Featured Saving faith pt 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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?"

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:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1689 LBC, Chapter 10.3
3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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 )

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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)

more on next page-

 

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PreachTony
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.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
DHK

A person can be saved and not be able to explain the mechanics of it.

Many questioned your recent explanations of the Supernaturally given salvation which you called a fairy tale

[/QUOTE]


oh ok....put the quotes around it....then we can see if it was a false allegation or a true one......

posted by DHK

Jesus explained to Nicodemus that the Spirit works in the unseen realm.....effectually.

[

Saving faith is a gift from God. regeneration takes place , a new heart is given , spiritual surgery is done by God.
God grants repentance and faith to the unsaved person,enabling saving faith to be expressed by that newly converted person.

Error that he previously held disappears faster than a new thread that reveals who is speaking the truth....and who is not quite up to it!

 

Acts is a transitional book.Many described as devout persons were proselytized ot saints....who were yet to be brought into NT worship.