Scripture says that we must believe for ourselves. No doubting Scripture!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Order of salvation...
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
Scripture says that we must believe for ourselves. No doubting Scripture!
If God may fail to save someone that He fully intends to save, thwarted by insufficient cooperation from man, then salvation is not all of God.
God must have the power, and exercise it, to effectually call people to Himself. The Holy Spirit must be able to work in such a way that He can raise a spirit dead in sins to spiritual life and guarantee the response in faith through an irresistible revelation of truth to the heart.
If man's decision to cooperate with a wholly ineffectual attempt of God to bring about conviction to conversion determines the result, salvation is not all of God. Period.
God must have the power, and exercise it, to effectually call people to Himself. The Holy Spirit must be able to work in such a way that He can raise a spirit dead in sins to spiritual life and guarantee the response in faith through an irresistible revelation of truth to the heart.
If man's decision to cooperate with a wholly ineffectual attempt of God to bring about conviction to conversion determines the result, salvation is not all of God. Period.
The irony...you telling God what He must do, and how...
God has never failed at anything and He only intends to save those who place their faith and trust in Him.
There isn't any scripture for the Holy Spirit raising anyone from the dead and there is no guarantee for a response because man can always rebel. There is no forced Salvation.
Man can only be saved as long as the man doesn't rebel an action the man himself must decied to do and scripture says he does plenty of it.
It is an action the man can take at anytime between the call or draw and actual submission to God's righteousness.
We must submit because with out submission we are not as little children.
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
MB
That's true so the Lord decided for some reason to elect some for salvation and some for damnation. But then the Calvinist says, oh no, Calvinism teaches God passes over. Really? From Romans ch9 God passes over for Salvation? Yet God made vessels for "honor" and vessels for dishonor. Vessel's for mercy and vessels for destruction. The Calvinist says those vessels for honor and mercy are the elect to eternal life in Christ. Well then, God is certainly NOT passing over anyone as the Calvinist like to claim, since God purposed to ELECT vessels for destruction and not for mercy. That's a clear picture of predestination for damnation, if Rom 9 supports the Calvinist position of election to salvation.
Yet you can't answer the question.
And yet the Calvinist would say, oh God just didn't do any electing with the non elect, He passed over them. Not from Rom 9, God didn't pass over Pharoah, not in your life. God chose the sacrifice of Christ to be available and vicarious to any whom would believe in Christ by faith. Available to the world but only some receive it.
Why because I'm not a Calvinist I am by default (assumed) not aware of certain scriptures?
And Pharaoh was fitted for destruction, God did NOT pass over Pharaoh. The Calvinist position is clearly teaching predestination to damnation, not passing over. The bible doesn't teach that.
You too.
Darren
OK. So did God effectually call people to salvation in the Old Testament? There certainly were saints believing God in the Old Testament, how did they come to believe in God?
Darren
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
That is not something that needs to be done for us, because it is not a verb. It is a noun. It is an object, an "it", not an action. It is someTHING that God gives us.
We are NOT saved by "demonstrating faith" (verb). We are saved by having faith (an 'it'). If faith is something that we DO, then it is a work, and you are preaching a works based salvation.
That is not taking anything out of context, that is accurately reflecting what you have stated.
So much here that is wrong, I don't know where to start. First, faith is never a work, regardless who does it. You have let your soteriology override Bible.
Second, Ephesians 2:8-9 does not support a "gift of faith". The gift of God is the whole of the phrase "you are saved by grace through faith"...salvation.
Third, your view would have Christ acting strange when He stated He had not seen faith like He saw in all of Jerusalem (Matthew 8). If it's His faith that He gave to the Centurion...what gives? Did He forget He gave it to him?
Fourth, my comment in the way you used it was taken out of context. I don't expect you to admit it, though.
I did not say anything about Ephesians 2:8-9 saying ANYTHING about a gift of faith (although, as many theologians would argue, both Grace and faith in this sentence is a gift).
Talk about getting warped views from your soteriology! You did not even read what I said: you just saw "Ephesians 2:8-9" and you responded with the standard Arminian response..
The point I was making was that faith is a noun, "pistis". It is a THING. It is not something that you do. By making "pistis" a verb (something that you do) you ARE making it a work.
You are saved by FAITH (pistis, a noun), NOT by demonstrating Faithfulness (Pisteuo). If you believe (pisteuo: an action) in Jesus Christ, this is simply an outworking of the fact that you HAVE "Faith" (Pistis).
If you reverse this, it makes faith a work. How much belief do you have to demonstrate?
The fact is, "ergon" means anything that you do. Any action, even a decision, would be an "ergon". If you believe that faith is something that YOU do, to be saved, you are MAKING it an "ergon", and conforming to a works based salvation.
Brian Bosse
Member
Hello Havensdad,
Just so you know, I am a 5-Point Calvinist. I appreciate your attempting to defend what you think is the Biblical picture of salvation. I want to make two points...
