Belief in the Five???

[agedman]

To my post, "In one view, faith is available and capable to be exercised by all irregardless of the fallen condition, and therefore, God is obliged to favorably accept that which fallen man conjures up," your reply was:

If that is what you think Arminians believe no wonder you have rejected it. Wow.

But in a previous post didn't you state that what I wrote was what Arminians would view as correct?

So would a correct non-Calvinist.

True, but it is still without our ability to act upon faith or upon doubt/flesh. This is why Jesus 'ye of little faith, why did you doubt?' instead of "God, why didn't you grant them faith?"

The underlining is to indicate the statement you made.

Christ used the statement, "'ye of little faith," three times (as I recall) and in each case he was addressing those He chose - the Apostles.

I don't see how your statements support the thinking that the unregenerate has any ability to act upon God's gift of faith. Which goes back to supporting what I wrote as the view that Arminians seem to hold.

 

[preacher4truth]

In one view, faith is available and capable to be exercised by all irregardless of the fallen condition, and therefore, God is obliged to favorably accept that which fallen man conjures up.

This would represent those who are Pelagian in belief.

This would also represent the Arminian position of belief as per Canon of Dordt here in the rebuttal against Arminian doctrine:

III. Who teach: That in spiritual death the spiritual gifts are not separate from the will of man, since the will in itself has never been corrupted, but only hindered through the darkness of the understanding and the irregularity of the affections; and that, these hindrances having been removed, the will can then bring into operation its native powers, that is, that the will of itself is able to will and to choose, or not to will and not to choose, all manner of good which may be presented to it. This is an innovation and an error, and tends to elevate the powers of the free will, contrary to the declaration of the Prophet: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt," Jeremiah 17:9; and of the Apostle: "Among whom (sons of disobedience) we also all once lived in the lusts of the flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind," Ephesians 2:3.

IV. Who teach: That the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God. For these are contrary to the express testimony of Scripture. "Ye were dead through trespasses and sins," Ephesians 2:1,5; and: "Every imagination of the thought of his heart are only evil continually," Genesis 6:5; 8:21.

Moreover, to hunger and thirst after deliverance from misery, and after life, and to offer unto God the sacrifice of a broken spirit, is peculiar to the regenerate and those that are called blessed. Psalm 51:10, 19; Matthew 5:6.

Thus we can see clearly that this teaching is not utterly dependent solely upon God Himself. One must be able to separate what they say they believe as a statement, and what they actually teach.

 

[DaChaser1]

This would represent those who are Pelagian in belief.

This would also represent the Arminian position of belief as per Canon of Dordt here in the rebuttal against Arminian doctrine:



Thus we can see clearly that this teaching is not utterly dependent solely upon God Himself. One must be able to separate what they say they believe as a statement, and what they actually teach.

exactly!
Almost like when discusiing theology with say catholics, many times they are ignorant of what the vatican "officially" teaches, and have their own RCC theology as they understand it being, in some areas different than offical RCC!

 

[Skandelon]

The underlining is to indicate the statement you made.

I made a typo. The word "without" should be "within." Does that clarify things a bit more?

Christ used the statement, "'ye of little faith," three times (as I recall) and in each case he was addressing those He chose - the Apostles.

Still, isn't the amount of faith granted determined by God, or do you acknowledge it was within their ability to exercise their God-given faith or neglect to do so?

I don't see how your statements support the thinking that the unregenerate has any ability to act upon God's gift of faith. Which goes back to supporting what I wrote as the view that Arminians seem to hold.

One is made alive through faith, not the other way around:

John 20:31:
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[preacher4truth]

exactly!
Almost like when discusiing theology with say catholics, many times they are ignorant of what the vatican "officially" teaches, and have their own RCC theology as they understand it being, in some areas different than offical RCC!

:thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

one area that many baptist cals disagree with calvin, his 'terrible truth" that some infants indeed will go to hell!

other being his take on infant baptism!

