Featured Faith

Not at all, ". . . Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, . . ." Is what the text translates. ". . . πιστευσον επι τον κυριον ιησουν χριστον και σωθηση . . . ."

 

Is salvation of God, or is it of man, or is it of God and man? That's the main question here.

 

The term "regeneration," Titus 3:5, ". . .Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; . . ." I understand this to be a reference to being saved which follows faith.

 

Salvation is completely from God, ". . . that not of yourselves . . . ." Ephesians 2:8. And God gives it ". . . through faith . . . ." Unless God gives it, no amount of faith matters.

 

Several times, Jesus laments the lack of faith in the people. So is he lamenting God's choosing not to gift it?

 

Where does it say Christ laments the lack of faith?

 

So what you mean is that God can give you faith but you are free to behave as if He didn't. Then what is the difference between having belief, but not believing, and just plain not believing (because you can't)? Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Who has the better excuse, the man for whom belief is physically impossible or the man who was gifted belief and then refused to do so?

 

Easy, look up "faithless generation", "great faith", "why did you doubt", etc. You know these passages already.

What's the difference between great faith and little faith? Is the quantity of faith from zero faith to little faith to great faith all God's decision?

 

The parable depicts people acting of their own free will. This suggests a faux paradox, that for a Calvinist to repent of his theological misunderstandings, God must gift him his repentance.

 

I don't ask Jesus questions but instead listen to what He says. Jesus asked questions of the Pharisees and in so doing put them to silence. Your not answering any of my questions yourself is the same as your silence.

 

Why do you see God sanctifying us as the first step? We are finally saved unto eternal life through sanctification - where does it say in Scriptures that the whole process of redemption begins with sanctification though? In fact, Rom 6:22 places sanctification after one's being set free from sin and becoming a servant of God.
What we can agree upon is the fact that God needs to act first in our redemption.

God saves only those who do not resist? Acts 7:51 was spoken to Paul too there - did he not continue to resist? In his own words, 1Tim 1:13 shows that he was a blasphemer and persecutor even after Stephen's stoning but he received mercy. Also, what does Paul mean by God's grace being abundant with faith and love in Christ Jesus (1Tim 1:14) - was God's grace abundant towards him because he had faith and love in Jesus or did God's grace cause faith and love in Jesus?

Heb 10:29 is not to be applied to unbelievers who reject the Gospel the first time they hear it given that they are not yet sanctified and have not yet received the knowledge of the truth (v.26), right? By that measure again, Paul shouldn't have any more sacrifice for sins after rejecting the Gospel when preached by the disciples, Stephen etc. initially.

From this quote, I gather that you hold regeneration = being born again = salvation ? I do not equate regeneration (new heart, renewed spirit) with either being born again or of salvation because such an interpretation is contradicted in Scriptures. Hence I can reconcile regeneration preceding faith while faith still preceding salvation.

Given that the word regeneration itself occurs only twice in Scriptures and neither of them mention faith in relation to it, we'd have to now derive the definition of regeneration from Scriptures and then proceed to link faith to it. I read regeneration to be whatever is described in say Psalms 51:10 and Eze 36:26. Do you hold the same and if not, why and what else do you hold to be regeneration?

 

You're preaching to the choir here on election - I am in complete agreement with all the above. It's just that the calvinist system is quick to conclude the direct opposite with regards to predestined condemnation of the non-elect - and that needn't necessarily be true or logically consistent. God gifting faith to the elect does not automatically imply God doesn't expect the non-elect to put their faith in God.

It's just entirely possible that both the calvinist and the arminian systems are at play simultaneously - the entire calvinist doctrines capturing all that pertains to the elect and the arminian system capturing all that pertains to the non-elect. So if the calvinist says the elect are saved purely by God's grace and mercy whereby God causes them to repent and believe and walk in His ways, I say Amen. And if the arminian says that the non-elect could've been saved if they had continued in the faith to the end after having received prevenient grace but are condemned because of their own falling away and rejecting Christ, I say Amen to that too.

What I do disagree with is the calvinist saying God predestined condemnation of the non-elect and the arminian saying that ultimately the elect are saved by faith that they self-generate.

 

For context, I would be considered falling under the calvinist camp on most of these debates though I am more lutheran when it comes to election (single predestination). To your question, I'd pick the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant - the old commanded man to keep God's rules (Lev 18:5) while the new promised God causing His people to keep them (Eze 36:27). If one were to question God's several lamenting against man's disobedience of His rules as if to ask why He laments His own not causing obedience as He'd promised in the NT, then we're missing the point of holding the flesh responsible for its own failures first (Rom 3:19).

Faith in God is something initially expected of man himself - essentially the leaning on Christ for all righteousness by acknowledging the self is incapable of anything good or righteous. But man has a hardened heart and blinded minds which God graciously regenerates. Having been washed and renewed now, man still is to deny self and lean on Christ wholly which he now has been enlightened to do with the knowledge of the truth. But if he continues to walk by the flesh and return to the mud, then he will be held accountable for his unbelief.

However, if God graciously chooses to have mercy and determines to preserve such a person from falling away, He'd work out godly desires in man by His Spirit impressing upon him the truths of his own inability and Christ's glory - thereby authoring and continuing the complete dependence on Christ alone with the denial of self. This 'causing' to walk in His ways is what is considered the gift of repentance, faith, sanctification etc. in all whom He so chooses to work in.

So when God laments lack of faith, it's the flesh being held accountable while God receives all the glory when He works in and causes obedience.

 

Once again:

Where does it say Christ laments the lack of faith?