This is why reformed folks are so often errant. They misunderstand context far too often.
-
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!
Gift
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Again spiritual death means separated from God not total inability.
romans 6:23 says eternal life is a gift.
A gift is something offered by one party to another who did nothing to earn it. To possess the gift it must be received ... to dispossess, the gift must be rejected.
There's nothing casual about this. accept or reject.
To characterize receiving the gift as a work is misguided, too. We are told that every man has been given the measure of faith to believe and by faith you are saved through grace, that not of yourselves lest anyone should boast.
receiving a gift isn't like an act prohibited on Shabbat. It's simply receiving ... with gratitude ... because it wasn't earned. Someone else paid for it.
A gift is something offered by one party to another who did nothing to earn it. To possess the gift it must be received ... to dispossess, the gift must be rejected.
There's nothing casual about this. accept or reject.
To characterize receiving the gift as a work is misguided, too. We are told that every man has been given the measure of faith to believe and by faith you are saved through grace, that not of yourselves lest anyone should boast.
receiving a gift isn't like an act prohibited on Shabbat. It's simply receiving ... with gratitude ... because it wasn't earned. Someone else paid for it.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Yes, I see that a lot on this site. It might come from this:
"if faith be the instrumental cause of our justification, it is either
the instrument of God, or the instrument of believers
themselves. That it is not the instrument of God is plain, in
that it is a duty which he prescribes to us: it is an act of our
own; and it is we that believe, not God; nor can any act of
ours be the instrument of his work. And if it be our instrument
seeing an efficiency is ascribed unto it, then we are the
efficient causes of our own justification in some sense,and
may be said to justify ourselves; which is derogatory to the
grace of God and the blood of Christ." John Owen
Owen then goes on to say that he thinks that type of logic is faulty and explains in great detail, as he does everything. I think it is interesting that John Owen, probably the Dean of Puritan high Calvinists also says that using language of "to receive Christ" is fine and even to say that faith is a "condition" of justification is OK. He also says faith is necessary for the atonement to be applied to a believer - which goes directly against some of the philosophical gyrations of some on here.
This is not a problem exclusive to the reformed, but infests all in some manner and is often undiagnosed yet highly disputed by all dwelling in denial.
How much ability does an unbeliever have in being separated from God?
If one accepts the Scriptures concerning the unbeliever being alien and an enemy combatant of that which is of the Spirit of God then can there be “spiritual ability” and some slight alignment with God?
see all of this ignores what scripture actually says about where faith comes from. The premise of your question is faulty. So I ask you what specifically does scripture say about where faith comes from?
by the way I have never argued for any amount of ability. I only present what scripture says is the actual source of faith.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Actually, that's not accurate brother.
You were not born (you subbed "received" for "born" in your statement)...of the will of the flesh but receiving was of your own free will.
The verse is that the new birth is: A) not a fleshy birth (since it is a spiritual one) and B) that one cannot will the new birth into existence, that it's not man's idea or work.
Here's the OT illustration of that:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (as Ishmael), nor of the will of man (it was Sarai’s idea), but of God (as Isaac).
The spiritual birth itself is the work of God. The will to receive that birth comes of the man, just like Abraham had to believe about Isaac (a figure of Christ) before Isaac could be begotten.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I don't think those passages prove that at all. Ephesians 2:8-9 is the best according to the article itself and I do think the grammatical explanation is good but notice that faith and only faith is put separate. Because it and it alone is something that Jonathan Edwards said is unique in that it is the actual linking of Christ to the believer and without it you have no justification. A lot of the other arguments in that article come from taking passages that refer to the gift of faith for use in ministry, not saving faith. Read Robert Trail's Justification Vindicated or Sibbes "The Bruised Reed". Saving faith does not depend on being strong but on having the right object. But there is a gift of faith that is given for service, courage under persecution etc. which some are gifted with.
And of course what I quoted from John Owen. He also points out that reformed theologians were commonly saying faith comes before justification and he even allowed them to say faith was a "condition" for justification if all you mean is that it is essential and not that there is some kind of meritorious aspect.
It is very hard to keep up with everything these guys said but my question to you is when in history did this meticulous order of salvation become an important point. I honestly don't know
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Good point. Will try to remember that.
Sadly, sometimes we must resort to philosophical refutations since the Calvinist argument is, ultimately, merely philosophy, albeit shrouded in scriptures whose tenor sounds like it supports the system.
The question of the source of faith must find resolve in Romans 10 where Paul is showing how Israel missed because of thinking that intellect was good enough:
14How then shall they call on Him whom they have not believed (no faith, no trust)? And how shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear apart from preaching? 15And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it has been written: “How beautiful are the feet of those proclaiming good news of good things!”
16But not all heeded the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17So faith (belief, trust, confidence) is from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Therefore, if the Israeli, who were given the very care of the oracles of God did not innately believe (have faith) then how much less those who had no such prior possession from God. 16But not all heeded the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17So faith (belief, trust, confidence) is from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
The question of the thread is concerning the receiving of the gift.