Calvin insisted on baptizing children because he saw their original sin as holding them from heaven and wished to do what he thought Scripture said to give them entrance to God's covenant kingdom. That doctrine is false, and it takes something other than baptism to insure that (thief on the cross, for instance).

We now believe Calvin was wrong on that issue. Doesn't negate all his other doctrine, however, for where is the man who is correct in everything, save Christ?

 

[agedman]

I made a typo. The word "without" should be "within." Does that clarify things a bit more?

Aaww, I thought your statement was great as it was, but not as you edited.

Still, isn't the amount of faith granted determined by God, or do you acknowledge it was within their ability to exercise their God-given faith or neglect to do so?

Yes, I contend that the amount of faith is determined to every believer by God. Exercising the God-given faith is part of the personal experiential walk. The believer certainly may neglect to do so.

However, as the believer "add(s) to their faith" in a stair step of Godly attributes as Peter stated and as Paul stated we are to enlarge (ornament) the faith it would also show that personal experience in the walk must be considered with "ye of little faith." The apostles had no "history" from which to base their knowledge, and therefore, their faith was little. When the Holy Spirit was given them, then the knowledge was clarified, the historical walk made sense and they were on the go.

The unbeliever haves nothing of value or ability in regards to faith. They can be filled with all knowledge and it is of no value, just as Judas the Iscariot.

One is made alive through faith, not the other way around:

John 20:31:
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I agree as it pertains to the believers, and to the apostles with some slight understanding as to timing.

To start, I suppose I am looking farther back in the process. Before one can make a statement of belief, one must intellectually form the statement. Before one can intellectually form the statement, there must be understanding. Before understanding is given there must be an awareness that the presentation of information is vital.

It is that point (awareness) that I consider the regeneration of the believer to begin, and at that time, God's gift of faith and the ability to express that faith as implanted by the gospel. Certainly it can happen in an instant, or it can take as long as God desires.

The apostles could express belief to the face of Christ, but failed when Christ was taken from them. They had no Holy Spirit to bring them to a complete knowledge.

Therefore the verse you mentioned, though stated at a time when Christ was among them, was not fulfilled within them until the Holy Spirit filled them. If any (as did Judas I.) had died before the Holy Spirit was given, they would be where he is.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I contend that the amount of faith is determined to every believer by God. Exercising the God-given faith is part of the personal experiential walk. The believer certainly may neglect to do so.

Well then this establishes a precedence (or at an example) of God granting something (a gift) that men refused to exercise. They had the capacity but chose not to use what was granted.

Now, I understand that is in regard to those saved, but allow me to show you how this poses a problem for your view by asking you a question: Why do some believers exercise more faith than others? Are some better, smarter, more spiritual? If so, why? What do some have that others don't and is that to their credit or Gods?

 

[Van]

Interesting Questions

This is a thread to express what you agree and do not agree about these five statements.

Do you hold that the Scripture alone is the final authority of the believer, or are there other writings that should be included?
​

While everyone says they think scripture is the final authority, Scripture Alone, in fact everyone on this board pretty much disregards scripture using the tools of nullification. Oh that does not really mean what it says. God does not make plans since He already knows the end from the beginning, He just implements His foreknown predestination. They redefine attributes of God so that they can say God does this or that rather than what scripture says He does.

Do you hold that a sinner is saved by faith without regard to any human condition, status, merit, or ability?​

What this actually means is do we believe in Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. Nope, both are false doctrines according to scripture. We are saved by grace through faith. Our faith provides our access to the grace we stand in.

Do you hold that salvation is granted to the sinner without regard to any work or purchase done by the sinner but totally upon the will and favor of God?​

The point here is do you believe our faith in Christ as our introduction to grace as scripture says, or do you believe God causes us to come to faith via irresistible grace. Scripture shows irresistible grace to be false doctrine.

Do you hold that salvation is solely based upon the Christ and that no sinner can make claim of salvation or heavenly reward apart from Christ?​

I understand this to be the "Christ Alone" point and I agree with it.

