"Effectual Call"

[skypair]

dw,

What I am trying to establish -- bottom line -- is that the WC says you must be saved before you can hear the gospel unto salvation. That's the "circle" I'm talking about.

Regeneration before faith before hearing/understanding.

but Scripture no where teaches that those who have been regenerated are also saved at the same time.

Ah - so you DO see! OT saints haven't been regenerated yet but the ARE saved! Classic dispensationalism and TRUE!

Now you know how they were saved? Do you see it yet? They heard WITHOUT being enlightened unto justification of the soul. See, Calvin completely leaves this out! The "salvation" we have today adds the "enlightenment" of regeneration unto the sanctification of the spirit on top of the same justification of the soul!

This is why WC is flawed, BTW. "Enlightenment" is to UNDERSTANDING -- but the Word and Spirit are unto BELIEVING which comes before!

If I were to "rework" the WC to say what the Bible says, I would say -- well, let me go back and grab it

Whenever the gospel is preached... "...All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he [...] calls, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, and [by belief in Christ] to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds ["regenerating" the believer], spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, utaking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to [SANCTIFICATION] in Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

There we have a nice, clean, streamlined statement of what happens -- hear - justified - regenerated - sanctified. Do you believe that the OT saints will be resurrected to the earth? For what? Raised by regeneration; sanctified in new life!

Do you believe WE will be resurrected to earth? NO! Our next "phase" is GLORIFICATION on account we are already sanctified -- born again -- in spirit. Our bodies is all that lacks the character of Christ! If we had perfect bodies, we could live "perfect" lives!

Anyway, have I made you upset with the WC yet? It is NOT that it is an "effectual call" -- it's that most of those who hear it don't believe it unto justification. The WC leaves out this whole step!

Do you also see that those "called our of sin and death in which they are by nature" -- that couldn't be so because God has given them some kind of "prevenient grace" to be able to hear "the Word and Spirit" that others who are present can't hear! To me it's just "primitive" dogma, not real theology.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Besides, I find the same sorts of faults can be leveled against most evangelical churches as well. Its not a Cist thing in particular. Belief and practice don't always line up - thats a fact of human existence. In short, your observation doesn't really touch on the assertion I made about Cists beliefs.

Oh, I agree. "Ritual without relationship" we call it. But what is each respective church doing about it? The Baptists offer the plan of salvation and an invitation EVERY Sunday to move people OUT of ritual and into relationship. The Reform/Cists seem to ignore the issue. Like you said, nothing could be more "Unscriptural" -- I believe you meant "foolish" as in "the preaching of the gospel is to them that perish foolishness." Is that what you meant? That we shouldn't actually "RECEIVE" the gospel wherein we are saved, 1Cor 15:1-3?? We should do like those who aren't elect and let it just pass over our heads?

I can't find you a more powerful statement in the "economy of God" regarding this issue of "sinners prayer" and asking than Jesus gave in Luke 11:10 -- "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Do you realize that Jesus was not only asking us to receive regeneration in these words but He was asking His disciples to ask for the indwelling Spirit of Him right then as well (so posits J. Vernon McGee whom I'm happy to agree with considering some such believers were raptured with Jesus, 1Cor 15:23, in His resurrection!)?!

As to baptism, you again confuse Cism with 'reformed practices'. There are plenty of credobaptist Cists. Most of the baptist churchs up till the late 19th century fit the description.

Well, pardon me then. "Credobaptism." I suppose "credo" means that those baptized believe in the same "creed?" Is believing the same "creed" going to get one to heaven? I don't know if that is what you are suggesting. Is it?

skypair

 

[johnp.]

Oh, I agree. "Ritual without relationship" we call it.

Who is the 'we' skypair?

john.

 

[dwmoeller1]

What I am trying to establish -- bottom line -- is that the WC says you must be saved before you can hear the gospel unto salvation. That's the "circle" I'm talking about.

What I am trying to establish -- bottom line -- is that the WC most definitely does not say that one must be saved before one can hear the gospel unto salvation. You may interpret it that way by superimposing your definition of salvation onto the WC, but the WC most definitely does not SAY any such thing. That has been proven.

