Featured Saving Faith: God’s Gift to Sinners or Sinners’ Gift to God?

Nobody disputes this. What is disputed is whether God's call to all men everywhere to repent is sincere, or whether he calls all those to repent whom he already predestined to hell and for whom he did not die and who he knows cannot respond to his call (since he determined for them that they couldn't) and indeed whom he created for the sole purpose of damning so that he might make his glory known.

The debate is over Jesus' sincerity when he says to the Jews who sought to kill him, "but I say these things that you may be saved" (John 5:34), and that their great sin was that they didn't believe (John 5:38), and indeed that they were "not willing to come" to (i.e. believe in) Jesus that they might have life (John 5:40), and even that since he had come and spoken to them that they "have no excuse for their sin" (John 15:22), whereas if God had already predetermined that they couldn't believe, that seems to be a pretty good excuse to me.

 

Those God Calls have been predestinated Rom 8:30

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Now all men without exception have not been predestinated to be conformed to the Image of His Son ! That only applys to the Elect !

 

Good morning, Tony.

Your "falling out with Calvinism" was also mine. I had a very difficult time reconciling God's sovereignty and individual responsibility. How could God condemn someone who did not have the capability to make a decision? For me, the turning point was when it dawned on me that I was using human logic to try and understand a divine point of view.

The first thing I accepted was that man was born completely fallen because of sin. The "completely fallen" part was very important. Is man just sick in his trespasses and sin, or dead in his trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1)? If man is just sick, then he is not completely fallen. There remains the possibility of some latent faith, stored deep within his soul. That faith has but the dimmest light, the faintest glow. All it needs is a spark from outside in order to drive into a flame. That spark, according to the Synergist view, is the Gospel.

However, if man is completely fallen - dead in his trespasses and sins - then there is no latent faith, no faint glow. The Gospel, separated from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, cannot be received by the sinner because the sinner is dead. The sinner lacks the ability to respond (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

This realization was difficult for me. I had created a neat little caricature of what Monergism was. To me it was evil because it made mankind pawns of a Omnipotent God. How benevolent could a God like that be? But as I wrestled with the issue it became apparent to me that my objection was not biblically based but perception based. Try as I might I could not quench the pull to learn more about the thing I despised so much.

So, if man is completely fallen, and completely unable to believe, how can anyone be saved? Two words played havoc in my mind - "But God". I already agreed with Eph. 2:1 that sinful man is dead in trespasses and sin and that death is a state of spiritual death. I agreed that man was incapable of believing because his state of death made spiritual belief an impossibility. As I read further down in Ephesians 2, I read these words:

Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Epiphany! While we were dead in our transgressions (sin), "But God". Not, "But me". But God. It was God who took unilateral action to make me alive together with Christ. That was done through regeneration; which resulted in faith; which resulted in salvation. At that point I realized that I accomplished absolutely nothing to my salvation. Even the faith I exercised was a gift of God (Eph. 2:8).

The last domino to fall was about God being unjust. What about that tribal person living on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Even if he did have the ability to believe how could he unless God sent someone to preach the Gospel? Or would God save Him anyway just to be fair? Those questions became less problematic as I realized that God does everything for His own purpose and after the counsel of His own will. Indeed, Romans 9:14-18 states, "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raise you up, that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." I was guilty of injecting the human understanding of fairness and equity into something reserved only for God. For who has know the mind of the Lord, or who has become His counselor (Rom. 11:34)?

At the point I waved the white flag. I had no answer as to why God saves some while He hardens others, other than to attribute it to mercy and grace. All of us are deserving of wrath. There is none righteous, no, not one. I take no pleasure in knowing that some people die in their sins. Nor do I believe I possessed something special, therefore God saved me. I was as reprobate as they, but for a reason known only to God, I received mercy.

 

Wowzers! Wonderful! Kudos!

:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Fair points, all, though I would like to offer a response, in civility.

While a very good point, we must also call to mind that every time we read the scripture we do so with a corrupted mind, fallen in sin. So God reveals scripture to a mind that, using human logic, would never be able to comprehend it, unless He provides guidance in some form, be it an elder, or a preacher, or a teacher, or through the divine influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore I am hesitant to simply wipe away human experience from our interaction with God. I'm not saying one way is right and the other wrong. I'm saying that I don't want to write that one off just yet.

