Faith? Where does it come from?

[SovereignGrace]

Please don't misrepresent what I said.Of course the sinner submits to God. That is what regeneration does. It makes the sinner able to do so, to believe, repent, and submit. And nobody has ever said anyone is drawn against his will. That is a deliberate falsehood. He does not force us to go. He makes us willing to go.Nobody has accused God of being a tyrant. Nobody has accused God of contradicting Himself. 1 Timothy 2:4 "who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth." The Greek word translated "desires" (θελει) is not the normal word used to express God's decretal will but rather a preference. We must understand there is a difference between God's desire and His eternal salvific purpose which transcends His desire.

God does not want men to sin and thus incur His eternal wrath. He would rather they live holy and obedient lives. He hates the consequence of that sin. Yet God, for His own glory, and according to His eternal will, chose to endure "vessels . . . prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will. (Romans 9:22) According to His eternal purpose He chose only the elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest leaving them in the consequences of their sin. God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires.
Except the fallen soul will always choose rebellion against God and will never, in fact cannot, chose obedience to Him.When the word of God and the gospel is preached the Holy Spirit, using the means of gospel preaching, regenerates the dead soul, removes the old cold, dead heart of stone, and replaces it with a living, believing heart of flesh which then opens and believes on Jesus as their Lord and Savior.No "Calvinist" (I am not a Calvinist. I am a Particular Baptist) believes mankind has no responsibility to believe and accept the gospel. Straw man argument. Yes, it is there in the bible. The unsaved man is the enemy of God, and cannot understand nor accept the things of God. There is none righteous, no not one. There is none that seeks after God.

Salvation is all of God and none of you.

Just as everyone in this thread believes.
The reason you can't reconcile them is that you have assumed a dichotomy where none exists. Man is responsible for his sin and the consequences thereof. God is Sovereign and elects and predestinates whom He will according to His own good will. Nothing to reconcile. God is in charge.

 

[TCassidy]

More to the point it shows that you need to look in the dictionary and find out what the real definition of faith is.

To try to force a secular definition of faith into the theological context of soteriology is beyond belief.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you have any understanding at all of what Peter was saying? Peter here warns that the false teachers deny the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ. Their basic error is that they refuse to submit their lives to the rule of Christ. Just as the human master over a household bought slaves and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign (Deuteronomy 32:5-6). This can be applied to the false teachers who had refused to submit to the authority of God even while claiming to be Christians. Peter mocks their claim by writing of their coming damnation. The passage describes the sinful character of the false teachers who claim Christ but deny His Sovereign Lordship over their lives.

To try to apply that to those of us who believe in the absolute Sovereign Lordship of Christ in salvation is such a vile attack on fellow believers that it merits severe consequences as it is in direct violation of the Baptist Board rules.

 

[Iconoclast]

No one, except a few of your cheer-leaders agree with ad hominems, false accusations, and derogatory posts. Absolutely no one. You live in a dream world.

Many refer to it as the Kingdom of God......oh I forgot....Satan rules your world.

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you have any understanding at all of what Peter was saying? Peter here warns that the false teachers deny the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ. Their basic error is that they refuse to submit their lives to the rule of Christ. Just as the human master over a household bought slaves and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign (Deuteronomy 32:5-6). This can be applied to the false teachers who had refused to submit to the authority of God even while claiming to be Christians. Peter mocks their claim by writing of their coming damnation. The passage describes the sinful character of the false teachers who claim Christ but deny His Sovereign Lordship over their lives.

To try to apply that to those of us who believe in the absolute Sovereign Lordship of Christ in salvation is such a vile attack on fellow believers that it merits severe consequences as it is in direct violation of the Baptist Board rules.

He is unfit to be a moderator. ....he repeats these kind of posts daily.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Show me just one example in scripture where it is clear and explicit that God gave man the faith to believe and then the man became regenerated, and then he became saved.

But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.[Job 32:8]

Who gives this understanding? God or man?

Then there's John 6:29, Romans 12:3, Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:29, just to name a few.

There is no example.

I've shown you five, Monsieur.

Folks here try to use Cornelius.. But that doesn't work. It works against them. Why?

Acts is a toughie to use doctrinally. The CoC use 2:38 to build their whole doctrine upon. People were being raised from the dead, people instantaenously healed, people still talking with angels and Christ in dreams, Paul speaking directly to Christ, things not going on today. So I try to shy away from using that book. I will use it occasionally, but not as a 'nail in the coffin'.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You have just shut multitudes out, by the way, for not everyone has heard the glorious gospel of Christ.