Do you hold that salvation and the believer's life is to be in all matters of conduct and living a declaration of God's glory - that no person should or has the right to be puffed up them self or others in any matter of pride or station?​

Yes, but Calvinists claim if we humble ourselves that makes us guilty of pride, i.e. if we can boast in the Lord, we are puffing ourselves up. Twaddle.

 

[agedman]

Now, I understand that is in regard to those saved, but allow me to show you how this poses a problem for your view by asking you a question:

Why do some believers exercise more faith than others?

I asked that very question for many years. Then I came to understand the ornamentation aspect of faith which is stated by Paul and Peter.

It is a bit easier to illustrate.

A mirror in a compact is very small. Not much use except to see the nose.

Remove the mirror and place that mirror into a setting in which the gold, silver and precious stones (think of Paul's words) are woven into the framework (the Holy Spirit) that holds the faith.

Two aspects transform the mirror in the view of the beholder:

First, the mirror (faith) is no longer perceived as small or insignificant, but viewed as precious, important, missed if not there, and many other statements that can be made about a person whose life illuminates the Love of Christ.
Second, when one looks at that whole, the ornamentation highlights the mirror, not the ornamentation. Therefore, the mirror seems larger than that in which it began - as a compact.​

The "exercise of the faith" that your question asked is not so much that of the faith, rather the historical reliance the believer has in the work of the Holy Spirit shown as the ornamentation to that faith.

Are some better, smarter, more spiritual?

I think that Paul's and Peter's writings consistently show that the believer's reasonable service is a life liven in holiness and in sacrifice. Within those two identifiers, one cannot help but become more reliant upon the Holy Spirit for wisdom and upon the Scriptures for guidance.

Then it would follow, that such a person would demonstrate the kind of living witness in which to others might be viewed as someone who is better, smarter, or more spiritual. However to that believer, who is merely presenting them self to the service of the Lord, there is no occasion to puff up or glory, for they consider it all of Christ and not worthy of praise other than in Him.

What do some have that others don't and is that to their credit or Gods?

John stated that the Laodicean church had a problem of viewing the having and the getting as a sign of God's approval, but this view was a deception.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked..."​

The writer goes on to show what the believer is to purchase and that God's true children will be rebuked and even spanked.

What John stated as visual cues can also be taken as spiritual cues. God grants to each believer that which God deems is sufficient, and God has also given each believer the Holy Spirit.

When all this life is over and all the work is done, what is left to present to Christ that was not first given by Christ and ornamented by the Holy Spirit? Is it no wonder that the crowns are cast at His feet?

The salvation, the ornamentation, the wisdom and understanding,... is seen as all is of Christ.

Does that remove responsibility from the believer? No! We are His children and therefore responsible to present our self as heirs to the King of Kings and not be as ruffians of the hordes of Satan. In the Acts there is this neat little insight,

"...For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."​

 

[Skandelon]

Are you a politician?

That was a really long way to not answer a very simple question. I liked what you said. I would even agree with much of what you said, but it doesn't really address the question.

If you agree that there are some believers who are more obedient/faithful than others then just tell me why that is. Is it credited to them or to God? Is their faithfulness/obedience caused by the believer or God? Did God make some to be more obedient/faithful or has God granted the ability to obey to all believers and left it to them to choose? Pick one and explain.

 

[glfredrick]

Are you a politician?

That was a really long way to not answer a very simple question. I liked what you said. I would even agree with much of what you said, but it doesn't really address the question.

If you agree that there are some believers who are more obedient/faithful than others then just tell me why that is. Is it credited to them or to God? Is their faithfulness/obedience caused by the believer or God? Did God make some to be more obedient/faithful or has God granted the ability to obey to all believers and left it to them to choose? Pick one and explain.