I agree that man is born in sin. However, at what point is that sin accounted of that man? If it is from birth, then every baby who ever died was guilty and cast into Hell awaiting final judgement, quite literally, for a sin they never committed. Then again, Deuteronomy 1:39 says "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." In that scripture, God Himself refers to babies and children as having no knowledge of good and evil. Adam himself wasn't accounted to have fallen until he had knowledge of good and evil, so if these little ones lack that knowledge are they truly guilty? Can it be said that someone God in His own words does not account knowledge of good and evil unto is "completely fallen?"

2 Timothy 1:5, Paul writes "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." This, to me, accounts a familial bond of faith. Not a genetic passing on of faith, but a learned behavior or trait. Paul is speaking of Timothy's faith and he does not write "Your faith which God gave you at your regeneration," but he says "the faith that was in your grandmother, then your mother, and now also in you." It's a subtle difference, and one I'm sure we could debate until we both ran out of words, but it is a difference. If a sinner is born lacking the ability to respond to the call of God, then you are left with several verses in the scripture that, under that notion, make God appear to be bipolar. Now, I think we both agree that He is not. So how do we discern the truth? You find it in a monergistic system. I see it in a synergistic system. We can both point to scripture to back our claims. To that, I say consider the blue line of my quote. (Not to toot my own horn or anything :smilewinkgrin: )

I understand that feeling. At one point or another each and every believer had a caricature version of God the Father and Jesus in mind. I don't consider Monergism to be evil, though I do see a robotic version of man contained within Monergism. It renders man with no will of his own, which goes back to my comment about those verses that make God appear bipolar. If man has no will to come to God unless God places that will within man, then why does Jesus lament Jerusalem's failure to turn to Him, saying "ye would not?" (Matt 23:37)

Exactly. This particular synergist does not deny that God does the work. I did not die on the cross; Christ did. I did not rise from the grave; Christ did. But I did have to open the door when He knocked (Rev 3:20). If we are fully Monergistic, then why does Christ say "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Why not just say "I stand at the door, and I open it, and come in unto a man?" That, to me, is true Monergism. The version Christ says in Revelation 3 implies, at least to my interpretation, some form of synergism.

Just curious, but how did you come to accept God hardening some to the point of damnation as "mercy?" I don't mean that facetiously, I'm genuinely curious how the monergist comes to that conclusion.

 

My facts were presented here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2195597&postcount=175

It seems this post went right over your head, or you couldn't answer it.
From the information we have, no it would have been impossible for him to have been regenerated.
It is Christ that saves, not Allah, Buddha, or any other false religion.
Cornelius worshiped the god of a false religion, one that had rejected the Messiah, and consequently God had rejected them.

 

And you put yourself in the place of God and know which are which (i.e., know which are the elect and which are the non-elect), even though you can't see how the rest of the future will pan out with a great possibility that some of these others might possibly be saved. This in itself is a good reason to reject the arrogancy of Calvinism.

 

Oh....you then must put yourself in the place and know which is which? I guess you see there heart and see them under conviction of the Holy Spirit? That must be how you know they aren't resisting your outward call. If only we all had your gift of seeing the true nature DHK.

Yeah....your statement works both ways

 

Here you deny the words of Jesus himself.
1. Unless you be as little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
He was referring to the faith of small child. Little children exercise faith even though they don't understand the gospel. It is the object of one's faith that is important.

2. James said: "The devils believe and tremble."
The demons exercise faith, but will not be saved. Why? The object of their faith is Satan, not God.

3. Countless times Jesus said: "Thy faith has made you whole."
Where did the faith come from? Not from Jesus or God. He said it was their faith, originating from them. Why do you deny the words of Christ?

4. Ten lepers came to Christ? Why? They had "faith" in Christ that Christ could heal them. It was faith in his power to heal. And they were right. Did Christ heal them immediately. No.
But he did heal them. He told them to go and see the priests. On the way they were healed. One of them turned back, a Samaritan. The others continued. The one that turned back gave thanks and praised the Lord, worshiping Christ. He was the one who put his faith in Christ not only to heal physically but also spiritually. Jesus didn't give him the faith for either. There is nothing in that story to indicate that Christ gave him faith either to be healed of leprosy or to be saved.
His faith had made him whole--twice.