--In order to be born again or regenerated Cornelius had to hear the Word of God, that is the gospel. He had not heard that message until Peter got there even though God had spoken to them.
BTW, here is a good example of a dead man speaking to God, praying to God. So much for that theory.

God spoke with Cain and Satan. We can't speak to the dead in sins soul of man(but God can and does), just the ears of the dead bones, fleshly frame. Unless God unplugs their ears, does a heart transplant, open their eyes...all this via regeneration of His Spirit, they'll never truly understand the gospel. But God speaking to Cornelius is not too hard for Him.

And yet, he was not born again until he heard the gospel. That is what the scriptures here teach.
The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to bring a person both regeneration and salvation.
There is no other way.
But the Calvinist has it backwards.

I will leave you with this snippet from Adam Clarke's commentary from Acts 10:2...

One that feared God - Φοβουμενος τον Θεον, One who was acquainted with the true God, by means of his word and laws; who respected these laws, and would not dare to offend his Maker and his Judge. This is necessarily implied in the fear of God.

So according to one of your constituents, he stated Cornelius had heard God's words. So he knew about God and God had regenerated him to hear and understand and believe Peter's word preached.

 

[Internet Theologian]

More to the point it shows that you need to look in the dictionary and find out what the real definition of faith is. It is not this tangible mystical essence that you think God gives the unregenerate so that they are able to be saved. Where do you come up with these things? The New Age Movement. It isn't the Bible.

Why would he need to look in a dictionary to find the alleged 'real' definition of faith when he has already garnered the true definition from the Holy Spirit and Word of God? You, on the other hand haven't found the true definition of much let alone that of genuine faith. I will tell you this, like speaking to a brick wall, you will not find that definition in a dictionary.

The bottom line is you hold to a man-centric carnal definition of faith that is quite mystical in nature. It has nothing to do with the biblical definition whatsoever. Maybe you're simply Sola Finney and not Sola Scriptura, eh?

 

[Internet Theologian]

On the contrary. You have never provided any scripture to show that God gives faith to the unregenerate.
No one here has. It is a fact: God doesn't give spiritual gifts or his fruit to the ungodly. Why people here think that is beyond me.

I can only provide Scriptural truth, but even then your innate faith refuses to see it and believe it.

 

[DHK]

Exactly the opposite of "neither can he know them" and "receives not the things of the spirit of God." The enemy of God can never be "fully persuaded" while still in his lost state.

Scripture doesn't contradict itself. But here you have pitted one scripture against another so making the Bible contradict itself.
It is very simple. Just as Abraham said. Faith is: being fully persuaded what one has said they will do.
I am fully persuaded that when my wife says she will do something then she will accomplish that task. She will keep her word. Does she ever fail. At times. After all she is only human. Humans fail.

However God never fails. God's promises never fail.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Unlike man, He is perfect and never reneges on his promises.
Also, it is God that saves, not my wife or yours.
Thus, in salvation, the object of our faith needs to be Christ and his saving work.
Faith always has an object.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Why would he need to look in a dictionary to find the alleged 'real' definition of faith when he has already garnered the true definition from the Holy Spirit and Word of God? You, on the other hand haven't found the true definition of much let alone that of genuine faith. I will tell you this, like speaking to a brick wall, you will not find that definition in a dictionary.

The bottom line is you hold to a man-centric carnal definition of faith that is quite mystical in nature. It has nothing to do with the biblical definition whatsoever. Maybe you're simply Sola Finney and not Sola Scriptura, eh?

Definition of faith, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Also, unlike the "dictionary" or common definition of faith, Biblical faith is a known certainty in the promises of God, "20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform." (Romans 4:20-21).

It is not innate in man to be certain of things that cannot be proven by human logic, science., or looking at past seen history to predict future behavior (as Brother DHK used in his analogy of a man having faith in his wife coming through based on her previous predictable behavior that he has seen with his visible eyes. This comparison is not analogous.).

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Faith is: being fully persuaded what one has said they will do.
I am fully persuaded that when my wife says she will do something then she will accomplish that task. She will keep her word. Does she ever fail. At times. After all she is only human. Humans fail.

