A question about Noah...

[psalms109:31]

Faith without love

I would post scripture after scripture if people want it, except where there isn't any. I do have my own ideas and i would try my best to admit it. Scripture is more valuable than my words if people want the scripture that is not just your idea post it over and over again if they ask.

I can have a faith to move mountains given to me by God and it would be worthless without love. That is a faith that Jesus will not know you, that is a faith that demons believe there is one God and shudder that is meaningless, worthless because it is without love.

 

[freeatlast]

Ths Scriptures clearly teach faith is the gift of God.

No it does not. That is simply one possibility.

 

[preacher4truth]

No it does not. That is simply one possibility.

I disagree. It's not just a possibility, it's reality.

Php 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,


First half of verse, they were pre-salvation granted belief, for "to believe in Him" is salvational language, referring to the gift of faith to believe. It doesn't stop there, for, now as believers, they, like Paul are also granted suffering for His sake.

 

[percho]

The reason our faith would be vain and we would still be in our sins if Jesus did not rise is because he had to offer his blood on the mercy seat in heaven. If he did not rise and offer his blood, we would still be in sin and our faith would be vain.

That is true, it would be impossible for a dead person to ascend to heaven and put his blood on the mercy seat which by the way requires a living high priest to do that but that's another story.

I was showing that salvation requires both death for faith and life again for mercy. DHK likes for us to use scripture so here goes. In the post above I showed from scripture that justified by faith is also same as justified by blood.

Therefore for both grace and mercy and to be saved.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through the faith. The shed blood, death of Jesus the Christ.

Titus 3:5 According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; The resurrection of Jesus the Christ by God the Father, Jesus ascending to the right hand of God the Father, the throne of mercy with his blood and receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:32,33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit.

The completion of the work of the Son and the Father for our salvation.

 

[DHK]

Now, if only you'd apply that same sentiment to all the posters here, not just the Calvinists.

I do. I moderate the Other Christian Denom. Forum, where quite a variety of doctrine is discussed. If a person cannot back up their doctrine by Scripture I call them on it. We used to have some RCC's on the board. The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. When they state their belief in purgatory, the assumption of Mary, baptismal regeneration, I tell them to show me these doctrines from the Bible. If they are not there I have no reason to believe them.

I have no reason to believe what the Calvinist here is purporting because he can't give a single verse to support it. And note: Not one of you are giving any Scripture now to support your position. You really should be ashamed of yourselves. Why would you believe in something not supported by Scripture?

We have been telling you, you just won't listen. But, the "onus" has been met by us. The problem is that you are wanting a chapter and verse. We can't necessarily give one (but, to do so in Greek is much more efficacious). When we have offered verses, you've turned a blind eye to them--based on your presuppositions.

I have been listening for months. I have been waiting for someone to show me from the Scripture where you have a Biblical position in this doctrine. But you can't come forward and do so. Why therefore should I believe you? You say I don't listen to you. I am not one prone to listen to philosophy. Give me the Bible. Why aren't you doing that now?

In looking for chapter and verse you are asking for a square circle. After all, we can't reference chapter and verse to prove the Trinity, but we can put together a picture of the Trinity from the entirety of Scripture.

I can give you Scripture concerning the trinity. If you can't, then why can't you? Study your Bible and find some. That is your problem.
If you can't back up your position from the Bible then I don't believe it is a Biblical position and I believe I am right. Have you given me a reason that I should believe I am wrong? No. Not one verse or passage from the Bible.

Unfortunately, you are trying to set a standard for the Calvinists that you do not set for the non-Calvinists and it is a standard that you will not follow yourself. In essence it is demanding evidence in a way that is not deliverable--a strawman or a red herring.

Not true. The subject here has directly to do with Calvinism, and that is the only reason you can make that remark. It doesn't make a difference what the topic is. If you can't back up the position with Scripture why should I believe it. If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese at least provide some evidence. You don't have the evidence for what you have been saying.

I would imagine, as a moderator, you would be above such things. Apparently not. It is unfortunate.

For someone well schooled in Calvinism I would think you would be able to back up some very basic doctrine with the Bible. I am truly amazed that you can't and would assert doctrine that appears to be so unbiblical.

