, whereas Jesus teaching and parables would seem to indicate that, in this life, all people are sheep, though some are currently ‘lost’.
CP,
I’m not really sure what you mean by your comment. What does the presence of an American or Christian flag have to do with anything?
“Here are some links re: “free will†a matter solved by Romans 7, btw.”
Enviably niave.
“Enviably naive.”
Agreed. Today I was reading Ephesians where Paul goes on about the mystery of God’s grace found in Christ. Add “more knowledgable than an apostle” to the list of ironic titles that applies here.
“Second point, why do these “leaders†want to attract goats to a place where sheep are worshiping their Creator? How can they think this crazy “synthesis†of goats and sheep is going to bring about anything?”
It sounds like there is a case of mistaken identity… and the goats think they are sheep. How sad that some saved by grace now place “standards” for other “sheep” to come to God… even sadder that they think that God dwells in a building…
I wonder which translation of the bible they read… the Pharisee translation written by Rabbi Goat?
Blessings,
iggy
Published by the older brother.
Baalzebub Publishing? Are they still in business? I thought that the competition got them in the Cross hairs… that they were taken down and humbled a bit. I even heard rumor there was a fire… or maybe that has not happen yet?
iggy
MY MY MY!!
I believe Paul uses the word predestined, or its variants, more in Ephesians, than in any other letter. The word in Greek for mystery, i.e. musterion means a mystery revealed. Paul says several times that something is a mystery, and then in the next breath he tells us what it is. So much for the unknown.
Deut 29:29 what has been revealed is for us to hear, understand and do. The Scriptures are what has been revealed. All attempts to muddy the waters are sin. The Scriptures are to be read in light of the Holy Spirit first and foremost, not the cultural and historical times they were written in, nor today’s post modern darkness either. If they are truly the Word of God then they come from God and they transcend the limitations we put on them.
No one is reading my comments at all, you are lifting out of context the “mode du jour”.
As for the pope analogy, spare me. The scriptures are much plainer than all of you would like them to be. First you accuse us of being like the pope, than you make a comment about the Roman abomination being codified. Make up your mind, we are like the RCC, or we are not. BTW many evangelicals are using the codified/unified argument as their excuse for “coming back” to Rome. never mind that what is codified is garbage. This is the cry of today; Unity over Truth, symbolism over substance. Sorry Tim, you fit that category. All your comments are blather.
No one has closed “discussion” on the Word. However, discussion does not include our diversity of opinions, i.e. what we would like it to mean. Exodus 32 is the prime example of what men will turn God into when they ignore his plainly given word.
Rick I am hardly naive. Romans 7 has Paul explaining the battle which goes on until we are given our “incorruptible” bodies. Quit defending arminianism.
If Romans 7 is man’s pre-salvation condition then our “free will” is worthless because we cannot help but do that which we don’t want to do. That is what the text says. No one seeks Yahweh of his own volition. according to Paul and all the OT scripture he cites.
Now if it is post salvation condition we still have a problem. Our “will” is unable to overcome the flesh. We walk in the Spirit as we are in Christ and no one can condemn us when we stumble. Romans 7 is read in light of everything Paul wrote before and everything he says after. We are literally dead in our sins because of Adam. (this is not a metaphor, sin and death began at the fall.) We acknowledge that we are dead, we hear the Word, and faith comes only by the hearing of the Word. We are accounted as righteous by believing what we heard. However that belief only comes by faith, and the faith is given to us because we do not innately possess it. Paul said “who can resist Gods’ will ?”and he is right, the implied answer is NO ONE CAN. So if God wills all men be saved, then why aren’t they saved? If faith comes by hearing then why can’t men hear? If hearing comes by the Word then why can’t men hear when the Word is preached to them?
Romans 3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Eph 2:8-10
God is sovereign. He knows before all who will be saved. We do not define “free will” correctly.
Our will is only free after we die and become re-born. Even then we have problems. So be transformed by the renewing of your minds. Romans 12:1-2 are the summation of our life in Christ. Seems Romans contains the entire plan of salvation for both Jew and Gentile.
Chris L is correct on the sheep/goats debate. It is an end times thing. Wheat and tares are what is going on now. They will be gathered and separated at the end of all things.
I never said that there shouldn’t be any unbelievers “allowed†in the church. I did say that there are more unbelievers in the church buildings than we would care to admit. The organism that is ekklesia is comprised only of those who are regenerate. The building is not the church. The denomination is not the church.
I cannot tell you how many times while I lead worship that two or three drunks will wander in and walk up the aisle, get down on both knees and pray. I have no idea where they are at with God, but many say they wander in because they felt drawn there. Many times they will get up and walk right back outside and we never see them again. However they are all prayed over, and prayed with before they leave. They hear the Word in what we sing, believe me, they hear the Word. So a seed is planted or not? Are they good ground, or stony ground and thistles? I don’t know. God is calling us to obedience not to methods or conjecture. To obey is better than sacrifice. Methodology/sacrifice is a religious show. Our congregation is right now filled with new people. No one tells them to leave the building. All are welcome. Perhaps they will come to belief and enter into the “church”. As I said, this has nothing to do with the building.
