• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you really understand your 'opponents' views?

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Calvinists see saving faith as a gift from God...you see faith as inherent in fallen man. Human,natural faith does not access that which is spiritual.

Calvinists see saving faith as a gift from God

So do Arminians

you see faith as inherent in fallen man.

No, he sees man as utterly depraved and incapable of a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ without a special intervention of God's Grace.. unless I am mistaken about Skan's personal views...in which event I am sorry if I misinterpret them.

Human,natural faith

Is oxymoronic, there is no such thing in either the Calvinist or Arminian system as it is decidedly un-scriptural.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Quote:
Human,natural faith

Is oxymoronic, there is no such thing in either the Calvinist or Arminian system as it is decidedly un-scriptural.

Well...lets see:
from A Baptist Cathechism with Commentary...by WR. Downing...used by permission:thumbs::thumbs:


When considering the nature of saving faith, we must carefully note that
not all faith is saving faith. About this, the Scriptures are very clear (Matt.
13:5–6, 20–21; Lk. 8:14; Jn. 2:23–25). The attitude of many within modern
evangelical Christianity is that all faith is saving faith, and that a person’s
profession of faith is to be taken at face value and never questioned. Further, it
is assumed that saving faith is synonymous with mere human trust, and that
such faith is, indeed, the product of our own personalities. Every person, it is
assumed, has the faith to believe in Christ, the only issue is where he directs
such faith. See Question 88.
There are various kinds of “faith” described in Scripture, and these need to
be carefully marked. To be defective at this crucial point is to be fatally
deceived:
first, there is a doctrinal faith (Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; 24:24;
Rom. 1:5; 10:8; 2 Tim. 4:7; Jude 3). To speak of a doctrinal faith is legitimate.
The New Testament uses the term “faith” to denote either the doctrinal
content of Christianity or Christianity in general. It is quite possible, however,
to have a merely doctrinal faith without saving grace. There are those whose
faith is contained within creeds or confessions, but it is not vital and life–
transforming.
Second, there is a merely intellectual faith (1 Cor. 15:1–2; Jas. 2:19). It is
possible to have such a bare faith, yet to “believe in vain” [to no purpose].
This is a faith which is isolated from Scripture and a conversion experience
with its subsequent life. This may describe many who only have a momentary
or isolated religious experience. This seems to be the case of those “sown
among thorns” who, although retaining their profession “bring no fruit to
perfection” (Lk. 8:14). This may well describe many nominal professing
Christians.
Third, there is a temporary faith (Matt. 13:20–21; Jn. 2:23–25), which
may be either merely intellectual or emotional, based upon something seen or
felt, but not solidly grounded in the Scriptures. It was so with the people in Jn.
2:23–25, who gawked at the sights, but their hearts remained unchanged. The
same was true of the stony ground hearers who endure in their profession for
only a short time (Matt. 13:5–6, 20–21).
173
Fourth, there is a merely theoretical faith, which exists only in principle,
for the sake of convenience or for personal advantage (Jn. 12:42–43; Acts
26:27–28). This characterized some secret, compromising Jewish leaders, and
also King Agrippa II who, although an Idumean [descendant of Esau], had
become a devotee of Judaism.
Finally, there is a selective faith, which chooses to believe some things in
the Scripture, but not others. For example, this may be a faith which may
believe in heaven, but not in hell; or it may be a faith which does not come to
terms scripturally with the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36;
Rom. 10:9–10; 2 Cor. 4:5). We cannot accept or receive the Lord Jesus Christ
as anyone less than he is. God has made him “Lord,” and we must receive
him as such. To “accept” him as anyone less is not saving faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ of Scripture.
Saving faith possesses three elements: first, an intellectual element, or
knowledge. This is the cognitive foundation for faith, i.e., its ground or
warrant in God and his Word (Rom. 10:17). Second, an emotional element, or
an assent as cognition passes into conviction that Christ is the only and all–
sufficient Savior (Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9–10; Eph. 2:8–10). Third, a volitional
element, or the active, joyful and self–abandoning trust in Christ for
deliverance, pardon, forgiveness and reconciliation (Rom. 1:17; Eph. 1:13;
Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Saving faith is utter, unreserved commitment to
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (Jn. 3:16; Acts 16:31; Phil. 1:29). The
grammatical constructions of the New Testament are as follows: We have
“faith in Christ” (Gal. 3:26), “believe in [into] Christ” (Jn. 3:16; Phil. 1:29), or
“believe on [upon] Christ” (Acts 16:31) for salvation. These were technical
expressions in the culture and language of that day; there was no question
wherever the gospel was preached as to the commitment of faith—it meant
nothing less than utter, unreserved commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those who misunderstand calvinism.....think in fatalistic terms like islam would. This is mis-guided. Heralds post was right on the money.