 

[psalms109:31]

Granted

Many believe the young rich ruler was granted to believe in Jesus, to follow Christ by the words of Jesus the word of God, but yet he walked away. That being granted isn't irrestible?

 

[DHK]

DHK....

review robert snows last 200 posts...everytime he offers a verse i give you a dollar...every time he does not you give me a dollar:thumbs::laugh::laugh:
Arch angel just said what I was going to say pretty much..but I could add...I have offered you verses and sermons...which you refused...you remember don't you??? or do i have to go back and repost each time???

Remember this one DHK.....never in the bible is anyone said to be saved BECAUSE...of faith...it is always by, or through faith....always
You are another one on BB on team ..."calvinist jihad"....trying to oppose the truth...when we react...you fail to step up and respond to the specific answers offered.

No Jihad Icono. I make the same request of you that I have made of others and what do I get--just a lecture. Too bad that you can't offer me a verse of Scripture either. Is there something wrong here that suddenly one group of people have become Biblically illiterate--full of rebukes and reproofs, but staying away from the Bible. Why is that Icono?

 

[convicted1]

Many believe the young rich ruler was granted to believe in Jesus, to follow Christ by the words of Jesus the word of God, but yet he walked away. That being granted isn't irrestible?

BINGO!!!

Faith is a gift of God, but those who choose to squander this gift, will die in their sins, and where He is, they can not come.

This is what this rich young ruler did....he squandered his chance to be saved......I can find no where in scripture where he came back, either.

 

[DHK]

Exactly, which is why I won't cast Scriptures before him.

No need. He's been told and shown dozens of times by many.

BE honest. You can't give Scripture to defend your position because you don't have any.

 

[DHK]

Ths Scriptures clearly teach faith is the gift of God.

Why make a statement that you cannot defend Scripturally. If this is found anywhere in the Bible then give a reference.

 

[DHK]

Go for it. Make certain you include all others who don't use Scriptures here, the place will become a ghost town.

I refuse to give you Scriptures yet again, as also Icon, Arch Angel, others.

There's no rule I have to give you verses at your request.

That is your choice. It is your choice to demonstrate to the rest of the board that you remain unable to defend your pet doctrines from the Bible. You should just give it up. Don't post things that you can't defend.

 

[The Archangel]

No it doesn't. Even scholars like Jamieson, Faucett and Brown will disagree with you on this point. You sound like you are making this up as you go along. Hebrews 11 says specifically that he left his own country. He left it by faith. In order to do so he had to have faith in God, that is he was saved.

I'm not making this up as I go. Certainly Abraham had to have "faith" to follow God in the first place--to leave his native land. But, you are suggesting that the faith to leave his homeland is equal to saving faith. The text is squarely against you.

When we see Abraham, there is no mention of belief and righteousness until Genesis 15:6. You are anachronistically reading Paul's quote of Genesis 15:6 and the author of Hebrews' discussion of Abraham back before the text ever states what you want it to state.

Abraham was counted righteous in Genesis 15:6, not before.

1. Abraham had already obeyed God in Gen. 11 and in Gen.12.
2. If the incident in Genesis 12 is an indicator of Abraham's salvation then by the time we get to Genesis 20 Abraham is still not saved for he repeats the very same action with the King of Gerar. Your logic demonstrates you have a belief in sinless perfection. Are you sinless?

Was there obedience? Sure. Was it saving faith displayed? Hardly.

I think that Abraham's salvation was a process (just as most of the "salvations" in Genesis are). But, nowhere did I say I believe in a sinless perfection.

What you would have us believe is that Abraham was a perfect, faithful person and that caused God to use him. It is a world of difference from stepping out on faith to being saved. Your conception of faith, I'm afraid, is feeble, frail, and grossly undervalued.

Have you not read the Scriptures? You do err not doing so.

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. (Genesis 20:3-5)

According to you Abraham is still not saved because he is a lying scoundrel. Yet, this is already after the time that he offered Isaac his only son as a sacrifice. You don't make sense.

You know...you have the audacity to say that I have erred because I haven't read the scriptures and then you say something which demonstrates the erring is yours--totally.

I have just finished preaching through Genesis. It took our church about a year. I know Genesis backwards and forwards and any other way you wish to go.

