God, logic and His attributes

So do you agree with the first one or second one.

I agree that if God had not done for the Gentiles the same as He had done for the Jews the could not seek repentence from God.
Thus it is a gift.

Your other two verses however, do NOT speak to faith being a gift but salvation being that gift my friend. And THAT scripture DOES say is a gift.

Faith is not something man does not have at all and thus it must be given by God to him. But faith in/of just anything will not save man because it is not faith (in anything) that saves but faith in the object of God's salvation provided by God that saves us. That being Jesus our savior (salvation).

 

1. Faith is a gift from God.

2. You got that right.

3. I'm glad you noticed that, because both grace and faith are part of that salvation experience and altogether, they are a gift from God.

4. In Phil 1:29, what you have failed to realize is this: "For it has been given to you on Christ's behalf not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him."

5. It has been given is from the aorist passive of charizomai, meaning "to give freely." The ability to believe, Paul says was freely given to us. It was given.

6. You're saying some of the right things about faith.

 

Again, All I am asking is this:
Do you hold that faith is something God must give to each man to both have and to use because man does not have it in any measure? (thus God having to give it)
Yes, or No?

This is a very poor rendering of scripture since the context is about salvation and IT being the gift. I have heard the arguement trying to be made from this passage in the same manner in which you are asserting by other Calvinists. But even other Calvinists disagree with you on this one regarding this passage. Since you understand the Greek you should KNOW you can not faithfully ascibe this to the passage in question and can be seen illistrated by Bloomfielf below:

The emphasis as illistrated above is not that all these things are a gifts from God but that God allowing us to be saved through faith (= salvaition) is a gift from God. Is grace EVER refered to as a gift? No. The gift (salvation) is seen as an act of grace but not that grace is a gift. And neither is Faith ever refered to specifically as a gift either. God is quite confident is what He calls gifts in scripture since He uses them alot in many other places, so it would be odd indeed to 'insinuate' it as gift but never call it a gift like He did in some many other places regarding so many other things.

No, I didn't fail to realize.
Verse 4 does not mean that God specifically gave to them the 'abilitly' to believe or for them only to believe (that is a postuluation brought into the text). It is refering to the fact that what they had was on behalf of Christ (or for Christ) both in the giving of grace that we might believe but also in the sharing in the suffering of His sufferings who suffered for me. So just as God has permitted them or 'allowed' them to become believers they AS believers will be 'allowed' to also suffer with Christ that they may partake fully in Him and the blessing promised them.

It does not necessitate from the passage or it's surrounding centent that because God allowed them by grace to believe that God forbids others from becoming believers. That is not the intent of the passage at all but a serious eisegesis of the scripture.

 

1. Saving faith does not originate with man; it comes from God through His sovereign enabling grace.

2. Read what I've written and you'll see that what I'm saying is what Bloomfield is saying. Thank you for making that obvious. I owe you one. :thumbs:


[QUOTEThe emphasis as illistrated above is not that all these things are a gifts from God but that God allowing us to be saved through faith (= salvaition) is a gift from God. Is grace EVER refered to as a gift? No. The gift (salvation) is seen as an act of grace but not that grace is a gift. And neither is Faith ever refered to specifically as a gift either. God is quite confident is what He calls gifts in scripture since He uses them alot in many other places, so it would be odd indeed to 'insinuate' it as gift but never call it a gift like He did in some many other places regarding so many other things.[/QUOTE]

3. You're contradicting the quote you provided by Bloomfield.

4. You wrestling with the plain meaning of the text is patently obvious.

5. God forbids no one from believing. If God did have mercy on some, none would be saved. Man is lost because of his rebellion in sin.

 

Okay, but I may have to devote a thread to it and not until the weekend. I am a bit pressed with "stuff" this week and though I may post some responses, I do not want to treat my response on this casually.
Q

 

Ok, then you hold that God must give man faith and God must bring man to the point of using that faith. I don't want to continue to derail the thread so last question to you on this - Does man not have common faith.

:laugh: Ok, I totally put the wrong one down :laugh: I have some articles regarding both sides of the issue for that verse (and others) and I pasted the one I was reading that corrisponds to your view instead of the others and didn't pay any attention as close attention as I should have.

Ok, call me dumb - I can take it :BangHead:

Yeah, I noticed. rub it in. However, my 'contradiction' still stands.
"The emphasis ...is not that all these things are a gifts from God but that God allowing us to be saved through faith (= salvaition) is a gift from God. Is grace EVER refered to as a gift? No. The gift (salvation) is seen as an act of grace but not that grace is a gift. And neither is Faith ever refered to specifically as a gift either. God is quite confident is what He calls gifts in scripture since He uses them alot in many other places, so it would be odd indeed to 'insinuate' it as gift but never call it a gift like He did in some many other places regarding so many other things." Unless of course this singular passage is the exception to the rule.