Now, if one goes into the WC with the equation "regeneration = salvation" then yes, the circle does occur. BUT eliminate that equation and the circle is nowhere present.

So, it comes down to what you mean by 'the WC says'. If you mean: "The WC, when I read it with my own definition (which is different than how the WC would use the definition), then a circle line of thought occurs." Then I don't disagree with you. If thats what you meant from the beginning then Russell and I simply misunderstood you.

However, if you mean: "The WC itself, based on its own defintions and reasoning, argues in a circle.", then I point out that this is demonstratably false. That is how I took your post from the beginning and that is what I have been arguing against.

So which is the case?

Regeneration before faith before hearing/understanding.

Correct. The WC does hold this. However, since the WC differentiates between regeneration and salvation, then the WC itself does not argue that salvation comes before faith before hearing/understanding. No circularity.

Now you may argue that since regeneration and salvation are identical Scripturally speaking, the WC is *effectively* arguing that salvation comes before faith, etc. That I won't protest against...although I will point out that your assumption about salvation = regeneration is unsupportable.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Ah - so you DO see! OT saints haven't been regenerated yet but the ARE saved! Classic dispensationalism and TRUE!

Actually you misread my logic. I did not argue "one can be saved without being regenerate". Instead, the logic I presented was "one can be regenerate without being saved (at the point in time)". Very different things.

As to the OT believers, I would hold that they were regenerate. What they weren't was indwelt by the Spirit. Thats the key difference between OT believers and NT believers.

Now you know how they were saved? Do you see it yet? They heard WITHOUT being enlightened unto justification of the soul.

Nope sorry, Scripture says no such thing.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, pardon me then. "Credobaptism." I suppose "credo" means that those baptized believe in the same "creed?" Is believing the same "creed" going to get one to heaven? I don't know if that is what you are suggesting. Is it?

Oh I am sorry. I am engaged in a debate on baptism in another forum and I referred to the term without thinking that maybe it wasn't familiar to others.

Two types of baptistim:
1. paedobaptsim - 'paedo' refers to child, so paedobaptism is the term for child baptism
2. credobaptism - 'credo' refers statement of faith, thus credobaptism is the term for baptism of professing believers

The large majority of Baptists in North America till the middle to late 19th century were 'Calvinist' in strain. They stemmed largely from Baptists who held to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith - the Baptist "Westminster Confession" if you will. Thus, they were simultaneously 'Calvinists' and credobaptists at the same time. IOW, paedobaptism is seperate issue from Calvinism.

 

[skypair]

Who is the 'we' skypair?

john.

Bellevue Baptist Church and the late Dr. Rogers.

skypair

 

[skypair]

God bless you, dw!

Now, if one goes into the WC with the equation "regeneration = salvation" then yes, the circle does occur. BUT eliminate that equation and the circle is nowhere present.

That is what I see not just in words but in practice. Thank you.

However, if you mean: "The WC itself, based on its own defintions and reasoning, argues in a circle.", then I point out that this is demonstratably false.

And that IS a problem, is it not? When a confession "uses OUR words but the DEVIL'S dictionary" (Dr. Rogers, again), that teaching lays good along with bad and becomes false teaching (I just wrote a reply to a Catholic friend is why I have these things in mind already).

Correct. The WC does hold this. However, since the WC differentiates between regeneration and salvation, then the WC itself does not argue that salvation comes before faith before hearing/understanding. No circularity.

...although I will point out that your assumption about salvation = regeneration is unsupportable.

That would be in error too, then (Unless you are talking about the OT salvation model now). We aren't saved today but what we are also sanctified by the Holy Spirit. We don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling (we're not "regenerated") unless we are saved. Both are given at the same instant.

Now in the OT, believers were saved but DIDN'T receive the Holy Spirit of regeneration. Did you know that? That is why we can be so absolutely sure of when regeneration occurs -- at the same instant as salvation for us.