(1) We are justified when we believe (verb - pisteuo). If you are not justified, it is because you did not believe (verb). Our believing is a necessary component to our justification. There is no difference between saying someone has faith (noun), and their believing (verb). They are two sides of the same coin. In Romans 4:3 Abraham was justified because he believed (pisteo) God. It does not say that Abraham was justified because he had faith (pistis). Then, in Romans 4:5 is says, "...his faith (pistis) is counted as righteousness." So, you see, you cannot have one without the other.
(2) If believing (pistueo) is properly called a work, this does not mean that the believer is "justified by works" in the Romans 4:4 sense. My arguments for this are found in this thread: Justification by the Good Work of Faith Alone? Those who argue "if faith is a work, then we are preaching 'justification by works'" show a fundamental misunderstanding of even their own soteriology. Again, this is all explained in the thread mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Brian
Just so you know, I am a 5-Point Calvinist. I appreciate your attempting to defend what you think is the Biblical picture of salvation. I want to make two points...
(1) We are justified when we believe (verb - pisteuo). If you are not justified, it is because you did not believe (verb). Our believing is a necessary component to our justification. There is no difference between saying someone has faith (noun), and their believing (verb). They are two sides of the same coin. In Romans 4:3 Abraham was justified because he believed (pisteo) God. It does not say that Abraham was justified because he had faith (pistis). Then, in Romans 4:5 is says, "...his faith (pistis) is counted as righteousness." So, you see, you cannot have one without the other.
(2) If believing (pistueo) is properly called a work, this does not mean that the believer is "justified by works" in the Romans 4:4 sense. My arguments for this are found in this thread: Justification by the Good Work of Faith Alone? Those who argue "if faith is a work, then we are preaching 'justification by works'" show a fundamental misunderstanding of even their own soteriology. Again, this is all explained in the thread mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Brian
Clearly statements like these shows how way off base you are from understanding the Arminian/non Calvinist position.
Darren
You are making a common mistake, confusing the act of "giving faith", by God, which is what the Bible calls being "born again", and the outworking of that saving faith (an 'it'), which CAUSES you to be justified, through "pistis" a noun, and the automatic reaction of that faith, (pistueo) which shows that one HAS "pistis".
But the fact is, faith, when it becomes something that we do, is a work. I appreciate that you are a five pointer. But I disagree with you. Faith, in it's verb form, is just a knee jerk, automatic and unstoppable action, that results from faith (the noun) which is an "it" that we receive when we are born again.
We are justified by a noun, not a verb...
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
In every single instance when the word "justified" is used, it is correlated with the noun form of faith "pistis", NOT pisteuo. We are justified by the faith God gives us, not from the action of having faith (or believing, or faithfulness, etc.)
Being "born again" is actually God giving faith?? Where did you get that from?
Darren
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Php 1:29 For to you it is given on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Heres the kicker...
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the living Word of God, and abiding forever.
The MEANS of being (the way by which being "born again" comes) born again is the "Word of God". The word of God, causes "being born again".
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
All of that to say this. The Holy Spirit moves where HE wills. When you go forth, spreading the seed (the Word of God), it brings about "being born again"(1 Peter 1:23) a.k.a. the Holy Spirit regenerates people, by giving them faith (Romans 10:17).
The Holy Spirit moves where He wills, He gives faith to whom He chooses, which is used the same as "being born again" (regenerated), and those people are then justified.
"Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed. "
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
If I may jump in...
The answer to that, in my opinion, is John 3:3 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be "Born again."
Well...that's at least where the argument begins.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator:
I had to smile..
Sorry but it seems to me 'you' are making a common mistake by 'assuming' born again means anything other than salvation itself. Being born again, I agree, is the regeneration however if one studies out what constitutes a regenerate person there is no other option but to agree it is salvation.
Regeneration, like salvation, is a general term that encompasses certain other aspects that must happen in order for the term to be applicable. That being Justification and Sanctification, and both are or come 'by faith', never before.
Secondly, no where do I find in scripture that being 'born again' is equated with the 'giving of faith'. That is simply an ideological construct.
I am afraid IMO, you're wrong here too.
Though I agree 'faith' here is seen as a feminine noun that does not change the fact that both the noun and the verb speak to the same thing.
Example:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
One is not saved prior to the excersizing of faith unless we contend that Jesus did not know what He was talking about when He stated things like 'believe and be saved'. And I'm sure you nor anyone else on here would do such.
The fact of faith (noun, that which 'is') in conjuction with the past tense verbs (that which has transpired), such as justified, sanctified, and saved, establishes the event(s) already done by or because of that noun's action. Maybe a better way of putting it is that since the effect is accomplised due to the noun we have a strong implication that it was the noun's action that brought the effect and not just the presense of the noun itself.
Again, I believe you are wrong and that the above is completely false. Faith is not and can never be a work according to the holy writ. Rom 4:3-6. It is something we do as seen by it's action (pistueo) which is never passive but active.
Again, I had to smile.. automatic and unstoppable action
So do you believe the disciples had faith?