Here is a truncated time-line:

Genesis 12:1-9--God calls Abram
Genesis 12:10-20--Abram lies to Pharaoh about Sarai
Genesis 13; 14--Lot
Genesis 15--Covenant ceremony
Genesis 16--Ishmael
Genesis 17:1-14--Circumcision
Genesis 17:15-18:21--Isaac promised
Genesis 18:22-19:38--Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot, etc.
Genesis 20--Abraham lies to Abimelech
Genesis 21--Isaac is Born
Genesis 22--"Sacrifice of Isaac"​

We see that you are absolutely wrong is stating that Abraham's lie to Abimelech is after the sacrifice of Isaac.

Also, we see that, although Abraham stepped out in faith, he is a fairly faithless individual. In Genesis 12, God gives him these great promises (and he must be alive in order for them to be fulfilled) and he goes out and lies to protect his own skin. What do his actions show? Faithlessness. In Genesis 15 we have a covenant ceremony (for Abraham's benefit) in which descendants from his own body are promised. What happens immediately following this ceremony? He fathers Ishmael with Hagar. What do his actions show? Faithlessness.
In Genesis 17, the birth of Isaac is promised. Shortly thereafter Abraham lies to Abimelech. Again, Abraham has to remain alive for God to fulfill His promises to Abraham. What do Abraham's actions show? Faithlessness.

Though there is some faith (after all, he did step out on faith), it is not a strong faith. It isn't until God commands the sacrifice of Isaac that Abraham actually believes that God's promises will not ever fail. The author to the Hebrews writes this:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Hebrews 11:17-19 ESV)​

So, the sacrifice of Isaac is the first real demonstration of that "saving faith." Though there is faith present before this, it is certainly not a strong faith. It is a feeble faith that demonstrates a stronger disbelief (rather than belief) in God's promises. Yes, the text says Abraham believed God. But his actions show that it was not a faithful belief.

It is not until the sacrifice of Isaac that Abraham demonstrates that his faith leads to full obedience. Up until this point, his faith had not resulted in faithful obedience. Therefore, it wasn't a full faith. The full faith we long to see in Abraham does not emerge until Genesis 22. This is seen in 22:12 where God says "now I know that you fear God." Up until this point, Abraham had done everything in his power to protect himself or take the promises of God into his own hands, clearly demonstrating a woefully immature faith. Now, at the sacrifice, there is no pretense, there is no wiggling. Abraham follows God's command--and leaving the outcome and the fulfillment of the wonderful promises made to him in God's hand.

One of the over-arching themes that we see in the life of Abraham is something we as Christians must guard against. Abraham trusted in the gifts of God rather than God Himself. But, when we get to the sacrifice of Isaac, we see that something has changed in Abraham. He is now trusting in the Giver of the gifts, and not the gifts themselves. This is evident because he is willing to destroy the gift to obey the Giver.

Your presupposition, that God gives faith to unregenerate people comes from Calvin. He learned it from Augustine, not one of the ECF, but rather a Father of the RCC. In the totality of Scripture we see God uses those who put their faith and trust in Him.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:3)

Yes, again, the text does say that Abraham believed God...but that isn't until Genesis 15:6

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

I disagree. It's not just a possibility, it's reality.

Php 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,


First half of verse, they were pre-salvation granted belief, for "to believe in Him" is salvational language, referring to the gift of faith to believe. It doesn't stop there, for, now as believers, they, like Paul are also granted suffering for His sake.

If we go by your interpretation then Paul grants (pre-salvation) both faith and suffering to the unbeliever. But that is not what the verse teaches. He has granted to believers the privilege of salvation by faith and the privilege to suffer for his sake. Both are either pre-salvation or post-salvation. He has granted unto you (believers) salvation (what we obtain when we believe on Him), and suffering (the privilege we have because we have believed on him). Faith in no way is described as a gift to the unregenerate.

 

[preacher4truth]

If we go by your interpretation then Paul grants (pre-salvation) both faith and suffering to the unbeliever. But that is not what the verse teaches...

We'll stop right there with your initial statement, as you are already teaching fallacy here. He is speaking to whom specifically here? That's right: God's elect. Thus this applies to the elect/saved/redeemed only.

Your statement is completely out of context, and is pure eisegesis at work, therefore it is in error.