Here's a proof: look up Acts 19:1-6. Disciples of John the Baptist (saved OT-style) come to Paul. (A similar event took place in Acts 18 a little earlier)

Paul says, "Have you received the Holy Ghost?"

They said, "We didn't even know there was a Holy Ghost."

Paul says, "Then believe on the name of Christ and though shalt receive (NT-style) the Holy Ghost." And they did!! They were what we call saved in the NT way -- "regenerated" immediately upon bleieving on the name of Christ!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Instead, the logic I presented was "one can be regenerate without being saved (at the point in time)". Very different things.

No. You are using someone else's definition of "regenerate" (likely Calvin's) to come to that conclusion. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be "born again" and not be saved. One can be saved and not "born again"/"regenerate" (OT) but not the reverse. And "Regenerate"/"born again" are NT doctrines. The OT equivalent was being resurrected to actual phyical life on earth. Both of these appear in Jesus discourse with Nicodemus. Nicldemus didn't know what "born again" meant but would have known about the resurrection of the just/dead in the last day.

As to the OT believers, I would hold that they were regenerate. What they weren't was indwelt by the Spirit. Thats the key difference between OT believers and NT believers.

That's "key," but incomplete.

Per my previous post, see Acts 19.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Oh I am sorry. I am engaged in a debate on baptism in another forum and I referred to the term without thinking that maybe it wasn't familiar to others.

Two types of baptistim:
1. paedobaptsim - 'paedo' refers to child, so paedobaptism is the term for child baptism
2. credobaptism - 'credo' refers statement of faith, thus credobaptism is the term for baptism of professing believers

The large majority of Baptists in North America till the middle to late 19th century were 'Calvinist' in strain. They stemmed largely from Baptists who held to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith - the Baptist "Westminster Confession" if you will. Thus, they were simultaneously 'Calvinists' and credobaptists at the same time. IOW, paedobaptism is seperate issue from Calvinism.

Good. Thank you for explaining that to me, especially the "credo" part.

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Correct. The WC does hold this. However, since the WC differentiates between regeneration and salvation, then the WC itself does not argue that salvation comes before faith before hearing/understanding. No circularity.

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up.

Now, onto the second part. Where in Scripture are regeneration and salvation equated?

Now in the OT, believers were saved but DIDN'T receive the Holy Spirit of regeneration. Did you know that? That is why we can be so absolutely sure of when regeneration occurs -- at the same instant as salvation for us.

Here's a proof: look up Acts 19:1-6. Disciples of John the Baptist (saved OT-style) come to Paul. (A similar event took place in Acts 18 a little earlier)

Paul says, "Have you received the Holy Ghost?"

They said, "We didn't even know there was a Holy Ghost."

Paul says, "Then believe on the name of Christ and though shalt receive (NT-style) the Holy Ghost." And they did!! They were what we call saved in the NT way -- "regenerated" immediately upon bleieving on the name of Christ!

In this proof, you are equating 'receiving the Holy Spirit' with 'regeneration'. On what Scriptural basis do you make that equation?

 

[skypair]

Now, onto the second part. Where in Scripture are regeneration and salvation equated?

Well, Jesus discourse with Nicodemus is the first place I find it explained. "Generated" = "born;" "Regenerated" = "born again." 1Pet 1:23 and Jas 1:18 are good one parallels. Titus 3:5 astually uses the word regeneration "He saved us by the washing of regeneration; and renewing of the Holy Spirit." BTW, this appears to talk to OT saints as the "renewing" of the Spirit suggests a new Spirit, and in 3:7 he mentions "being justified by grace" He now makes us "heirs." (cf. Col 1:13)

In this proof, you are equating 'receiving the Holy Spirit' with 'regeneration'. On what Scriptural basis do you make that equation?

Gloriously, I can atest to it on personal grounds to begin with! Then there's 1Cor 2 -- the natural man cannot see the hidden wisdom of God. You have to talk to them like they are lost, 2:1-5. Only the "spiritual man" -- the man who is "perfect"/saved has the "mind of Christ," the Holy Spirit!

