Is belief the hinge of our salvation?

[reformedbeliever]

Rom 3 states that faith is not a work and therefore one can not boast in it.

Of course Faith is not a work, it is given by God. Another aspect of faith is work however. We can exercise the faith that God has given us.

God is the one who makes a person born again. Man can't obtain it through blood lineage, nor through his ability (relating to good works), nor by determining he will be (much the same as the new age belief of 'willing' something to happen) - Man can not make himself born-again (that is the whole premise of John 3) but it is something that only God can do 'to' man.

Yep, you are still the best Calvinist/non-Calvinist on the board. :laugh:

God does not make everyone born again huh? Unconditional election.

 

[skypair]

It would appear (at least to me) that when a person is regenerated before salvation, there is no need for 'faith' which scripture states brings salvation (at least with respect to the Cal view) According to some the person who is regenerated before salvation has four basic things that have happened when born-again
(1) given a 'new' nature AND
(2) now has the Holy Spirit indwelling them or residing in them (though not technically filling them yet) thus 'empowering them' AND
(3) that their relationship to and with God the Father is in a reconciled state (thus the new nature and indwelling Spirit of GOd) AND
(4) they are now IN Christ [able to be saved].

The problem in this view of a person being 'reconciled' before faith is that the person who is reconciled is considered by God justified toward God and therefor they are also sanctified by God making the person in a right relationship with God - Thus they are Righteous. All this without faith ever being excersized nor repentance made. All of these are against what scripture states : that they are all imputed by or through Faith. (see below) Otherwise what good is regeneration to the person who is still a sinner?

The scriptural mandate for one to excersize faith in order to be saved is no longer valid since the work of salvation is already done before repentence or Faith is even acknowledged. If these be true then what we have is salvation BEFORE repentance and faith and not as says the scriptre "believe and be saved", "repent or you shall all likewise perish" and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" et. (Mar 1:15, Luk 13:3,5 , Act 16:31, Rom 10:9 et.)

AMEN, Allan! Cals take a mere "titillation" of the Spirit and turn it into regeneration/new birth claiming that if they weren't "elect" already, they wouldn't even be "titillated!" :laugh:

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

First > Hello brother Reformed !!

Second - You lost me.. your now contending that one can believe in Jesus but not be saved??

And as you know, I do not hold that regeneration precedes faith since I do not find it a scripturally established view.

But what the hey, lets begin

He was talking to two distinct groups. (I read a little further where web and another speak to this so I'll listen to your comment there before I go further here).

PS.. A few thoughts:

In the Non-Cal understanding being regenerated is being born-again/salvation. The Calvinist has a different view of what this 'entails' than the non-Cals. Non-Cals hold it to be salvation (ie.. saved from death and thus made alive) , where as the Cals hold it to be the prelude to salvation (ie.. made alive in order to be saved).

It would appear (at least to me) that when a person is regenerated before salvation, there is no need for 'faith' which scripture states brings salvation (at least with respect to the Cal view) According to some the person who is regenerated before salvation has four basic things that have happened when born-again
(1) given a 'new' nature AND
(2) now has the Holy Spirit indwelling them or residing in them (though not technically filling them yet) thus 'empowering them' AND
(3) that their relationship to and with God the Father is in a reconciled state (thus the new nature and indwelling Spirit of GOd) AND
(4) they are now IN Christ [able to be saved].

The problem in this view of a person being 'reconciled' before faith is that the person who is reconciled is considered by God justified toward God and therefor they are also sanctified by God making the person in a right relationship with God - Thus they are Righteous. All this without faith ever being excersized nor repentance made. All of these are against what scripture states : that they are all imputed by or through Faith. (see below) Otherwise what good is regeneration to the person who is still a sinner?

The scriptural mandate for one to excersize faith in order to be saved is no longer valid since the work of salvation is already done before repentence or Faith is even acknowledged. If these be true then what we have is salvation BEFORE repentance and faith and not as says the scriptre "believe and be saved", "repent or you shall all likewise perish" and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" et. (Mar 1:15, Luk 13:3,5 , Act 16:31, Rom 10:9 et.)