God gives faith. We are asked to exercise that faith that God gave. Some do willingly, some end up doing so unwillingly, but eventually all those to whom God graced with faith will use it for His glory. On the other hand, if their faith is their own (and I will conceed the point that it indeed can be their own) then what use is it? Can their OWN faith extend to God so as to cause God to move or act? That would be... Dare I utter it... That nasty "P" word in action, wouldn't it?

 

[agedman]

Are you a politician?

That was a really long way to not answer a very simple question. I liked what you said. I would even agree with much of what you said, but it doesn't really address the question.

If you agree that there are some believers who are more obedient/faithful than others then just tell me why that is. Is it credited to them or to God? Is their faithfulness/obedience caused by the believer or God? Did God make some to be more obedient/faithful or has God granted the ability to obey to all believers and left it to them to choose? Pick one and explain.

No, I'm not a politician - I leave that up to my son.

Ok, let's see if I can give shorter answers to the questions.

If you agree that there are some believers who are more obedient/faithful than others then just tell me why that is. Is it credited to them or to God?

Actually, both.

The believer, in submission to the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, grows - which brings glory to God. It is then, to the believer's credit, that they are in submission just as any faithful servant. It is, to God's credit, that He is gracious in bestowing such awesome responsibility upon the faithful believer.

By illustration, consider in the large estates of Edwardian/Victorian times, did the servants credit themselves upon the condition of the estate or was the good master praised? No, they held that the proper running and appearance of the estate was their reasonable service. Did the good master acknowledge the work of the servants and return praise and reward them? As a good master most certainly would and did.

Is their faithfulness/obedience caused by the believer or God?

Faithfulness and obedience is a mater of submission. The believer is either submissive or not. The results (cause - used as a noun - motivation) of the submission is in the hands of God. There is no lack of illustrations in the Scriptures of the work on this principle. One example might be Jonah, who might be considered grudgingly submissive.

Did God make some to be more obedient/faithful or has God granted the ability to obey to all believers and left it to them to choose? Pick one and explain.

Showing strictly the "God granted (the) ability..." may be problematic in the use of the word "ability."

It seems the word "ability" carries the connotation (emotionalized agenda) of some self authoritarian capacity to achieve. In contrast, I consider the answer might better be found in the matter by use of the word - submission.

God has given the believer a new nature among the attributes of that new nature is a new will. Therefore, is the rise of the battle that Paul shows in Romans. As a result, it is not a matter of ability to obey, but a matter of submission to the will of the Father or to the will of the old nature.

As one grows in "wisdom and knowledge" as Christ did and we are to do, the believer becomes more skillful as a servant of the Lord and more insightful as to what constitutes being a faithful/obedient servant. The Lord being their shepherd the servant "shall not want, He makes me to lie down in green pastures, leads me beside still waters, restores my soul... I fear no evil for He is with me, the shepherds club and staff comfort and secure me..." "Well done you good and faithful servant."

If the believer does not grow, but returns submissive to the old nature, then they are as the prodigal; who left with the inheritance, spent the inheritance living foolishly, and returned to the father with nothing but the humble acknowledged longing to be a servant to the Father. Certainly the father rejoiced at the return of the son, but there was no inheritance to be compared with the other son.


I have failed to give short answers to the questions.

 

[DaChaser1]

Calvin insisted on baptizing children because he saw their original sin as holding them from heaven and wished to do what he thought Scripture said to give them entrance to God's covenant kingdom. That doctrine is false, and it takes something other than baptism to insure that (thief on the cross, for instance).

We now believe Calvin was wrong on that issue. Doesn't negate all his other doctrine, however, for where is the man who is correct in everything, save Christ?

Amen!

Only The truine God and His prophets/Apostles that wrote are "without error!"

 

[DaChaser1]

God gives faith. We are asked to exercise that faith that God gave. Some do willingly, some end up doing so unwillingly, but eventually all those to whom God graced with faith will use it for His glory. On the other hand, if their faith is their own (and I will conceed the point that it indeed can be their own) then what use is it? Can their OWN faith extend to God so as to cause God to move or act? That would be... Dare I utter it... That nasty "P" word in action, wouldn't it?

think that Skan and others here have a hard time grasping the simple truth that IF we have inherit within our human nature this faith, that means that we also have real free will, and we have to chose to exercise that faith in us etc

leads us down the path to getting where either we co assist God to save us, or in a sense actually save ourselves!