See my post just before this one (post # 350) to Brother InternetThelogian why your comparison of a husband having faith in his wife is not analogous to Biblical faith

 

[DHK]

Do you have any understanding at all of what Peter was saying? Peter here warns that the false teachers deny the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ. Their basic error is that they refuse to submit their lives to the rule of Christ. Just as the human master over a household bought slaves and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign (Deuteronomy 32:5-6). This can be applied to the false teachers who had refused to submit to the authority of God even while claiming to be Christians. Peter mocks their claim by writing of their coming damnation. The passage describes the sinful character of the false teachers who claim Christ but deny His Sovereign Lordship over their lives.

To try to apply that to those of us who believe in the absolute Sovereign Lordship of Christ in salvation is such a vile attack on fellow believers that it merits severe consequences as it is in direct violation of the Baptist Board rules.

I don't believe an honest exposition of any verse is against the BB rules.
I don't believe your interpretation is quite correct either.
It is true that these were false teachers. But what were they denying? They were denying that they were purchased by the Lord, the one that paid for them. IOW, they deny that Christ died for their sins.

Of course you would revert back to your default position that this interpretation is wrong because Christ could not have died for their sins in the first place because of a preconceived theology that says that Christ only died for the sins of the elect. Thus any other interpretation must be wrong. You can't look at the verse with objective eyes even though the sense of it is so very obvious.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

They denied the Lord that bought or purchased them. The subject is about purchasing or redemption.

This is not a novel interpretation.
Here is the Bible Knowledge Commentary on this verse:

The focus of their heresies was the sovereign Lord, Christ, whom they denied (cf. Jud_1:4). This in turn led to their own spiritual destruction or ruin (apōleian; cf. 2Pe_2:3; 2Pe_3:16), which will be swift (tachinēn, “sudden”; cf. tachinē [“soon”] in 2Pe_1:14). How can these false teachers, who were said to be among the people, and whom the Lord had bought (agorasanta, “redeem”), end up in everlasting destruction? Several suggestions have been offered: (1) They were saved but lost their salvation. But this contradicts many other Scriptures (e.g., Joh_3:16; Joh_5:24; Joh_10:28-29). (2) “Bought” means the Lord created them, not that He saved them. But this stretches the meaning of agorazō (“redeem”). (3) The false prophets merely said they were “bought” by Christ. This, however, seems to read into the verse. (4) They were “redeemed” in the sense that Christ paid the redemptive price for their salvation, but they did not apply it to themselves and so were not saved. Christ’s death is “sufficient” for all (1Ti_2:6; Heb_2:9; 1Jn_2:2), but is “efficient” only for those who believe. This is a strong argument for unlimited atonement (the view that Christ died for everyone) and against limited atonement (the view that Christ died only for those whom He would later save).

 

[DHK]

To try to force a secular definition of faith into the theological context of soteriology is beyond belief.

Why? You do it with most other words. In fact with many words you go back to the etymology, break down the word, etc. But context is often the most important factor.
Faith is faith, as defined by a dictionary.
What causes faith to be any different is simply its object. If I put my faith in Jesus Christ, I will be saved. If not, I will be damned.

Is faith defined by your emotions? You say you had supernatural faith when you believed. How do you know? What was different? Did you have supernatural powers as well? What was different about your faith at salvation than at any other period in your life, either before or after salvation? How can you tell or describe to others that it was supernatural faith?

 

[DHK]

Many refer to it as the Kingdom of God......oh I forgot....Satan rules your world.

1. The Kingdom hasn't come yet. Therefore it is your dream world.
2. It is not my world. Your unbelief in 2Cor.4:4 is astounding, where Paul plainly states that Satan is the god of this world.
I don't own the world. I don't rule it. I am not even a citizen here. I am a stranger and a pilgrim just passing through on a journey to a land where I do possess a citizenship (Phil.3:20).
--The devil can have what is his. You can share in it if you wish.

 

[DHK]

But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.[Job 32:8]

Who gives this understanding? God or man?

Then there's John 6:29, Romans 12:3, Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:29, just to name a few.

I've shown you five, Monsieur.

You haven't shown me any. Job 32:8 does not refer to faith at all. God gives to the believer wisdom. So? It says nothing about giving faith to the unregenerate. Neither do any of the other verses you have quoted.

Acts is a toughie to use doctrinally. The CoC use 2:38 to build their whole doctrine upon. People were being raised from the dead, people instantaenously healed, people still talking with angels and Christ in dreams, Paul speaking directly to Christ, things not going on today. So I try to shy away from using that book. I will use it occasionally, but not as a 'nail in the coffin'.

