Where Does Believing Faith Come From

[Benefactor]

I do not understand this statement. I guess that is "knowledge that don't know."

When you don't know something it means nothing to you.

Now, if you know something what is it to you?

 

[AresMan]

I wonder if you lived prior to FDIC whether you would have so much faith in banks!

If I lived before the FDIC, I would not have so much faith in banks. That would be a good thing. Then, banks would have to act more responsibly and not squander my money and rely on the FDIC to bail them out through inflationary methods. The fact that banks can shield their moral hazzard through the FDIC is a blight on our economy and forces the inflationary fractional reserve banking system to be the necessary modus operandi of our economy rather than thrift and moral responsibility.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[AresMan]

Winman, why is it that you have faith and others don't?

If the answer to that question lies in man, then man can answer that question.
If the answer to that question lies in God, then all that we can (or need) to go on is what God has revealed. We have no obligation to answer to another man on God's behalf.

I have yet to hear any reasonable answer for this question from any position of man as the ultimate arbiter of saving faith. Perhaps we need more advances in psychology or neuroscience to figure it out.

P.S. Here is my simple answer:

Why do some have saving faith? God.
Why do some not have saving faith? Themselves (man).

 

[Winman]

I love the way you dismiss everyone of my points, not with scripture, but by the doctrines of Calvinism. :laugh:

 

[AresMan]

When you don't know something it means nothing to you.

Now, if you know something what is it to you?

What I think I know, I like to share.

 

[AresMan]

Now, because you are biased by Calvinistic teaching, you have to believe their heart was regenerated to believe. But this verse mentions no such thing. In fact the Bible shows numerous times that the unsaved can seek God.

Here ya go:

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Oh, wait. Let's see what you have to say.

The Philipian jailer was unsaved but sought God.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

The Philipian jailer wasn't regenerated, because Paul told him he needed to believe.

This still does not prove that faith does not come about by regeneration. Faith in the Gospel is the pecuniary grounds for justification. It is the command that we must preach to every creature. However, how God sorts that out is up to God. We have no power to change the minds of people; we can only proclaim the truth of God's Word. Then, God can grant hearing through His Word, and through this hearing can come faith.

And how could he believe on Jesus if he had never heard of Jesus?

True. Romans 10:14-17. God does not regenerate someone apart from His Word.

And notice that afterward Paul spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and that after hearing God's word he believed and was baptized.

True. Acts 16:14. When one believes and is saved, it is an exception to Romans 3:11. All exceptions are a result of God's grace, God's regeneration, God acting upon one's heart.

And the rich young man was unsaved but sought God.

Did he seek after God as He is? Of course many seek after a god of their own making. All religions seek after a god. Romans 3:11 first says "there is none that understandeth." This qualifies the nature of what it means when it says that "there is none that seeketh after God." It means that there is none that seek after God for Who He really is, with an true understanding of Who He is.

This young man was unsaved, yet he wanted to know how to have eternal life.

Many people want heaven; they just do not want Yahweh God to be there.

Notice also that Jesus said this young man knew the scriptures. Now, I hardly think Jesus was lying when he said this, so this proves that the unsaved can understand the scriptures to a degree.

Of course. Why would I believe otherwise?

But why didn't this young man get saved? Because he loved his wealth and money more than God. He could not give up his wealth and possessions which are for the present only to receive greater riches in the life to come.

Are you saying that he "could not" get saved? He was a slave to his wealth? He was depraved? He had a sin nature and was bound to sin?

So, this young man went away unsaved. He was not regenerated, yet he desired eternal life.

He obviously did not desire eternal life on God's terms and according to God's nature as He is. Who wouldn't want eternal life? All people by nature just hate the God Who gives it.

 

[AresMan]

I love the way you dismiss everyone of my points, not with scripture, but by the doctrines of Calvinism. :laugh:

Talk about cop-out! Of course, you assume that "scripture" and "the doctrines of Calvinism" are mutually exclusive. How can one reason with "logic" like this?

Please indicate what points have not been addressed.

 

[Winman]

Talk about cop-out! Of course, you assume that "scripture" and "the doctrines of Calvinism" are mutually exclusive. How can one reason with "logic" like this?

Please indicate what points have not been addressed.

Cop out? Go back and look at your answers. You don't provide any scripture whatsoever to back up your interpretations, you just offer your interpretations.