 

[Skandelon]

The believer, in submission to the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures

But why do some believers submit more than others? That is the question I'm asking... What makes one believer more submissive than another? God or the believer?

Faithfulness and obedience is a mater of submission.

Which is ultimately caused by ____________. (fill in the blank, hint: put God or man)

The believer is either submissive or not.

Why?

 

[agedman]

But why do some believers submit more than others? That is the question I'm asking... What makes one believer more submissive than another? God or the believer?

Why was Jonah less submissive than Elijah, and why was Elijah less submissive than Elisha...

Perhaps the answer may be found in temperament, perhaps it is in the depth of conviction brought before salvation, perhaps it is the history or background imprinting influences, perhaps it is the knowledge and spiritual insight brought by the Holy Spirit, perhaps it is following the example of other believers,...

I don't know that there is a single best answer.

B
Which is ultimately caused by ____________. (fill in the blank, hint: put God or man)

Why?

Both.

Here is why.

God, being the sovereign over all has ultimate responsibility and authority in all matters. However, for example, just as Christ has the key of death and no man can die without His approval, no one should put to test the hangman's rope.

More, God has complete understanding and foreknowledge of the creation. However, sins of humankind imprint as cause and effect upon each person differently. So, as a believer there will be certain weakness and strengths that impact the living relationships. Does God wipe away all events and start the person tabla rasa at the point of new birth? No, for God provides strength in the weakness and humility in the strengths.

Also, there is the matter of intellect. God has unparallel knowledge. Humans do not. The capacity to grasp multiple facets of a section of Scripture, and the skill to explore the original language may be part of one and not part of another. Just as some are gifted in spelling, some are not(or don't pay attention to the spell check indicators on a post). Is God the great equalizer of all things human at conversion? No, but He equips each with what is necessary to thrive and contribute to the assembly. The little toe isn't noticed until it is hurt or missing.


So, it is both the responsibility of God and man in answer to the "cause" of submission.

Jonah had no desire to submit, so God put him in a place were he would desire to submit. Did God cause Jonah to submit? God prepared the fish, generated the storm, placed the sailors on the ship that had a certain background/culture, directed the waves to batter the ship in such manner as to bring fear while the fish glided along under the storm out of sight and just hungry enough...

Did circumstances cause Jonah to submit? Circumstances conspired against Jonah from the time God called until the written account ends.

Did Jonah cause Jonah to submit? Jonah was evidently exhausted from running from the presence of God (shows what limited knowledge he had of God) to be sleeping in such a storm at sea. He tried to escape responsibility by taking hope in the sailor's lottery choice. While in the belly of the fish, he remembered the Lord "in him" and the prayer he made entered to the very temple throne of God.

Ultimately it is both. In the Edwardian/Victorian age, the master was not master over non-submissive servants, and non-submissive servants were brought (not forced) to submission or discharged.

I have a sense that this isn't close to the answer you were looking for.

 

[Skandelon]

So, if I may shorten your answer it appears you are saying that believers submit in the same manner that they are saved...in that God is sovereign over their submission but they still are the ones who do it.

Thus, if a believer doesn't submit then the ultimate reason is because God didn't grant him something he needed to submit in that moment...whether it be a 'depth of conviction, a temperament, or some influence.' Thus, the question becomes clear, why would God pretend as if he wants you do something while not providing you what you needed to actually do it? Why call you to submit without giving you the temperament to do so, for example? Moreover, why hold you accountable for not submitting or give you reward for submitting when in reality HE is the determining factor of whether or not you actually submit?

This system is flawed at its core because there is no basis for man's independent will, thus leaving God's will conflicting with itself.