 

I base my beliefs on the Bible. I see what the Bible says. I gave you plenty of Scripture of what happens to individuals who resisted the Holy Spirit, such as the ones who resisted the Holy Spirit during the preaching of Stephen. It was possible, and still is. This truth is self-evident.

 

So by your logic that Cornelius could not have saving faith before Christ's death, is to say no one could have. I am sorry you lack the ability to understand the concept of salvation before Christ's death.

You go ahead and reject the arrogance of Calvinism. Continue to insult everyone who disagrees with you....treat them with no respect as you do. You sir, have no business being a leader on this forum or anywhere else. The words you type are an indication of your heart and you teachings of the heretic Pelagius. Why this forum allows a moderator here to insult people is beyond me. Do you insult people at your church as well sir? I am done talking to you.

 

You keep trying to answer my posts through the logic of Calvin.
You keep avoiding the posts that are filled with Scripture.
That one fact in itself should lead others to draw the right conclusion.

BTW, I am not a moderator on this forum.

 

You provide no such scripture. Just scripture you misinterpret ......

Last post to you. Our conversations are not fruitful. They are disrespectful.... Probably on both accounts. We run the same circle of the same verses that are interpreted differently. The quarreling between us is pointless. I think you misinterpret verses ....you think I do. We are stuck. Nobody is changing here. The conversations are repetitive and offer nothing new. We will both stand in front of the same God one day. One of us, or both of us will be wrong. Nor will we care in the end who is right. I wish you the best sir and hope God uses you for many great things. I am done with this topic, it leads to an unproductive place I have developed negative feelings toward you and your opinion and that isn't right. Not on a Christian form...or anywhere. Nor do I want to be responsible for negative feelings growing in your heart either. So I am done conversing with you on this topic. Other topics I will participate with you in. But I am done with this one.

 

Be that as it may. Look also at your previous post.

How many personal accusations did you just throw at me in one post:

1. I lack the ability to understand salvation...
2. I continue to insult everyone who disagrees...
2. I treat people with no respect.
4. I have no business being a leader on this forum (I am not).
5. The words I type are an indication of my heart.
6. I teach the words of a heretic.
7. I am allowed here to insult people.
8. You infer that I insult people at my church as well.

Eight personal insults, all against the rules, all in one post.

What have I said against you?
I used the words "the arrogance of Calvinism," which I believe to be true based on Unconditional Election, and reprobation. It is an attack on Calvinism not you. I attacked the position not the person and you were offended.

I have restated my position over and over again, primarily because you either don't respond to the Scripture I post or you just repeat the same thing to me over and over again. Usually you avoid the Scripture, like the post about the Ten Lepers that went untouched.

You have just labeled me a heretic. Have I ever done anything close to that; even remotely close to calling you such a name? No.
Why all of a sudden all the name-calling?

 

The Holy Spirit provides understanding to a regenerate mind. The physical body is corrupt, but once a person has been born again the mind is no longer fallen (2 Cor. 5:17). Otherwise how could Paul say that we should be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12:2)? My comment about "human logic" had to do with my opposition to Monergism based on human reasoning apart from a convincing biblical argument.

Man is a sinner for two reasons: 1. He is born in a state of sin. 2. He sins. Remove #2 and man is still a sinner. We are born in a state of sin because Adam, our fair and just representative, sinned on behalf of the human race. To eliminate #2 is to fall prey to the Pelagian heresy; that somehow a baby is born tabula rasa (blank slate) and only becomes culpable of sin when he actually commits sin.

If we appeal to Scripture we must be honest and conclude that there is no convincing proof the children who die in infancy go to be with the Lord. We are left to appeal to God's mercy in that situation. In an attempt to deal with that very issue the framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith wrote:

The framers of the Confession included "all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word". Their thinking was that, since God has numbered and called His elect, salvation would apply to those who are providentially hindered from hearing and responding to the Gospel. If you think about it that is a lot better than just quoting 2 Samuel 12:23 ("But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.") which absolutely nothing to do with David seeing his dead baby boy again. It speaks solely of the grave.

As for Deuteronomy 1:39, in context it is talking about the innocence of the generation that followed those who did not accept the report of the spies. They were not guilty of the sin of giving a bad report of the land of Canaan. Both little ones and sons are mentioned. They were the ones who were under 40 years old and not killed in the wilderness. The passage has nothing to do with innocence of sin in general.