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, Jesus discourse with Nicodemus is the first place I find it explained. "Generated" = "born;" "Regenerated" = "born again."

Right, regenerated = born again. But where in that passage does it equate regeneration/born again with salvation?

1Pet 1:23 and Jas 1:18 are good one parallels.

Where in those passages is regeneration equated with salvation?

Titus 3:5 astually uses the word regeneration "He saved us by the washing of regeneration; and renewing of the Holy Spirit." BTW, this appears to talk to OT saints as the "renewing" of the Spirit suggests a new Spirit, and in 3:7 he mentions "being justified by grace" He now makes us "heirs." (cf. Col 1:13)

Right salvation comes by the washing of regeneration. But the fact that something 'comes by' something else does not make them equated nor does it mean that they happen at the same point in time. In fact, the logic of the passage would allow for the washing of regeneration to precede salvation. In short, the passage speaks only of the means of salvation, but does not equate regeneration with salvation.

Gloriously, I can atest to it on personal grounds to begin with!

But, of course, personal experience does not constitute Scriptural truth.

Then there's 1Cor 2 -- the natural man cannot see the hidden wisdom of God. You have to talk to them like they are lost, 2:1-5. Only the "spiritual man" -- the man who is "perfect"/saved has the "mind of Christ," the Holy Spirit!

You are equating "the spiritual man" with "received the holy spirit". Where does the passage make this equation?

Had Peter "received the Holy Spirit" when he made the revelation that Jesus was the Christ"?

 

[skypair]

Right, regenerated = born again. But where in that passage does it equate regeneration/born again with salvation?

I see what you are saying. You see the "see" and "enter" the kingdom of God as being in some distant future?? Well, it could be EXCEPT that being regenerated means the Holy Spirit dwells in you and that can't happen to an unsaved person. We're talking about born again of the Spirit, John 3, and 1Pet 1:23, right?

It's a gift" just like faith is a gift, 1Cor 12:8. Doesn't a person get the gift of faith simultaneous to salvation? Is not the Spirit the "Earnest of the purchased possession?" 2Cor 1:22

You are equating "the spiritual man" with "received the holy spirit". Where does the passage make this equation?

Do you see the chapter "break" in 2:6? Now Paul preaches to the "PERFECT?" That's where he changes from talking about the gospel to unbelievers and the deeper truths to the "perfect" -- the saved, the spiritual.

Had Peter "received the Holy Spirit" when he made the revelation that Jesus was the Christ"?

Yes, indeed! Look in John 20:22 where resurrected Jesus breathed on them and told all the 11 disciples to "Receive ye the Holy Ghost!" That was a good question, dw. You're thinkin'!

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

I see what you are saying. You see the "see" and "enter" the kingdom of God as being in some distant future??

No, not some distant future. Entering the kingdom comes at salvation. The passage only sets being born again as a precondition for seeing the kingdom. It does not say anything which equates to "one sees the kingdom immediately upon being born again". Thus, the seeing of the kingdom could be immediate or it could be after a short period or after a long period. Simply put, the passage does not show that seeing of the kingdom happens immediately upon being born again - it might and it might not, the passage doesn't address this one way or the other.

Well, it could be EXCEPT that being regenerated means the Holy Spirit dwells in you and that can't happen to an unsaved person. We're talking about born again of the Spirit, John 3, and 1Pet 1:23, right?

I am not finding in those passages the equation you are making. Where in those passages is 'born again' equated with 'HS dwells in you'?

It's a gift" just like faith is a gift, 1Cor 12:8. Doesn't a person get the gift of faith simultaneous to salvation? Is not the Spirit the "Earnest of the purchased possession?" 2Cor 1:22

To the first question: I know of know verse which indicates the gift is simultaneous. Scripture doesnt' seem to care about the exact timing of the events. If anything though, Scripture shows that faith comes prior to salvation. After all, we are saved through faith - this would indicated that faith precedes salvation.

As to the second question: I don't follow what you are asking. Please elucidate.