If so then why does Jesus tell them in Mark 4:40;
How is it that you have no faith? (there is that noun 'faith' from which action procedes unstoppably and automatic)
OR;
In Mark 11:22 Jesus tells His disciples to 'have faith in God'.
What are we to conclude from Jesus own statement but that the very aspect of faith (noun) is derived from man.
Also in Luke 8:25 Jesus, speaking to the disciples states "where is your faith?" According to you it is automatic and unstoppable action and thus it is seems the disciples do not have any faith since it will not manifest itself automatically and in an unstoppable way.
Or in Luke 17:5 where Jesus tells THEM to increase their faith (feminine noun).
Or Luke 22:32 where Jesus prayed that their faith not fail them.
Strange request since it is an automatic and unstoppable action.
I can go on in the pastorials and epistles but I hope I have made my point. Your view here appears to not be compatable with it's usages.
No brother, we are justified by the action of that noun. I would suggest more study on this issue.
Of course. The fact we are justified is not because we have a faith with us, but because that faith has been used. A person is not a 'runner' (noun) because it is in them, they are a runner because they run. But the choice to run is up to them. Neither running nor believing is an automatic and unstoppable action. :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
And do you apply this "truth" to Old Testament saints as well? They were sinners totally unable to respond to God just as has always been the case in every age since Adam. Did they need to be regenerated to believe in God as the bible says (for example), Abraham believed God...
Darren
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Allan,
I'm writing in response to your posting to Havensdad. I really appreciate the interaction you had with his post in that it is quite respectful and textual. I hope he appreciates it as much as I do. That said, I don't agree with many of your conclusions, although I really appreciate your conclusions.
I must admit that I don't think I agree with Havensdad's faith/noun/verb thing. I have to think more on that, but I think his take on it is a stretch.
Now to my point. You mentioned:
I think this truly is the crux of the issue. The question has always been: Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are, by nature, sinners.
If we can stretch your runner analogy a bit--a cat meows because he or she is a cat by nature. A dog barks because he or she is a dog by nature. A parrot who masters the meow of a cat or the bark of a dog is not a cat or dog. No, the parrot--no matter the sounds it makes--will always be a bird by nature.
Humans are sinners by nature. We commit sins because we are sinners by nature. Our sinning doesn't make us sinners any more than a parrot "barking" makes him a dog. Our sinning only serves to condemn us more.
This is why Calvinists have argued for regeneration preceding redemption. If we are to repent and believe, as a spiritually dead sinner, we need a nature change. It is almost as if we were dogs only capable of barking and are commanded to meow. We wouldn't be able to meow unless we were to be given a new nature--that of a cat. Once the new nature is in place we can live up to the command of meowing. (Now, this analogy is not perfect...as it seems to suggest a works salvation. But, I'd say the meowing instead of barking is "fruit" that a new nature has been installed).
Anyway, Allan, I know you know this and the Calvinist side of the argument. Your comments gave me the opportunity to express the above ideas. I hope you don't mind terribly much.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
I'm writing in response to your posting to Havensdad. I really appreciate the interaction you had with his post in that it is quite respectful and textual. I hope he appreciates it as much as I do. That said, I don't agree with many of your conclusions, although I really appreciate your conclusions.
I must admit that I don't think I agree with Havensdad's faith/noun/verb thing. I have to think more on that, but I think his take on it is a stretch.
Now to my point. You mentioned:
I think this truly is the crux of the issue. The question has always been: Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are, by nature, sinners.
If we can stretch your runner analogy a bit--a cat meows because he or she is a cat by nature. A dog barks because he or she is a dog by nature. A parrot who masters the meow of a cat or the bark of a dog is not a cat or dog. No, the parrot--no matter the sounds it makes--will always be a bird by nature.
Humans are sinners by nature. We commit sins because we are sinners by nature. Our sinning doesn't make us sinners any more than a parrot "barking" makes him a dog. Our sinning only serves to condemn us more.
This is why Calvinists have argued for regeneration preceding redemption. If we are to repent and believe, as a spiritually dead sinner, we need a nature change. It is almost as if we were dogs only capable of barking and are commanded to meow. We wouldn't be able to meow unless we were to be given a new nature--that of a cat. Once the new nature is in place we can live up to the command of meowing. (Now, this analogy is not perfect...as it seems to suggest a works salvation. But, I'd say the meowing instead of barking is "fruit" that a new nature has been installed).
Anyway, Allan, I know you know this and the Calvinist side of the argument. Your comments gave me the opportunity to express the above ideas. I hope you don't mind terribly much.
Many Blessings,
The Archangel
Like you need to ask brother. Come on and join the party :laugh:
Yes that is true, that it is where those of that view see it beginning or better taking shape. I disagree, not so much based on the passage because both views can be seen here but more on the fact of what regeneration is, and 'how' it transpires.
It's almost strange that Jesus had to tell Nicodemus he had to be born again (assuming to understand so he could believe) but rather, just regenerate Nicodemus and he will be born again and believe.
Darren