So please spare us the analysis of who is “reformed” and what being reformed means. Whether one adheres to calvinism or arminianism, the “method” is the same; preach the Word, God will add daily those who are being saved, and then we instruct the newcomers in the Word. The scriptures are one complete, seamless word from Genesis to Revelation.
For all the universalists and inclusivists; when you discover that not all names are in the Book of Life, complain to God who foreknows all things and allows all things. He is sovereign. All things, as well as all people, exist for His glory. He does not exist to pander to us, or our ideas. He did not need to create us at all, so fall on your faces, and thank Him for His sovereign grace.
Chris L. thanks for saving my links from oblivion.
Chris P,
Wow, that was lengthy. I agree with most of what you said. However, first you wrote that our being dead is not an analogy and then you wrote, “We acknowledge that we are dead.” How can truly dead men acknowledge anything? It seems that either being dead is an analogy (or at the very least referring to their end on the present path) or we can truly acknowledge anything. Which is it?
that was unclear, sorry. how can truly dead men acknowledge anything? it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. they are completely dead, but yet they have the ability to respond? that’s all i’m getting at.
Phil,
The American flag comment was in response to a story that Slice linked to a few days ago.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=367
Have a look, and take a look at the link she sends you to, including the comments. Pretty funny stuff.
See what I mean, and I’m accused of “defending” Arminianism. No, Chris, I’m not defending Arminianism, I’m expounding the Scriptures so that all who have ears may ear.
My comment was inreference to your comment that Romans “solves” anything. Have you nor read historical and present day scholars that disagree on this issue?
Nate,
I saw that post a while ago, and really didn’t that much time on it. The funny thing about those comments is that even when an “emergent” agrees with Ingrid, some of the commenters jump on him and say he’s agreeing for the wrong reasons.
The Emergents are helping to usher in the New World Order, of course, through the help of the UN. I was expecting someone to bring up the Trilateral Commission and the Bildabergers there.
A Trilateral Commission and Bildabergers sighting!
Good job, Phil, if that’s your real name…
Chris P.
Strangely we agree on a lot you wrote… but remember I am an unsaved apostate according to ken Silva…. so beware when I agree with you! LOL!
“Our will is only free after we die and become re-born.”
We have free will on both sides though… one side which is the side before salvation is in bondage to sin… it is under the covenant of death… as we acknowledge our free will we see that by it we cannot be saved. We see that we are dead in our own free will and need life. When we receive the Holy Spirit we are now “slaves to righteousness” which while we still have a “free will” we are only then truly free to submit it and be a slave to riotousness… as a believer my free will is more useless as I learn more and more how to depend on God for all things. The only part that is useful is that we now freely of our own will LOVE GOD. That was and is the purpose of free will… to love God and one another. When we attack and lie and slander strangely ( I say that as one who this happens to by those who claim knowledge and maturity as Christians but seem to lack any of the qualities they claim they hold) that is exercising our free will wrongly and we then are back under that covenant of death… though one may still be saved, they act as if they are not and as one in bondage to the covenant of death and serve the Law that leads to death instead of the Higher Law of Love.
Be blessed,
iggy
Chris P.
Congratulations on your perfect understanding of the scriptures. You’ve managed to search the unsearchable, something apparently Paul was also unable to do.
I also find it interesting that the english word “mystery” isn’t good enough for you, yet for some reason the english word “predestined” is. Not surprisingly your theology demands you to explain each in this way. Well, not so much explained in the case of “predestined” as simply proof-texted (yet again). Again I point out that Rob Bell has greater respect for the scriptures than any of the watchbloggers because he still wrestles with the scriptures and is exploring them, instead of simply taking what was taught and bending the scriptures to those teachings.
Chris – if I heard a preacher say that I had a free will to believe on Christ or reject Him, and based on what I had heard I exercised what I believed to be my free will and I believed on Jesus, can I still be saved exercising something that you say I never had?
Is it not the same principle espoused by the Church of Christ which teach that even if you are baptized by immersion, if you do not believe like they do about baptism as you are being baptized you are not saved.
So in essence if you believe on Jesus with the assumption that the will is yours, how can you be saved? You are excercising false faith based upon a non existent free will. What a maze.
Woah there Henry, you’re stepping on some toes with the Church of Christ comment. While there may be some of us that have taught that, that’s not a widespread teaching of the Restoration Movement.
There are many who teach and believe that, although many overemphasize baptism but do not cross the salvation line.
But my point was concerning free will. If we do not have one, then how can a person be saved by believing he is using his own will in salvation?