Yes, indeed! Look in John 20:22 where resurrected Jesus breathed on them and told all the 11 disciples to "Receive ye the Holy Ghost!" That was a good question, dw. You're thinkin'!

The passage you mention is after the resurrection. Peter's testimony comes considerably before the resurrection. IOW, if they received the HS after the resurrection, that would mean that Peter made his testimony without having received the HS. How can this be?

 

[skypair]

Entering the kingdom comes at salvation. ... Simply put, the passage does not show that seeing of the kingdom happens immediately upon being born again - it might and it might not, the passage doesn't address this one way or the other.

Simply put, you don't see what Jesus said about "seeing" and "entering" to be simultaneous either, then, though they are 2 verses apart as talk about the same thing.

Let me ask you -- when you were born the first time, did you enter this earthly kingdom and see glimpses of it at the same time? Would you expect that an OT saint raised to life from the grave would "enter" and "see" the MK at the same time?

I am not finding in those passages the equation you are making. Where in those passages is 'born again' equated with 'HS dwells in you'?

That's why you have to know a little more about why Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not "knowing these things." For OT saints, salvation and entering were NOT simlutaneous. It was saved - die - resurrected by being born again, that is of the Spirit. Our baptism is a picture of Christ but also of them coming out of their graves into newness of life in rebirth!

If anything though, Scripture shows that faith comes prior to salvation.

Definitely not. BELIEF comes before salvation, but not faith. Faith is the gift given to believers.

As to the second question: I don't follow what you are asking. Please elucidate.

Holy Spirit indwelling is what Dr. Rogers called, our "engagement ring" that soon we will be married to Christ in heaven! We get that along with faith the moment we believe of Christ for salvation.

The passage you mention is after the resurrection. Peter's testimony comes considerably before the resurrection.

Which testimony were you talking about? I thought you were talking about Pentecost. That was after Christ's resurrection and after John 20:22. What "inspired" testimony of Peter pre-resurrection are you talking about?

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Simply put, you don't see what Jesus said about "seeing" and "entering" to be simultaneous either, then, though they are 2 verses apart as talk about the same thing.

No you misunderstand. Read carefully what I wrote. I do see 'seeing' and 'entering' as essentially synonomous and simultaneous. What is not in the passage is any logic which makes 'born again' and 'seeing/entering the kingdom' simultaneous.

Let me ask you -- when you were born the first time, did you enter this earthly kingdom and see glimpses of it at the same time? Would you expect that an OT saint raised to life from the grave would "enter" and "see" the MK at the same time?

Ahhhh...I see, you are relying on the metaphor remaining consistent. Not unreasonable, yet one must be careful because metaphors can be easily stretched too far. Your logic relies on the concept of 'entering the earthly kingdom' being equivalent to 'entering the world'. How would you go about supporting this equivalence?

That's why you have to know a little more about why Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not "knowing these things." For OT saints, salvation and entering were NOT simlutaneous. It was saved - die - resurrected by being born again, that is of the Spirit. Our baptism is a picture of Christ but also of them coming out of their graves into newness of life in rebirth!

I can accept that salvation and entering into the kingdom were not simultaneous. I even agree that salvation and entering into the kindgom is simultaneous for the NT believer. What I am curious about is how you establish that the order for OT saints was "saved - die - resurrected by being born again"? We will leave the baptism thing for later.

Definitely not. BELIEF comes before salvation, but not faith. Faith is the gift given to believers.

Then how are we saved through faith if faith comes after salvation?

Which testimony were you talking about? I thought you were talking about Pentecost. That was after Christ's resurrection and after John 20:22. What "inspired" testimony of Peter pre-resurrection are you talking about?

Oh sorry, thats what I get for not providing references. Here is what I was referring to:
Matt 16:15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[skypair]

Your logic relies on the concept of 'entering the earthly kingdom' being equivalent to 'entering the world'. How would you go about supporting this equivalence?

First is from context. Nicodemus asked whether a man could crawl back into his mother's womb and be born again. Second, new believers are called "babes in Christ" needing the "milk of the word." Third -- this will interest you re: your question below -- the earth is said to be in "travail;" can is bring forth in one day Isa 66:8 "for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." This, as you doubtless know, is a prophectic passage regarding Israel in the MK.