Keep trying, but you're way off track.

 

[DHK]

POSTED PREMATURELY...STILL WORKING

I'm not making this up as I go. Certainly Abraham had to have "faith" to follow God in the first place--to leave his native land. But, you are suggesting that the faith to leave his homeland is equal to saving faith. The text is squarely against you.

Faith is faith. His faith was in God, the object of his faith. Heb.11 points out that his faith in God that led him out of the country of his origin was the same faith that made him righteous before God.

When we see Abraham, there is no mention of belief and righteousness until Genesis 15:6. You are anachronistically reading Paul's quote of Genesis 15:6 and the author of Hebrews' discussion of Abraham back before the text ever states what you want it to state.

That is not what we read in either Romans 4 or in Hebrews 11 which explain these passages for us. To believe that Abraham had to have a covenant in place before he believed in God is ridiculous.

Abraham was counted righteous in Genesis 15:6, not before.

That is not what the NT says about Abraham. This is only your idea. I have already posted Scripture to the contrary.
It was God that led him out of the Ur of Chaldees.
It was God that said to Abraham:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (Genesis 12:1)
--And here you believe God is speaking to an unsaved man. That is quite amazing! God is giving him directions, guiding him, giving him promises--all to an unsaved man. I think your theology needs some revision.

Was there obedience? Sure. Was it saving faith displayed? Hardly.

Do Christians ever sin, or are they perfect in their walk with Christ? That seems to be what you are implying. Abraham had just come out of the land of Ur, and had faithfully been obeying God. Go to chapter 20. He disobeyed God in the same way there as he did here. Would you count him unsaved there as well. I thought you believed in OSAS.

I think that Abraham's salvation was a process (just as most of the "salvations" in Genesis are). But, nowhere did I say I believe in a sinless perfection.

You imply sinless perfection. He sinned. You dismiss his salvation. BTW, salvation is not a process. Abraham was declared righteous by God. That is not a process. It was a one-time act.

What you would have us believe is that Abraham was a perfect, faithful person and that caused God to use him. It is a world of difference from stepping out on faith to being saved. Your conception of faith, I'm afraid, is feeble, frail, and grossly undervalued.

God did what he said he did, and he said it many times over. He imputed righteousness unto him. The Biblical record states this in Genesis, Romans, Hebrews, many times over. Do you have a hard time believing this? It was God that declared him righteous.

You know...you have the audacity to say that I have erred because I haven't read the scriptures and then you say something which demonstrates the erring is yours--totally.

You seemed to be totally unaware of Abraham's sin in Genesis chapter 20, the same sin that he committed in Genesis 12, the same sin that you offer up as evidence that he is not saved at that point. You seem blind to the Scriptures at that point.

I have just finished preaching through Genesis. It took our church about a year. I know Genesis backwards and forwards and any other way you wish to go.

Others have done the same thing.

Here is a truncated time-line:

Genesis 12:1-9--God calls Abram
Genesis 12:10-20--Abram lies to Pharaoh about Sarai
Genesis 13; 14--Lot
Genesis 15--Covenant ceremony
Genesis 16--Ishmael
Genesis 17:1-14--Circumcision
Genesis 17:15-18:21--Isaac promised
Genesis 18:22-19:38--Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot, etc.
​

The flaw in your timeline is that God doesn't call unsaved men.

 

[DHK]

We'll stop right there with your initial statement, as you are already teaching fallacy here. He is speaking to whom specifically here? That's right: God's elect. Thus this applies to the elect/saved/redeemed only.

Your statement is completely out of context, and is pure eisegesis at work, therefore it is in error.

Keep trying, but you're way off track.

As is typical, you say I am wrong, but you can't explain how.

 

[preacher4truth]

As is typical, you say I am wrong, but you can't explain how.

I've thoroughly explained how: you've inserted an unintended audience to arrive at your fallacious conclusions. You're practicing eisegetical analysis.

Paul spoke to a specific audience only.

Your interpretation for these reasons is invalid and unscriptural.

 

[DHK]

I've thoroughly explained how: you've inserted an unintended audience to arrive at your fallacious conclusions. You're practicing eisegetical analysis.

Paul spoke to a specific audience only.

Your interpretation for these reasons is invalid and unscriptural.