I am not sure what point you are making here. I do not believe that personal, saving faith is passed down through families. I would not use 2 Timothy 1:5 as a proof text either way in that regard. Now, I do believe that a heritage of faith can be handed down; a legacy, if you will. But just because five generations of my family may have been Christians did not guarantee the same for me. I call as evidence Ephesians 2:4, “But God…” God moved on Timothy first. The Holy Spirit illumined Timothy to the truth of the Gospel and then Timothy believed.

I urge you to spend time with texts such as Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14; and Ephesians 2:1. Compare them to John 3:16; Acts 16:30, and Romans 10:9-10. Is there a disconnect in the Monergist understanding of scripture? I do not think so. In the first three passage we read of the totally fallen nature of the sinner; of his inability to believe. In the last three we see the sinner calling out to God in faith. How so if the sinner is truly fallen? Simple, really. Justification if by faith. It always has been and always will be. Monergists believe that divine election, working through regeneration, makes faith possible on the part of the person who is calling on the Lord to save them.

Luther wrote “On the Bondage of the Will” to address this very issue. Sinners freely sin because their nature (will) is in bondage to sin. They are slaves to sin (Rom. 6:20). Even the good they do lacks merit because it is done while in bondage to sin. When the sinner is liberated and declared righteous he is now able to choose between sin and righteousness (posse pecare posse non pecare); a choice that Adam had pre-fall. We choose to sin willfully and we choose to obey willfully. I suppose the real question is how does man have the freedom to choose if God is completely sovereign and rules over the choices of men? It is a powerful, and ultimately, a question whose answer does not satisfy the finite mind. If you ask me how I know it, I can only do what I have done already – turn to scripture. If you ask me how God allows both to co-exist and demand a technical answer, I have none to give. The reason I am not troubled by this is because the positive commands that God is sovereign (according to the Monergistic understanding of “sovereign”) are many and without ambiguity.


Continued on next post...

 

Tony, our Sovereign God is pleased to work through the means He has ordained to call His elect. That means is the preaching of the Gospel. The Synergist is right when he concludes God did not create robots. But guess what? The Monergist does not believe that either. God often works through a process. He is under no compulsion to get the calling of a particular sinner over and done with in short order. Everything God does is in perfect harmony with everything else He does. That includes saving sinners. When I preach and extend a Gospel invitation to believe in Christ, why do I do so if I am a Monergist? I do so because (at the risk of being redundant) preaching is the means God has established to call sinners. So, calling on sinners to take action is both biblical and Monergistic.

I may have worded that poorly. Those that God chooses to save are the recipients of His mercy. The damnation of the lost is not due to mercy.

 

Too bad that some who deny calvinism also would be denying the truth that classical arminianism always held unto that, that ALL of us are sinners and unable to save ourselves apart from the work of God/jesus/Holy Spirit, as even they concede that sinners left to themselves will never 'come to Christ", nor understand the Bible, nor place faith in Christ...

A calvinist can state with certainity that while we cannot know just whom the Elect are of god, those who are saved by him can know that god himself did that act, while those holding to another view in the end has to fall bak to 'I did it"

 

DHK.

If someone observes and comments on your post it is not an accusation...but an observation:thumbsup: Mccree might have some keen insights here...lets look;

Many have openly questioned your grasp on these teachings.....It is always good to do some self examination:thumbsup:

Yes....this has been known to happen

at least some of the time...we all get over heated sometimes

that is an opinion

some have noticed some Pelagian ideas being offered by you

yes...we have seen this...no with profanities...just that condescending spirit

we would need feedback from them....so I do not see personal attacks..just observations.
[

which post said that?

 

Man once had the ability but cheated himself and the rest of the race out of it by his sin. Fallen man is responsible just like a drunk man who gets in a car wreck is responsible though his own actions of drinking made him unable to drive.

 

The quote you are responding to is:

1. I lack the ability to understand salvation...

You believe I am not saved Icon? That is what is inferred here. I am not able to understand salvation, and therefore cannot be saved. This obvious attack is against the rules, but it is the logical outcome of Calvinism which believes that "Calvinism is the gospel," and thus must exclude every non-Cal from the gates of heaven.
What a position!