What I am curious about is how you establish that the order for OT saints was "saved - die - resurrected by being born again"? We will leave the baptism thing for later.

The key to all faith in all the Bible is a right relationship with God -- Agreed? That relationship is called "justification" and in the OT, they thought it was by the blood of animals every year that it was renewed. I mean, we're talking Adam to Jesus. They figured the relationship would all work out when Messiah came, resurrected them, and just washed away their sins forever!

The other feature of this justification is that it was God's work in the soul of man then and now. In the soul/conscience is our God and self awareness. As soon as man sins, he has to think about God. Mostly man will go on doing whatever he wants and hardening and searing his own soul/conscience. Justification is turning from self to God -- "acknowledge Him in all thy ways and He shall direct your paths" -- in as simple a fashion as is suggested in Rom 1:21, glorify Him and be thankful is the beginning. Or "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Justification became more sophisticated as God chose a people and revealed more about Himself over time. But the essence of OT salvation and our salvation today is still turn from self to God. This is why many cannot discover dispensations, right?

Then how are we saved through faith if faith comes after salvation?

Mostly I find that Calvinists get faith and belief confused. Belief is trust the word of promise -- faith is receiving the evidence of that promise (Holy Spirit in our case). Before faith and salvation, there comes the work of the Holy Spirit in every man upon the manifestation of God to him. As I said, the manifestation of God (usually by the Word today) demands that we make a choice -- believe or not believe -- a response. If we choose to obey God's word and turn/repent of self, God GIVES faith and salvation. But it's a covenant transaction, dw. And performance is not only on God's part.

This is where Calvinists are confused by faith vs belief, though. Can you see that we are GIVEN faith but we are not given belief? In fact, we can even believe in vain (1Cor 15:3) if we do not repent and receive Christ. Calvinism, since it assumes faith is given by God's will alone, assumes its antecedents -- belief and repentance -- because, after all, "it is all of God." Quite often faith is presumed to be given at infant baptism or through confirmation.

Oh sorry, thats what I get for not providing references. Here is what I was referring to: Matt 16:15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter was "filled" with the Spirit. Do you know the difference between "filled" and "indwelt?" Jesus asked the disciples to receive the Spirit indwelling -- He was doing as He saw His Father to to Adam, right?

But "filling" is when the mind, emotions, and will are focussed on and controlled by God. As you look through scripture, you wll see believers and unbeleivers filled with the Spirit including Caiaphas who, speaking by the Spirit as head of Israel, said, "One must die so the nation may live."

I believe that those who believe on Christ are "filled" with the Spirit whereby they repent and receive Him. This might be somewhat how the "effectual call" works. I'm not particularly convinced with Calvin's "mystical" explanation that any such thing happens on account of "election" and before "hearing" is my issue with them.

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

First is from context. Nicodemus asked whether a man could crawl back into his mother's womb and be born again. Second, new believers are called "babes in Christ" needing the "milk of the word." Third -- this will interest you re: your question below -- the earth is said to be in "travail;" can is bring forth in one day Isa 66:8 "for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." This, as you doubtless know, is a prophectic passage regarding Israel in the MK.

No disagreement on the first point.

On the second, that is no accurate. If we look at I Cor 3 we see no mention of their being 'new Christians'. Instead, as defined by the context, 'babes in Christ' are those who have not grown to be 'spiritual men' but remain carnal. So, as long as you remain a carnal Christian, you are a 'babe in Christ' regardless of how long you have been a Christian. The contrast is not between new and old Christians but between spritual men and carnal men - the former can accept deeper truths of the spirit, while the latter requires milk and simple truths still.

As to your third point, I don't see how it relates to the question.

So, as I see it, your support for the metaphor is depending on a misreading of I Cor 3:1 by labelling new Christians as 'babes in Christ'.

Any other supports for extending the metaphor in the way you have done?