Of course it was a specific audience. He was speaking to the church, the saints at Philippi. Surely we can agree on that. He wasn't speaking to unbelievers.

 

[The Archangel]

Faith is faith. His faith was in God, the object of his faith. Heb.11 points out that his faith in God that led him out of the country of his origin was the same faith that made him righteous before God.

That is not what we read in either Romans 4 or in Hebrews 11 which explain these passages for us. To believe that Abraham had to have a covenant in place before he believed in God is ridiculous.

That is not what the NT says about Abraham. This is only your idea. I have already posted Scripture to the contrary.
It was God that led him out of the Ur of Chaldees.
It was God that said to Abraham:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (Genesis 12:1)
--And here you believe God is speaking to an unsaved man. That is quite amazing! God is giving him directions, guiding him, giving him promises--all to an unsaved man. I think your theology needs some revision.

Do Christians ever sin, or are they perfect in their walk with Christ? That seems to be what you are implying. Abraham had just come out of the land of Ur, and had faithfully been obeying God. Go to chapter 20. He disobeyed God in the same way there as he did here. Would you count him unsaved there as well. I thought you believed in OSAS.

You imply sinless perfection. He sinned. You dismiss his salvation. BTW, salvation is not a process. Abraham was declared righteous by God. That is not a process. It was a one-time act.

God did what he said he did, and he said it many times over. He imputed righteousness unto him. The Biblical record states this in Genesis, Romans, Hebrews, many times over. Do you have a hard time believing this? It was God that declared him righteous.

You seemed to be totally unaware of Abraham's sin in Genesis chapter 20, the same sin that he committed in Genesis 12, the same sin that you offer up as evidence that he is not saved at that point. You seem blind to the Scriptures at that point.

Others have done the same thing.

The flaw in your timeline is that God doesn't call unsaved men.

You should go back and deal with my entire post. See it here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1735269&postcount=172

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

I've thoroughly explained how: you've inserted an unintended audience to arrive at your fallacious conclusions. You're practicing eisegetical analysis.

Paul spoke to a specific audience only.

Your interpretation for these reasons is invalid and unscriptural.

To show you that I am not alone in my interpretation, let me quote from an old time Calvinist, Albert Barnes:

Verse 29. For unto you. Unto you as Christians. This favour is granted unto you in your present
circumstances.

It is given. God concedes to you this privilege or advantage.

In the behalf of Christ. In the cause of Christ, or with a view to honour Christ. Or, these things are brought on you in consequence of your being Christians.

Not only to believe on him. It is represented here as a privilege to be permitted to believe on Christ. It is so.

(1.) It is an honour to a man to believe one who ought to be believed, to trust one who ought to be trusted, to love one who ought to be loved.

(2.) It is a privilege to believe on Christ, because it is by such faith that our sins are forgiven; that we become reconciled to God, and have the hope of heaven.

(3.) It is a privilege, because it saves the mind from the tortures and the deadly influence of unbelief --the agitation, and restlessness, and darkness, and gloom of a sceptic.

(4.) It is a privilege, because we have then a Friend to whom we may go in trial, and on whom me may roll all our burdens. If there is anything for which a Christian ought to give unfeigned thanks, it is that he has been permitted to believe on the Redeemer. Let a sincere Christian compare his peace, and joy, and hope of heaven, and support in trials, with the restlessness, uneasiness, and dread of death, in the mind of an unbeliever, and he will see abundant occasion for gratitude.

But also to suffer for his sake. Here it is represented as a privilege to suffer in the cause of the
Redeemer--a declaration which may sound strange to the world. Yet this sentiment frequently occurs in the New Testament. Thus it is said of the apostles, Ac 5:41, that "they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." Col 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you." 1Pe 4:13: "But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings." Comp. Jas 1:2; Mr 10:30. Cmt. on Ac 5:41. It is a privilege thus to suffer in the cause of Christ, because

(1.) we then resemble the Lord Jesus, and are united with him in trials;

(2.) because we have evidence that we are his, if trials come upon us in his cause;

(3.) because we are engaged in a good cause, and the privilege of maintaining such a cause is worth much of suffering; and

(4.) because it will be connected with a brighter crown and more exalted honour in heaven.