Say what you will, I go to great lengths to explain how I understand scripture. For every point I try to argue, I try to show several verses that I believe support it.

Then you come back with one liners.

And I don't assume Calvinism and scripture are mutally exclusive, I have probably presented a hundred verses or more to show they are not the same.
For instance, Calvinists say God shows mercy to some and wrath to others because he can do his pleasure. I have seen this said many times by many Calvinists. But the scriptures say God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

This verse contradicts Calvinism in several points. First, it shows that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Second, God tells men to turn from their evil ways, not once, but twice. But according to Calvinism a man cannot possibly turn himself from sin, he is incapable.

I have shown two examples of unsaved men who desired to be saved, the young rich man and the Philipian jailer both accounts which absolutely contradict Calvinism's idea of Total Depravity.

I could go on and on. I have presented hundreds of scriptures to support what I believe.

On the contrary, your argument is that Calvinism must be true, so therefore I do not understand the scriptures. Baloney.

 

[Winman]

And which of you perverted the meaning of Romans 10:17?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

One of you said that God's word causes a man to hear. If that were true, every single man who ever heard the gospel would be saved. So this interpretation is ludicrous.

This verse is making it clear what you must hear and believe, which is the word of God. A man can hear anything, including false man-made doctrines.

 

[AresMan]

And which of you perverted the meaning of Romans 10:17?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

You said "faith comes from hearing the word of God." I said that you misread the verse. It says
1. "faith cometh by heaing", and
2. "hearing [cometh] by the word of God"

The cometh is in italics. The verse can be rendered:

Rom 10:17 So then faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I was clarifying the common mis-inference of this verse as some say "faith comes by hearing the word of God." The verse is saying that faith comes through "hearing" and "hearing" comes through the word of God. Therefore, the "hearing" in this verse is not talking about mere auditory input, but about listening, understanding, and heeding; otherwise, everyone with working ears that can process auditory input would receive faith. We know that this does not happen.

One of you said that God's word causes a man to hear.

I said that God uses His Word to give some people understanding. The Holy Spirit uses His Word as the means to bring about regeneration.

If that were true, every single man who ever heard the gospel would be saved. So this interpretaion is ludicrous.

You obviously glossed over and missed my explanation. I explicitly made it clear that the verse does not teach that. I said that the "hearing" was not mere auditory input, but that it meant listening, understanding, and heeding. It must mean this because the verse says that "hearing" comes by the Word of God. We know that one does not receive functioning physical hearing through the Word of God.

This verse is making it clear what you must hear and believe, which is the word of God. A man can hear anything, including false man-made doctrines.

One who has functioning ears can receive auditory input from any circumstantial source. The "hearing" in this verse is not mere auditory input, but listening, understanding, and heeding.

 

[Benefactor]

AresMan

Faith First: results are Regeneration (saved) Justification second.

Word games - semantics - stuff theology is made of

Justification - declared innocent by God
Regeneration - caused to be born a new by the Holy Spirit (Saved)

Justification and Regeneration both follow faith and they both happen at the very same nana second.

OK, If you know something what is it you know? "Something"
If you don't know something what is it you know? "You don't know what you don't know and whatever it is you don't know you don't know that you don't know it"

OK, Now that that is out of the way here is the next question. The something you know is a rock is hard. Do you believe that a rock is hard? If so why?

 

[Winman]

A few verses earlier in Romans 10 Paul asks how a man can possibly believe in Jesus if they have never heard of him.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Paul does not mention one word about the Holy Spirit regenerating a man. What he does speak of is knowledge. He shows that a man must first learn of Jesus before he can trust in him. And he does not add any more to it than that. I mean, here is the verse of verses to mention the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to believe.

Why didn't Paul ask, "and how shall they believe unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them?"?

It is amazing. If the Holy Spirit must regenerate a man to believe, why is it not mentioned even one single time in all the scriptures?

 

[Benefactor]

A few verses earlier in Romans 10 Paul asks how a man can possibly believe in Jesus if they have never heard of him.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Paul does not mention one word about the Holy Spirit regenerating a man. What he does speak of is knowledge. He shows that a man must first learn of Jesus before he can trust in him. And he does not add any more to it than that. I mean, here is the verse of verses to mention the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to believe.

Why didn't Paul ask, "and how shall they believe unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them?"?

