Receiving a gift is not also part of the giving

Where does 'faith' come from?

 

Your theology demands it.

 

Reading through the last few pages of my posts, it occurs to me that at times my thoughts are working faster thN my one finger on the iPad.

I still have trouble with the iPad auto spelling and with the new scheme of the onscreen keyboard.

I trust that, if there is a post that doesn’t make sense or bring confusion when read, you will contact me so I can restate it more clearly.

 

Yes, you did say faith comes first. But you didn't say where faith comes from. It matters.

 

Bingo! You can type anything you want on a message board but you cannot avoid the logical conclusions of your belief system. That goes for Synergists and Monergists.

 

From where does faith come?

Romans 10:17 shares that faith comes by hearing.

Now it is self evident that not all who hear the gospel message receive or even comprehend that message.

The importance, however, is that there is a message.

It presupposes that the message has one who delivers that message in some form, be it written, verbal, or signed in some manor, the message is delivered.

Isaiah asks, "Who believed our report...?" If there had been no report there would be nothing in which to believe.

So two questions are asked.

First, is there faith in a report, message, without that report, message delivered?

The second is like the first, does faith then exist where there is no basis or necessary for faith?

To answer the questions one must come to terms that if nothing is available, there is no faith to extend.

However, "faith (is by, comes by, exists by, occurs by, materializes by) hearing, and hearing by the Word of God". Astute scholars know there is no Greek for what is translated "comes by" but is formed by the intent of the passage. It is not here time or space to argue how or why.

Therefore it is the message of the Scripture that is heard, the report (Isaiah 53) that is given.

It then follows that some believe and some do not.

That leads to the next question.

Who believes?

The answer is as Scriptures state, "He that has ears to hear."

The Romans 10 is establishing that no person is excusable when it comes to God manefesting Himself, be it Jew or Gentile.

The balance of Romans establishes that it is God that purposefully prevents hearing to some and opens stopped ears in others. It is in that light (the last chapter of Romans) that those with opened ears not only respond to the gospel, but conduct themselves in humility with the understanding God specifically allowed that one to be His for purpose and His glory.

No scripture passage establishes that Mark, Paul, Peter and John, ever wrote from the viewpoint that God was not directly involved not just at the moment of salvation but throughout his adopted child's whole pre life, life, and post life. The adopted child does not have ability to adopt the self, or even ask for the self in the matter of adoption.

Salvation was never a decision of human ability, nor offered to human kind with that understanding.

God is not reactive.

God is proactive in every child of His from before the conception, through the new birth, and prepares that dwelling in eternity specifically for that adopted child.

Therefore, he who hears is the one God has given the hearing ability. (Romans)

He who believes is the one whom God has given the ability. (John)

He who grows, matures to bear, is the one in whom God plants in the prepared soil. (Mark)

Isaiah rightly ask, "To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

The answer can only be - to His own redeemed ones who He had given ears to hear.

 

I think a good example to examine is the story of the rich young ruler. He came to Jesus seeking eternal salvation. Jesus told him he must keep all the commandments to be saved. This wasn't a real option. Jesus knew this was impossible. When the young man lied and self-righteously replied that he had done this, Jesus got at the real heart of the matter. Yes, we are saved by grace through faith. I believe that the Holy Spirit directed the young man to seek out the only person who could offer salvation. Jesus looked at his heart and found that this man was controlled by his great wealth so He told him that he must sell all his goods and give them to the poor. The young man was unwilling to completely commit to Christ and went away.

This touches an aspect of salvation which has not been discussed here. Salvation is offered freely but it comes at a cost. Jesus said to Nicodemus, Ye must be born again. That is what He's saying here to the young man. I think the Holy Spirit had to reach out to the young man but he had to decide not only who could be his Savior but who must be the Master of his life. He accepted Jesus as his Savior but not as his Lord and was unregenerate.

Matthew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

This requirement was in the SB Faith and Message of 1925 but was removed in the 1963 and 2000 updates. It was originally taken from the 1833 New Hampshire Confession.

11. Of the Perseverance of Saints
We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end John 8:31; 1 John 2:27-28; 3:9; 5:18; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors 1 John 2:19; John 13:18; Matt. 13:20-21; John 6:66-69; Job 17:9; that a special Providence watches over their welfare Rom. 8:28; Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40; Psa. 121:3; 91:11-12; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13; Jude 24-25; Heb. 1:14; 2 Kings 6:16; Heb. 13:5; 1 John 4:4.

In my view this was a critical step in the wrong direction by the SBC.

 

How unfortunate that you make such a blanket statement without foundation.

Just because YOU state your opinion, does not make it factual.

PROVE by starting in Romans 10 and by Scripture show my post was in error.

 

Your the one who stated, “Romans does not establish that,” so it is your responsibility to refute by showing Scripture proof from Romans 10 to the end of Romans.

I showed in broad outline that Romans did, now you are obliged, within the same parameters, to prove your statement of Romans not teaching what I set forth.

It is highly unlikely you will do so, but one could actually see just how established you can be with the Scriptures if you do so.

 

Then you failed again to read what I posted with comprehension, for I didn’t have to report on every verse of the last of Romans but merely give a summery.

You disagree, so prove it by Scriptures.

Take the two paragraphs of the post beginning with “the balance....” and prove that Romans does not show what is posted.

I did that with Van’s quote.

Are you as skilled?

 

Perhaps then, I was right if you cannot prove the paragraphs written to be wrong.

 

Truly sad that you seem to have no desire to really share the Scriptures to prove your thinking.

Evidence seems to be that you are content making attempts of unfounded discredit with no proof.

There is a word for that personality type.