 

[agedman]

So, if I may shorten your answer it appears you are saying that believers submit in the same manner that they are saved...in that God is sovereign over their submission but they still are the ones who do it.

God is sovereign.

Humankind are submissive.

The believer has two natures (including all the attributes) that war with each other for dominion. That nature which the believer "feeds the appetites" in submission, will determine by the strength of the attributes of that nature and the sovereign of that nature the power and authority over the believer.

God as sovereign has established judgment and justice according to the law in matters that concern the old nature.

God as sovereign has established all characteristics and tools for the nurture, growth, security, ... in matters that concern the new nature.

Thus, if a believer doesn't submit then the ultimate reason is because God didn't grant him something he needed to submit in that moment...whether it be a 'depth of conviction, a temperament, or some influence.'

It could also be that the god of this world appeals to what the believer is most weak. (Paul uses remarks such as this)

Also, do not neglect that the believer is to

"put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."​

Thus, the question becomes clear, why would God pretend as if he wants you do something while not providing you what you needed to actually do it?

First, God doesn't pretend but acts with purpose and plan.

Second, God always wants humankind to do what they cannot actually do. Keeping the ten commandments is an example of the principle. God's benchmark in every area of living and life is never less than excellence. That is why it is all of Grace and not of works (concerning both salvation and living). Paul recognizing that principle states "... no condemnation to them..." God rewards the "good and faithful servant" not some attainment of a benchmark.

Why call you to submit without giving you the temperament to do so, for example?

It is not a "call to submit" but a state of submission. The believer does submit to the old or the new nature. There isn't an in between or third state or land of indecision.

Moreover, why hold you accountable for not submitting or give you reward for submitting when in reality HE is the determining factor of whether or not you actually submit?

There is accountability in submission to the old nature and accountability in submission to the new. There is reward for submission in both the old and new. One is either submissive to the old, or the new.

The war over the direction of submission is according to which will is feed.

If one feeds upon the things of this world and partakes of the influences, excesses, contrivances and essences of the god of this world, then the submission will be toward the god of this world.

If one feeds upon the things of the God of heaven and partakes of the influences, excesses, contrivances and essences of the God of heaven, then the submission will be toward the God of Heaven.

Certainly God is the "determining factor" in that He has provided all that is necessary. That is why He provides the armor of God which is vital, and why the mind of the believer is to be renewed by the Holy Spirit and Scriptures. It is why strict, undistracted, and uninhibited communication to, through and from the Holy Spirit is paramount. Why the power and will of the flesh and fleshly must be crucified daily. ...

The believer must submit to the authority of God and put the armor on, must submit to the mind of Christ by meditation upon the Scriptures that they may "prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God," must submit to the slightest impulse of the Holy Spirit in discerning what is of the flesh and fleshly...

This system is flawed at its core because there is no basis for man's independent will, thus leaving God's will conflicting with itself.

I think part of the problem in understanding submission and the two natures is common to those who desire what is not availed to any person.

It is the same desire as what was presented to the woman in Eden. The "independent will," unbounded by the perimeter of Eden and independent of God, is attractive because it would make us "as God" having dominion and allow the "me" to "decide."

There is no independent will (as much as some would desire there to be) or mere man could keep the commandments of God from birth to death making the cross of Christ unimportant. Salvation, in such a scheme, would solely be based upon the will of man without regard to the nature including the will being "condemned already."

Because "all have sinned," it is evident that there is a lack of an "independent" will and that submission to the fallen will of man is the very best and only direction fallen man has - even with the dire consequences it brings.

God instills a new nature and the believer has then a new will that immediately (even during conviction) wars against the old will.

That is the war. Not God's will in conflict with itself, rather God of heaven's will in conflict with the god of this world's will. Again, "We wrestle not against ..."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ok. Number 2 was a trick question.

We are saved by grace through faith. I was primarily reading the "without merit" part.

I Agree....saved by grace & then through faith (in that order)