Of course the example of Cornelius is tough. It proves the opposite of what you believe. So does every other example in all the gospels as well as Acts. There is no example in these first five books that harmonize with your theology. In fact the exact opposite is what is true.
Over and over again, Jesus said:
"according to your faith, so be it."
He never referred to "his faith." He never healed "according to his faith," but always according to either their faith," or his power, as in the case of Lazarus which was to demonstrate his deity. In all of these healings it is obvious that faith was innate. It is also obvious that Christ was the object of their faith.
1. Sometimes Christ was the object of their faith only as a healer and they were not saved.
2. Sometimes Christ also became the object of their faith as Lord and Savior and they were also saved.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You have just shut multitudes out, by the way, for not everyone has heard the glorious gospel of Christ.

You cannot say with certainty that everyone does not have some opportunity some time to hear the gospel. I would leave such speculation in the hand of God.

God spoke with Cain and Satan. We can't speak to the dead in sins soul of man(but God can and does), just the ears of the dead bones, fleshly frame. Unless God unplugs their ears, does a heart transplant, open their eyes...all this via regeneration of His Spirit, they'll never truly understand the gospel. But God speaking to Cornelius is not too hard for Him.

So you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say man cannot speak to God. OTOH you say it is possible, for all things are possible with God. God did it with Cain, with Adam, with Cornelius. God obviously can do it for others.

I will leave you with this snippet from Adam Clarke's commentary from Acts 10:2...

So according to one of your constituents, he stated Cornelius had heard God's words. So he knew about God and God had regenerated him to hear and understand and believe Peter's word preached.

Certainly he knew about God in the false religion of Judaism, just as I knew about God in the false religion of the RCC. Neither he nor I was regenerated. How is that even gospel. It is impossible. He did not hear the gospel until four days later, after the Lord spoke to him, when Peter came and preached the gospel to him. Without the gospel no man can be regenerated. That is basic theology.

 

[DHK]

Why would he need to look in a dictionary to find the alleged 'real' definition of faith when he has already garnered the true definition from the Holy Spirit and Word of God? You, on the other hand haven't found the true definition of much let alone that of genuine faith. I will tell you this, like speaking to a brick wall, you will not find that definition in a dictionary.

The bottom line is you hold to a man-centric carnal definition of faith that is quite mystical in nature. It has nothing to do with the biblical definition whatsoever. Maybe you're simply Sola Finney and not Sola Scriptura, eh?

You have your opinions. You can keep them. Your ad hominems simply demonstrate your lack of ability to debate and perhaps your Biblical illiteracy since you don't refer to it.

 

[DHK]

I can only provide Scriptural truth, but even then your innate faith refuses to see it and believe it.

But you don't provide scripture as is demonstrated in this and your previous post. You only provide insults. And in the previous post I gave you the reasons why.

 

[DHK]

See my post just before this one (post # 350) to Brother InternetThelogian why your comparison of a husband having faith in his wife is not analogous to Biblical faith

Faith in a wife, if it fails, is because humanity isn't perfect. The nature of faith (confidence, trust) is the same.
Faith in God will not fail, because God is the object of that faith and God never fails. Faith is still confidence or trust in the word of another, just as Paul describes Abraham's faith.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Faith in a wife, if it fails, is because humanity isn't perfect. The nature of faith (confidence, trust) is the same.
Faith in God will not fail, because God is the object of that faith and God never fails. Faith is still confidence or trust in the word of another, just as Paul describes Abraham's faith.

Brother,

The wife example you gave to support your contention that Biblical faith is innate is not analogous to Biblical faith because with a wife you can base your faith on her past behavior you have visibly seen with your eyes (one of your five senses) to have confidence and be persuaded of her future behavior, but with the things of God you cannot rely on your five senses, or visible seen past history (like the wife example), or science to have faith in His promises, this is why Biblical faith is not innate. Can you name one worldly physical thing one has full confidence and assurance in in this world without relying on their five senses, or visible seen past performance, or science?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You cannot say with certainty that everyone does not have some opportunity some time to hear the gospel. I would leave such speculation in the hand of God.

Do you honestly believe this? This contradicts historical record and fact. You believe history supports all nations, kindred, tribes and tongues after the time of Christ's ascension actually may have heard the gospel? Ok then, how did the American Indians hear the gospel around AD 55 or so (please provide historical citation in your reply other than the Book of Mormon LOL).