Does not the Scriptures state that Christ (the "light") enlightens every person? John 1:9
However, just as Romans 10 states that "they did not submit to the righteousness of God" and just as John 1:10, 11 states the people turned from the light, a rebellion and rejection that takes place places humankind in darkness EXCEPT those that receive the light (not as a gift that needs to be taken up, but as one abides in the light. Eph 5.
Romans 1 states that the people's minds became dark and confused. Neither quality is an attribute of God.
It stands then that those that do not turn from the light, but abide in the light are those that are given the ability to believe and they believe because of hearing brought by the word of Christ. Heb. 4:
For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even as far as the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrows, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
The gift of light is not received by one reaching out and taking. Rather, being present in the light, not turning from the light and granted the ability to hear brought by the Word, that one believes.
You ask concerning the coming of faith, The belief (faith) is not innate, nor is the ability to believe (faith) innate, for the Scriptures clearly state that the Christ is the author of the believer's faith. (Heb. 12)
Romans 12 indicates that the "measure of faith" is given according to the purpose God has planned for that person. Such faith is not innate for it is not the will of any human to believe or to express some such faith. (John 1:12)
One thing that is interesting is that one who is not enlightened by the "light of the World" does not believe (faith, trust, entrust) in such a manner as being given the authority (power, right) to become the child of God - no inheritance.
Would it be correct stating that only those who abide in the light (not turn) are given the believe (by hearing the word) and then are given the right (privileged, capacity) as God's heritage?
Would this not make Christ truly the author and finisher?
the premise of all of this post is in error, that’s is the idea that if one is to respond to the gospel that somehow negates salvation being solely from God. We are in a circular debate because you all have tried, with no success, to prove any response from us to the gospel implies merit on our part.
This is in error and without scriptural foundation. No one ever says the receiver of a gift is also partially responsible for giving themself the gift because they received it. There is no merit found in the reception of the gift. Ever.
Our faith comes from hearing the gospel. That is by Gods design. Our ability to then choose to accept it in faith or reject it, that ability is by Gods design. God is the only one who has the power and authority to design that plan. God alone.
You all . Well meaning as it is, have refused to accept an understanding of His clear design from scripture. Let me be clear, that’s not saying you are not saved but that you fail to understand what scripture lays out is the process.
Instead what you do is ignore Gods design and choose to divorce man’s response ftom His design as if it is not planned by Him and only of ourselves. In doing so you misrepresent our position creating a straw man we have neither said nor support.
let me be clear, my position is scripture clearly says that our response and ability to choose or reject the gospel is by Gods design therefore has not merit on man’s part. From this point on any argument of merit on man’s part is a misrepresentation of my position.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
The whole post above is good and I agree that it's an over reach to claim that receiving a gift implies claiming some merit. That is an extreme form of Calvinism that I never experienced until this site. I do think that some do indeed think there is merit in receiving a gift - but your explanation is OK with me.
I do need to say that when you look at all the verses pertaining to our salvation you cannot help but realize that there is something else wrong with us beyond just not having the information. And there is some work of the Spirit of God that happens when people get saved - or they don't get saved. I've known people who hear good preaching and hear God's word being taught correctly and they hear sometimes for years and nothing! So we of course pray for them. What are we doing when we pray for them? We want God to intervene on their behalf because we care about them. Now if you believe as you said above I say no problem. But, just as you notice where folks can take Calvinism - I know for a fact where folks take a free will direction. Whether it's singing 27 verses of a song or creating an emotional mood or just the belief that a certain soul winner can get almost anyone to believe in 15 minutes, you can develop harmful theology. Please understand, I am not in any way suggesting you do this but just showing that we as humans can mess up anything and often do.
most of the reformed folks you see around here are from the James White school of debate and proud of it. The stronger the cage stage the better for them. They often will take your argument tell us what our argument really means according to their personal philosophy and then argue against their straw man. When you refuse to debate from the premise of their straw man then they declare they gave one and you are inept at understanding scripture.
Does the HS directly act in the heart of everyone at the point of salvation? I’m open to it not against it but I would also say that the HS acts in the sending if the gospel.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Yes, and to the extent that I'm familiar with reformed theology I can tell you that the Puritan Calvinists were constantly emphasizing that the work of the HS in someone's salvation is very much and primarily the preaching of the Word and reading scripture. They also included studying God's law - and then said that the Holy Spirit would use that to convict of sin and shut the door on self salvation. I'm not saying it isn't true - but there is not much emphasis on the new birth as a random "light switch" type of thing. I read more of the Puritan sermons than the theological writings of the Young Restless and Reformed and I can tell you - you read their sermons and you find stuff that would make an old fashioned serious Baptist preacher proud. But I have no theological training so take what I say with a grain of salt - there is no obligation to agree with me. And some of the hyper Calvinists on here are I think nice guys and you have to give them a break since this is a debate forum.
Who on here is a hyper Calvinist?
I can think of no one,
I can think of no one,
been on this forum a long time. I have been called all sorts of things and been accused of craziness by them for ver the years. Being a newbie you might want to sit back and watch before coming to conclusions on who should give anyone a break.
that said when the debate continues to be circular or adversarial I usually just walk away.