WOW! let's restate the point I made by editing your post:

Those who misunderstand Arminianism.....think in anthropocentric terms like Pelagius would. This is mis-guided. HeirofSalvations post was right on the money.

Herald is "poisoning the well" and committing a "genetic fallacy" all at the same time with this hokum. I call him on it; and you double-down on it. :BangHead:

Some might say I was: "demonstrating absurdity by being.........."


Welcome to the board HOS... :D
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Calvinists see saving faith as a gift from God...you see faith as inherent in fallen man. Human,natural faith does not access that which is spiritual.
You have just answered the question of the OP by showing that you do not understand your opponents position.

Faith cometh by hearing from God, and thus is not 'inherent in fallen man.' The fact that we affirm man's ability to respond willingly in faith or trade the truth in for a lie doesn't negate the fact that we affirm the need of God's initial enabling work. In other words, we too affirm that faith is a gift of God, but we just don't assume a gift must be effectually applied for the giver to get the credit for giving it.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have just answered the question of the OP by showing that you do not understand your opponents position.

Faith cometh by hearing from God, and thus is not 'inherent in fallen man.' The fact that we affirm man's ability to respond willingly in faith or trade the truth in for a lie doesn't negate the fact that we affirm the need of God's initial enabling work. In other words, we too affirm that faith is a gift of God, but we just don't assume a gift must be effectually applied for the giver to get the credit for giving it.

You speaking out of both sides of your mouth,does not equate to any misunderstanding on my part

The fact that we affirm man's ability to respond willingly in faith

doesn't negate the fact that we affirm the need of God's initial enabling work.
 
You have just answered the question of the OP by showing that you do not understand your opponents position.

Faith cometh by hearing from God, and thus is not 'inherent in fallen man.' The fact that we affirm man's ability to respond willingly in faith or trade the truth in for a lie doesn't negate the fact that we affirm the need of God's initial enabling work. In other words, we too affirm that faith is a gift of God, but we just don't assume a gift must be effectually applied for the giver to get the credit for giving it.

Amen!! :applause: :thumbsup::thumbs::applause:
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Amen!! :applause: :thumbsup:::applause:

Actually you are both incorrect and Iconoclast has identified 'skans' position correctly. He says gift in one post then 'its within mans ability' in another.

So hold the applause, it doesn't represent truth nor make his response accurate by any means. :)

Iconoclast is dead on.
 
Actually you are both incorrect and Iconoclast has identified 'skans' position correctly. He says gift in one post then 'its within mans ability' in another.

So hold the applause, it doesn't represent truth nor make his response accurate by any means. :)

Iconoclast is dead on.

Well, I guess I don't know yall's side after all.

I'll keep an eye out**wink, wink*** and maybe I'll gain a better understanding. :laugh: :D
 
Actually you are both incorrect and Iconoclast has identified 'skans' position correctly. He says gift in one post then 'its within mans ability' in another.

So hold the applause, it doesn't represent truth nor make his response accurate by any means. :)

Iconoclast is dead on.

Brother Skan stated that it's within man's ability to respond in faith after God shows them and draws them(gift of faith given to them by God, I mean), but it doesn't mean they'll come....or that's what I think Bro. Skan stated. This is how I see it. No one can, or better yet, will want to call out to God until He first draws them. God drew me for years, but I rebelled and went the other way.

Faith is a gift of God, but a gift can also be rejected. Once the gift of faith was given to me, it's mine. That's why the bible states to add to your faith, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, etc.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Brother Skan stated that it's within man's ability to respond in faith after God shows them and draws them(gift of faith given to them by God, I mean), but it doesn't mean they'll come....or that's what I think Bro. Skan stated. This is how I see it. No one can, or better yet, will want to call out to God until He first draws them. God drew me for years, but I rebelled and went the other way.

Faith is a gift of God, but a gift can also be rejected. Once the gift of faith was given to me, it's mine. That's why the bible states to add to your faith, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, etc.

Willis,
After God gives saving faith...men exersize it...see post 22
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Brother Skan stated that it's within man's ability to respond in faith after God shows them and draws them(gift of faith given to them by God, I mean), but it doesn't mean they'll come....or that's what I think Bro. Skan stated. This is how I see it. No one can, or better yet, will want to call out to God until He first draws them. God drew me for years, but I rebelled and went the other way.

Faith is a gift of God, but a gift can also be rejected.
:thumbs: Thank you for understanding a restating my views correctly. That is a rare gift around here apparently. :smilewinkgrin:
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Someone puh-leeze explain to me how this does NOT meet the definition of Synergism.
God may require a condition (faith) to be met before he regenerates someone, but that doesn't mean man 'participates in the work of regeneration.' The work itself is all of God's, but it is only done to those who believe in Christ.

Scripture teaches that we are made alive through faith. Faith is the condition, the means, by which God does the work of regeneration, but that work is still all of Him. Make sense?
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God may require a condition (faith) to be met before he regenerates someone, but that doesn't mean man 'participates in the work of regeneration.'....

If there is a CONDITION that man has the choice to meet, then the human will has just cooperated with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration. Period.

Why? Why the resistance to being defined as a synergist? This very simple, concise definition does indeed describe the free will soteriology.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
If there is a CONDITION that man has the choice to meet, then the human will has just cooperated with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration. Period.

Why? Why the resistance to being defined as a synergist? This very simple, concise definition does indeed describe the free will soteriology.

Is synergism a dirty word?
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Is synergism a dirty word?

NO!

....or at least I don't think so. I believe it to be an accurate, brief definition of the free will soteriology.

I believe the REAL problem with it is that it represents a 'label', you know, like Calvinist, or hyper, or something.
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Well, I guess I don't know yall's side after all.

I'll keep an eye out**wink, wink*** and maybe I'll gain a better understanding. :laugh: :D

This isn't about 'yalls' side (ours) this is about the fact you don't know what he teaches; 'it's a gift in one thread'...in another 'no, it's within mans ability.'

How you turned my post around to being an expression of 'our side' when I was simply showing you that Iconoclast was accurate in representing sanks views is beyond me brother.
 
This isn't about 'yalls' side (ours) this is about the fact you don't know what he teaches; 'it's a gift in one thread'...in another 'no, it's within mans ability.'

How you turned my post around to being an expression of 'our side' when I was simply showing you that Iconoclast was accurate in representing sanks views is beyond me brother.

Sorry if you thought I was turning your post into something else. That wasn't my attempt. I was trying to make a funny about the man who lost his glass eye after being baptized every time he was "saved".
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just a quick observation: As a Baptist...I am by definition...non-credal Although not inherently wrong per se.....What is with all of this incessant "catechism" ..."confessions".."historic faith" etc.....What Baptist really gives a (*&%&^ about that stuff? ICON...are you a Baptist? I assume you are...and I don't mean to say that these creeds of yours don't have intellectual value...but do you realize that to many Baptists... all we begin to hear is: "The Holy Mother Church-by the Authority of God's vicarious representative of Jesus Christ on Earth-His Holiness-Pope UglyHat the XVI, has decreed unto us that.....blah blah blah"
This is not meant to be insulting...I just think that tends to be somewhat ineffective...Baptists don't just incidentally not use creeds...they HATE and FEAR them. I know that for my part.. I begin to hear the "The Westminster confession says....":sleep:
 
Top