Actually, I am not wrestling with text, but showing how much you need to BRING to the text to get your understanding of the verse. I agree that if you just simply read it for what it says it is patently obvious the meaning of the text. But now that we both agree it is patently obvious the question is now who gets copyrights.

Agreed :thumbs:

 

My view of election, as you asked, cannot in anyway be properly communicated in a message board response. To reduce it in this manner is to give you, at best, a faint sketch that can only lead to wrong conclusions and misinterpretations. However, since few people here restrain themselves from such practices and happily jump to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions and convenient misinterpretations of the statements of others, why let that stop me, eh? So here is what I have to offer.

First let me make it clear to you and anyone else that I am not a Calvinist nor am I an Arminian. Calvinists believe in eternal security, so do I, but I am not a Calvinist. Arminians believe in the Holy Trinity, so do I, but I am not one of them. At best, for the sake of the topic I am a non-Calvinist (but once holding to the tenets of the 5 points of Calvinism). These labels, if one embraces them for their OWN identity, fine, but generally I believe they are used to diminish people’s arguments and their person and cast them in a very prejudicial light and often a distorted light not properly respecting or representing their theological views or appreciating distinctions and nuances, hence I avoid them and certainly don’t impose them on anyone else who states they are not ____ or _____ or whatever one might be tempted to call them. Respect for the position and self-labeling of a person must be observed or we, in our arrogance destroy the trust in debate and any reasonable dialogue.

To ignore the tension between the clear presence of human volition and Divine decree(s) in Scripture is foolish and that is something I am not interested in. And to assert one can fully and completely treat Divine decree(s) and human volition in a manner that harmonizes them and reconciles them so as to relieve all tension is naïve. Simply the mere presence of intense debate on the topics among sound teachers of Bible doctrine makes this conflict true.

What we can be sure of is that it is not a conflict with God but with ourselves and our fallen state (yes even as the redeemed we are experiencing limited capacities in these fallen bodies). God’s revelation is NOT inadequate, our capacity to conceptualize at the level of the Divine and capture the mechanics of the Divine are limited.

So my treatment is limited to noting and believing:

A. Election, in the context of salvation, refers to believers.

B. God’s integrity cannot be compromised; His offer of salvation to whosoever cannot and would not be made if election was to be understood as God choosing who would believe. A legitimate offer is one that can be fulfilled. Offering salvation to those God knows cannot (as opposed to will not, a great and critical distinction) receive it is based in deception, a lack of integrity, contrary to the essence of God.

C. God’s foreknowledge of those who will or will not believe is not the predicate of His plan. Foreknowledge is not the cause of election; rather it is a capacity or attribute of God that enables Him, according to His mentality (His determinations) to accomplish that which He determines.

D. Election is the expression of the Divine decree(s) of God in salvation.

There is your extremely limited sketch. I will be glad to pursue filling in the blanks, adding all the colors and maybe producing an adequate image through Q and A so long as we don’t color outside the lines, heh.

 

The problem is that we don't fully comprehend what it means to be logical. That's like saying we fully comprehend mathematics, which of course we do not. We can make the statement that God appears to be consistent with our current understanding of what it means to be logical. I thinki we're in deep water whenever we make any statement about the true nature of God beyond that which He has shown us.

 

Gotcha and I look forward to that time.

 

Bumped for consideration.

 

Sure, the points I will expand upon. As well, my rejection of the failures of Arminianism I will respond to also. It may have to be next weekend but I will, as I have done before, respond in detail and fulfill your expectation.

 

Sure. I will attempt to be clear, concise, and well constructed so as to answer anticipated questions.

 

Yes, His attributes limit Him. No, He is not above logic.

For example, He cannot have an attribute and lack that attribute at the same time. This restriction is of a logical nature.

If anyone wants to argue with that, then they don't want to argue with that.

If God has the ability to make a single statement both true and false, then all discussion about His attributes is over--we could easily both be right no matter how much we contradict one another.

Ed:BangHead:

 

I quite agree.

Finally someone who grasps it. It seems like we're forever condemned to have to explain God, consistency, and logic to those who insist on on saying things are true "as we currently understand it" or some such other mush. As you stated:

1. If God could make something both true and false in the same sense, why, then
2. he could and he couldn't do No. 1 at the same time.

And we'd be down the trail with Alice and the wabbit.