The key to all faith in all the Bible is a right relationship with God -- Agreed? That relationship is called "justification" and in the OT, they thought it was by the blood of animals every year that it was renewed. I mean, we're talking Adam to Jesus. They figured the relationship would all work out when Messiah came, resurrected them, and just washed away their sins forever!

I think I agree...however you are taking this further and arguing that faith comes after/with justification. Yet Scripture says that justification is by faith, never that faith is by justification.

The other feature of this justification is that it was God's work in the soul of man then and now. In the soul/conscience is our God and self awareness. As soon as man sins, he has to think about God. Mostly man will go on doing whatever he wants and hardening and searing his own soul/conscience. Justification is turning from self to God -- "acknowledge Him in all thy ways and He shall direct your paths" -- in as simple a fashion as is suggested in Rom 1:21, glorify Him and be thankful is the beginning. Or "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Here I definitely disagree. Justification is not man turning from self to God. There is no passage which says any such thing about justification. Justification is having a right standing before God. Yes, one must turn from self to God (ie. faith) to be justified, but that turning is not justification.

Mostly I find that Calvinists get faith and belief confused. Belief is trust the word of promise -- faith is receiving the evidence of that promise (Holy Spirit in our case). Before faith and salvation, there comes the work of the Holy Spirit in every man upon the manifestation of God to him. As I said, the manifestation of God (usually by the Word today) demands that we make a choice -- believe or not believe -- a response. If we choose to obey God's word and turn/repent of self, God GIVES faith and salvation. But it's a covenant transaction, dw. And performance is not only on God's part.

Calvinist, nothing. The vast majority of the Christian world sees belief and faith as being essentially synonomous. If they create distinctions between the two, they definitely don't create them in the way you do. But that is really beside the point. The point is what Scripture says.

Scripture says that salvation is through faith and justification is by faith. Logically therefore, faith must precede both of these things. Talk to me about my Cist confusion all you want, I am depending on what Scripture says. Deal with that instead.

This is where Calvinists are confused by faith vs belief, though. Can you see that we are GIVEN faith but we are not given belief? In fact, we can even believe in vain (1Cor 15:3) if we do not repent and receive Christ. Calvinism, since it assumes faith is given by God's will alone, assumes its antecedents -- belief and repentance -- because, after all, "it is all of God." Quite often faith is presumed to be given at infant baptism or through confirmation.

This doesn't address my question, so let me repeat it. Several verses describe salvation as being through faith. Here are a couple:
2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Peter says that salvation is the end result of faith:
1 Peter 1:9
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

In fact, Christ Himself says that one is saved by faith:
Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 18:42
And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee

Now please don't tell me how I am confused about belief and faith. Please deal with the Scripture which indicates the opposite of what you are arguing - that faith precedes salvation and salvation is through belief.

Peter was "filled" with the Spirit. Do you know the difference between "filled" and "indwelt?" Jesus asked the disciples to receive the Spirit indwelling -- He was doing as He saw His Father to to Adam, right?

I understand the difference yes. But you yourself were arguing that the wisdom of God could be understood only by those who are indwelt with the Spirit. I point out that the example of Peter shows that this is not necessarily true. So, can you clarify what you meant to argue in I Cor 2?

 

[skypair]

So, as I see it, your support for the metaphor is depending on a misreading of I Cor 3:1 by labelling new Christians as 'babes in Christ'.

So by a similar metaphor, we are not "espoused" to Christ, His "bride?"

I think I agree...however you are taking this further and arguing that faith comes after/with justification. Yet Scripture says that justification is by faith, never that faith is by justification.

No, faith and justification ("righteousness of God") are given by God at the same time. It is new birth that did (OT) and could (NT) come after faith (Acts 19).

Here I definitely disagree. Justification is not man turning from self to God.

Here's the pattern:

Hear -- believe -- repent (test of belief) -- faith unto justification -/- regeneratoin/sanctification

Calvinist, nothing. The vast majority of the Christian world sees belief and faith as being essentially synonomous.

Well, they're not. God gives ro witholds faith based upon a "belief test."

skypair (gotta go) :wavey: