Faith Precedes Regeneration - Note What Spurgeon Said

[Martin Marprelate]

Again Repentance and Faith aren't ever preached as to their source, God given.

Really? They are by me; not in every sermon, of course, but where I think it's helpful.
But I would not preach lies as being God-given, though if He is the author of sin they surely must be. But the Bible says that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). If God taught the devil to lie, or forced him to do so, then God is more guilty than Satan. I think you really need to think your argument through.

 

[KenH]

If God taught the devil to lie, or forced him to do so, then God is more guilty than Satan. I think you really need to think your argument through.

You have no basis to say that God "is more guilty than Satan". That statement is a really deep lack of understanding of God as He is described in the Bible. I can sympathize as I used to be ignorant of God as my totally sovereign Creator as well.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"God's will determines all the choices and circumstances of his creatures, so that nothing is up to man's "free will." In fact, because God is completely sovereign, man has no free will:

You, or this man Cheung, underestimate God. Yes, God determines all things, but He does so in such a way that it does not negate man's will (c.f. Psalms 76:10). This is shown in various places in the Bible, but particularly in Genesis 50:20 and Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28. God did not force, or even tempt (James 1:13-14) Joseph's brothers to sell him, nor Herod, Pilate & Co to kill our Lord, but their free will accomplished exactly what was God had decided beforehand for His own high purposes. This is the teaching of the WCF and the 1689 Confession. How does He do it? I don't know, but God is a whole lot more clever than you, I or Cheung (Isaiah 55:8-9.
As a new Calvinist, I spent a bit of time reading some of Gordon H. Clark's works. He was a determinist like Cheung, but I didn't find any answers from him. I would advise you to read the Puritans like Owen or Thomas Goodwin, and to study the 1689 Confession, perhaps with Sam Waldron's commentary on it.

 

[KenH]

You, or this man Cheung, underestimate God.

You, sir, overestimate and have much too high regard for man, the creature.

 

[KenH]

nor Herod, Pilate & Co to kill our Lord

Your statement is contradicted by the Bible: Acts 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

(emphasis mine)

 

[DaveXR650]

I can confidently proclaim "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" because the process is still the same.
1) God chooses to make a person alive by grace alone. (That is the cause.)
2) God gives faith as a gift.
3) The person believes and indeed s/he is saved.

There is no contradiction.

How about you open your Bible instead of spending all your time trying to interpret the past saints. What you are doing is the same thing the Roman Catholic church does. It no longer reads God's word, but instead goes to church decisions and traditions to determine it's doctrine. You're traveling that same path and are not willing to wrestle with scripture. MrW (aka Sliverhair) is wrong.

The first part is correct and it is exactly the point I was making in that post. The process is still the same. And I was about ready to hit the agree button but then I read the second part. I don't recall but I don't think you are one of the guys who have problems with Spurgeon.

But don't you realize that we are all looking at the same scripture passages and coming up with different interpretations? The we only use scripture argument is exactly what the non-Cals on here say to Calvinists. I mean, we're the ones who interpret every passage through a theological system. And frankly, there is a level at which you should do this. But what you do is that somehow you have decided you are the defender of the faith and therefore the judge of what scriptures can be used where.

It is extremely important to look up what past saints said when dealing with controversial issues. Otherwise, you will misuse scripture and look ridiculous. Why in the world would anyone care about XR's private interpretation of a passage of scripture when we have readily available the interpretation of guys like John Owen. Earlier we got into some discussion of God's sovereignty and how it relates to determinism. R.C. Sproul said he studied for years in this and never came up with conclusions that satisfied him completely. Yet you think you can throw a couple of verses around, I guess with the idea that no one else has ever noticed them, and that concludes the argument. Next subject.

 

[KenH]

This is the teaching of the WCF and the 1689 Confession.

Aren't those Reformed/Calvinist documents? I am neither Reformed nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by the sovereign free grace of God.

 

[Brightfame52]

Really? They are by me; not in every sermon, of course, but where I think it's helpful.
But I would not preach lies as being God-given, though if He is the author of sin they surely must be. But the Bible says that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). If God taught the devil to lie, or forced him to do so, then God is more guilty than Satan. I think you really need to think your argument through.

I dont know what you talking about now. Both Faith and Repentance are by and through Jesus Christ, and should be preached consistently because its the Truth. And they are given when regenerated, they are part of the New Life Christ gives when He saves His People.

 

[DaveXR650]

Aren't those Reformed/Calvinist documents? I am neither Reformed nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by the sovereign free grace of God.

@KenH . Seriously, I would be very careful with this idea that God is the actual author of sin in the way that Cheung writes about it. Yes, those are reformed and Calvinist documents but if they are true then the truth applies to you whether you sign on to them or not. And like I was telling Austin, if a lot of past saints of high stature and known Godliness interpret scripture a certain way then that is what you call a "clue" that maybe you need to double-check your conclusion. The WCF, all the Puritans, and R.C. Sproul all adamantly say God is not the direct cause of sin. I don't think supralapsarians would say that either. This is not an area I care about personally because it is so theoretical that frankly I think it is getting to the limits of my cognitive abilities. But you seem like a nice guy and if Cheung is wrong in this approach it could be blasphemous and a slander to God. I would look into that aspect further.

 

[AustinC]

The first part is correct and it is exactly the point I was making in that post. The process is still the same. And I was about ready to hit the agree button but then I read the second part. I don't recall but I don't think you are one of the guys who have problems with Spurgeon.

But don't you realize that we are all looking at the same scripture passages and coming up with different interpretations? The we only use scripture argument is exactly what the non-Cals on here say to Calvinists. I mean, we're the ones who interpret every passage through a theological system. And frankly, there is a level at which you should do this. But what you do is that somehow you have decided you are the defender of the faith and therefore the judge of what scriptures can be used where.

It is extremely important to look up what past saints said when dealing with controversial issues. Otherwise, you will misuse scripture and look ridiculous. Why in the world would anyone care about XR's private interpretation of a passage of scripture when we have readily available the interpretation of guys like John Owen. Earlier we got into some discussion of God's sovereignty and how it relates to determinism. R.C. Sproul said he studied for years in this and never came up with conclusions that satisfied him completely. Yet you think you can throw a couple of verses around, I guess with the idea that no one else has ever noticed them, and that concludes the argument. Next subject.

Here's where we differ.
1) Read and observe scripture.
2) Ask questions and answer them (interpret scripture).
3) Review your interpretation against past saints.
4) Apply

You seem to skip 1and 2 while going directly to 3. That is the methodology of the RCC and I see you doing similarly.

 

[DaveXR650]

As a new Calvinist, I spent a bit of time reading some of Gordon H. Clark's works. He was a determinist like Cheung, but I didn't find any answers from him. I would advise you to read the Puritans like Owen or Thomas Goodwin, and to study the 1689 Confession, perhaps with Sam Waldron's commentary on it.

We had a Clarkian attend our church for a while. He had an IQ of about 160. He had a low opinion of Jonathan Edwards and we used to get into heated arguments about saving faith. The one thing he taught me was not to get into an argument with someone with an IQ of 160. Just a side note as I don't want this thread to get too heated and make people say things they don't really mean.

 

[DaveXR650]

Here's where we differ.
1) Read and observe scripture.
2) Ask questions and answer them (interpret scripture).
3) Review your interpretation against past saints.
4) Apply

You seem to skip 1and 2 while going directly to 3. That is the methodology of the RCC and I see you doing similarly.

That's fair enough and does not offend me. I really do 1 and 2 but in posting it just seems that for brevities sake I do skip to 3. I have been criticized for too long posts in the past. Plus, I read a lot of Puritans and they do go on and on and on. The RCC gives an authority to their guys that I don't. If you think a Puritan's take on something is wrong I promise not to pronounce anathema.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 2 am EST (Mon) / 11 pm PST (Sun)

 

[KenH]

Seriously, I would be very careful with this idea that God is the actual author of sin in the way that Cheung writes about it.

@DaveXT650 Seriously, I would be very careful with the idea that God is nothing but maybe a cut above the gods of Greek mythology.

Vincent Cheung, and myself for that matter, is saying nothing other than what God has said in His Word:

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

Joshua 11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Psalm 105:25 He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtly with his servants.

Proverbs 20:24 Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Romans 9:15-24 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[KenH]

I don't think supralapsarians would say that either.

"God's absolute sovereignty works itself in our lives in manners such as causing us to stumble when we become exalted in our victories over certain sins thinking we have mastered those sins forever. We begin to forget the power of God. God in His infinite and penetrating love seizes the pride and scourges every son whom He receives. Through sin God reminds the Christian of the weakness that left them pale in the vice of death.

The true Christian is brought to a place of a deep and gripping fear of God that is in awe of Him and delights in His almighty power. The true Christian ascribes infinite value to each and every attribute of God. The true Christian falls upon the mercy seat of Christ and is broken but not crushed to powder. The true Christian cries "Abba, Father" as they tremble at their inability to please Him who has the power to throw men into eternal punishment yet will never touch the souls of His elect with even an ember of His wrath. For God's blessed Son has carried the eternal weight of their guilt."

- by Ward Fenley - rest at Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications - Ward Fenley (pristinegrace.org)

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXT650 Seriously, I would be very careful with the idea that God is nothing but maybe a cut above the gods of Greek mythology.

I guess I could toss that right back at ya because the main problem with the Greek gods was that they were in no way superior to humans in virtue or morality, just raw power. That is how you are describing God.

Briefly, the problem with the verses you use are as follows:
Toss everything out from Job. Job's problems are specifically said to be the result of Satan, which God has allowed or permitted to do his evil deeds. You are specifically told that God didn't do theses things directly. Also, you have a separation between calamity and physical disaster, which God is in sovereign control of which is directly placed opposite to Job's reaction and his friends commentary which was judged by God with NO mention there if Him causing their sin.
Toss Ecclesiastes because it is about knowledge "under the sun" and is mostly about the injustice, calamity and futility that natural man observes. You have no warrant to use those verses like you are.
Isaiah 45:7 seems to be a favorite but evil is put opposite peace and that verse does not suggest God causes moral evil but can bring down empires. God is talking through the prophet to Cyrus, who would understand that message, not teaching disciples.
The other verses show how God can use men's evil bent to accomplish his purposes in specific cases. The Bible does not say that is what is happening in every single case everywhere, for all time, nor does it say that God ever makes sinners sin beyond what they already have the tendency to do. In other words Joseph's brothers hated them without God causing it. But the specific thing they ended up doing God used to get Joseph to Egypt at a time when he could later save those very brothers. That is COMPLETELY different from Cheung's take on this and I guess yours.

 

[KenH]

The other verses show how God can use men's evil bent to accomplish his purposes in specific cases. The Bible does not say that is what is happening in every single case everywhere

Which I think is the crux of our disagreement. You think God is, well, sometimes sovereign, and, well, sometimes not sovereign. My stance is:

God is sovereign...all the time.

 

[KenH]

In other words Joseph's brothers hated them without God causing it.

We know from the Bible that it was necessary that Joseph end up in Egypt and end up second to Pharoah. Sounds like you think that God is just a Master Chess Player - man makes a move, God makes a move, man makes a move, God makes a move. In your thinking you seem to believe that is God is merely reactive to the whims of His own creation.

 

[AustinC]

I guess I could toss that right back at ya because the main problem with the Greek gods was that they were in no way superior to humans in virtue or morality, just raw power. That is how you are describing God.

Briefly, the problem with the verses you use are as follows:
Toss everything out from Job. Job's problems are specifically said to be the result of Satan, which God has allowed or permitted to do his evil deeds.

Whoa!
What does Job actually tell us?
Who initiates the conflict with Job?
*Job 1:8-12*
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

*Job 2:2-6*
And the Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

*Job 42:10-11*
And the Lord restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.

Satan did as God directed.

 

[DaveXR650]

Which I think is the crux of our disagreement. You think God is, well, sometimes sovereign, and, well, sometimes not sovereign. My stance is:

God is sovereign...all the time.

Always sovereign. Yes. But no warrant from scripture for the direct causative determinism at all times that you believe in. The master chess player you mention would be what a Molinist would be I think. They think that if a person has a truly free will God cannot possibly know what the person will do in the future. Remember, I believe that everything that happens God has given permission to happen and free will is not autonomous. But you, and Cheung, are making God the direct and primary cause of everything that happens. Do you not see the difference between allowing something sinful and evil to take place and doing it yourself?