It is amazing. If the Holy Spirit must regenerate a man to believe, why is it not mentioned even one single time in all the scriptures?

Now that is the stuff the Bible is made of, truth without twist.

 

[Havensdad]

Not if you are a compatibilist.

Which I am.

In fact, I just wrote my research project on the necessity of Compatibilism for a proper understanding of scripture. Wondering how that's going to go over at Liberty...

 

[Havensdad]

By the way, you people need a life. Why not go out and tell some people about Christ, instead of bickering on this board all day.

 

[OldRegular]

Benefactor and Winman

You both need to read that part of John 3 where Jesus Christ talks about being born again, born from above, or regenerated, without your anti Calvinist bias. You would see that Jesus Christ teaches the New Birth as an act of the Holy Spirit with no mention of preceding faith. Forget Calvin. He did not the originate the doctrines of GOD's election of some to salvation in Jesus Christ; regeneration by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ teaches; the gift of faith to those who have been regenerated. GOD speaking through the Holy Scripture is the author of those doctrines. Let God be GOD. GOD is Sovereign in Salvation, not man.

I simply cannot understand why anyone who has been saved by the GRACE of GOD is reluctant to give HIM all the GLORY.

One additional point. The Bible consists of 66 books written under the inspiration of GOD the Holy Spirit by a number of men. You seem to want to read it as if it were presenting a chronological series of events. It clearly does not, even in a single book. The order of the Old Testament is certainly not chronological. As for the New Testament an examination of a harmony of the Gospels would demonstrate this same truth.

Winman you particularly want to insist that Paul's letter to the Church at Ephesus is chronological. There is absolutely no basis for making such an assumption.

 

[BaptistBob]

Benefactor and Winman

You both need to read that part of John 3 where Jesus Christ talks about being born again, born from above, or regenerated, without your anti Calvinist bias.

No, they merely need to pick up a commentary by one of the major modern Calvinists of our time, like F.F. Bruce, Barrett, Carson, or Tenney (to name but a few) who will explain to you that the new birth is post-faith, and is now available to all believers in this escatological, post-cross age.

I simply cannot understand why anyone who has been saved by the GRACE of GOD is reluctant to give HIM all the GLORY.

Everyone wants to give God all the glory he wants and deserves. You, however, beg the question. The Pantheist and the hyper-Calvinst make the same allegation against you, but that doesn't mean that they are correct. In fact, they are wrong!

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor and Winman

You both need to read that part of John 3 where Jesus Christ talks about being born again, born from above, or regenerated, without your anti Calvinist bias. You would see that Jesus Christ teaches the New Birth as an act of the Holy Spirit with no mention of preceding faith. Forget Calvin. He did not the originate the doctrines of GOD's election of some to salvation in Jesus Christ; regeneration by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ teaches; the gift of faith to those who have been regenerated. GOD speaking through the Holy Scripture is the author of those doctrines. Let God be GOD. GOD is Sovereign in Salvation, not man.

I simply cannot understand why anyone who has been saved by the GRACE of GOD is reluctant to give HIM all the GLORY.

The context of these words are defined by Jesus, Jesus is God, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Statements prior to the words posited and after support that faith is first and born from above is second. You sir are guilty of taking them out of context. Calvinism is guilty of taking them out of context.

 

[Benefactor]

Which I am.

In fact, I just wrote my research project on the necessity of Compatibilism for a proper understanding of scripture. Wondering how that's going to go over at Liberty...

Well I would think that if it is done with "taste" "respect" and you are sure to affix your name to it as it the custom that it will be fine, that is fine as in your work, your view, your argument etc., fully documents and clearly presenting from your view. Your research project on compatibilism is your personal view and you are not the first to support that view or reject that view. So don't be so quick to set yourself up on a pedestal as important simply because you completed an assignment. There are latterly millions of similar finished good, fair, and bad research projects out there on all sorts of topics so if you want to toot your own horn do so as your are it will not prove any different from what exist already just another person in the long line of them on all sides strutting their personal belief system.

Yes, it will be accepted if it is professionally done. If your professor does not share your view, he or she will most likely make a kind comment expressing that.

Remember this you are only one of multitudes who have traveled that path and you are not unique to anything.

 

[kyredneck]

The context of these words are defined by Jesus, Jesus is God, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.....

8 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21

Note that the brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten.

17.........They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2

It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for Him.