IF a person is regenerated by God before faith, they are in fact made alive unto God because they have been reconciled unto God by Christ's propitiation BEFORE faith but scripture says differently in Rom 3:25 and also in the verse below:

He is 'new' having no stain or taint, therefore they are IN Christ because they have been justified and cleansed from all unrighteousness.

As I previously stated, for this to be true:
1. They are already justified unto God
1. thereofore they are ALREADY sanctified - or set apart for and by God ; being pure
....a. and that he is now deemed by God due to the above to be righteous (or in a right relationship with God).
3. And all of these are done by the Holy Spirit who is now indwelling the Non-BELIEVER no matter how much time between being made alive and salvaiton.

But unfortunately the indwelling Holy Spirit, sanctification, justification, and righteousness are all imputed ONLY AFTER Faith is excersized.

It is set forth in teh scriptures the process of regeneration reveals that it IS the EVENT of Salvation which is of grace by faith and not the precurser to it. Otherwise you have the cart before the horse. Regeneration also only appears twice in scripture and it is never seen as that which is before salvation.

Scripture shows you can not be regenerate (which MUST include justification and sanctification and the infilling of the Holy Spirit) before faith.
WHY?

It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

All of these show (and other verses as well) that unless faith is FIRST excerized there is no new birth which constitutes all of the above; For they are all BY FAITH.

This is why I beleive regeneration IS salvation and that we are born-again 'by faith' and both terms (regeneration and salvation) are described as being born-again (the New Birth).


And if none of these be true, then how does being born-again work, being that they are still in their sins and they do not have the Holy Spirit empowering them, not to mention the fact that they are not 'in Christ' and thus not in a reconsiled relationship to God the Father nor His Son? What does it do?

We (Calvinist) never deny that we are born again by faith. We simply believe that saving faith is given by God.

 

[Rubato 1]

There are many, one in particular who holds to the view that one must believe before a person is regenerated. Many say that the view that one must be regenerated before they can believe is false.
My question for those who hold to the view that one must believe before he can be regenerated is this;
In John 8, Jesus is speaking to a group of Jews. As He was speaking, some of the Jews believed. John 8:30
If you go on reading you will see where Jesus told this same group (Jews who believed) that they would die in their sin. He didn't say they might die in thier sin, He said that they would die.
What do you do with these scriptures? Why were the Jews not born again?
Could it be because they were not of God? Not His elect?

Maybe the explanation could be as simple as the fact that it was the Pharisees who were carrying on the discussion w/Jesus, so they are the ones who responded to his comments. The people who believed were not separate from those who did not, so Jesus' comments were to the whole crowd, though his point was for those that believed. The response was from the Pharisees, though.

IMO,

R1

 

[skypair]

Scripture says we have no faith. Therefore God must give it too us. In FACT, scripture says that God assigns to each man a specific amount of faith. (Romans 12:3).And this thread is about faith vs. belief. Perhaps you have not heard my "discourse" on this but...

Belief = hope. Though we may hear something, we have no proof. "The wind listeth where it will..." Yet belief is equated, even in the Bible, with 'hope' because we "invest" in that belief by repenting of self and turning to Christ (commonly called "conversion").

Faith = Heb 11:1 -- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for [believed], the evidence of things not seen [salvation]."

So here's how those terms go together (and by which I had hoped that Cals and non-Cals could agree). We all hear the gospel in one way or another (Rom 1:19) --

if we believe on Christ (giving our lives to Him), we are regenerated ("born again"), indwelt by the Holy Spirit --

indwelling gives us faith that we are saved!! Indwelling of the Spirit is the SUBSTANCE of what we hoped for (a "Slice" of heaven) and is the EVIDENCE (the "earnest of our inheritance") of our salvation!!

Now we go on in our Christian lives having hope for things we still have not seen (i.e. the rapture) but always standing on the faith of things we have seen!!

O.k... Try that in the real world and see how well that works. Next time your Child runs out in front of a car, ask him/her "Do you want me to save you?"

O, STOP!! That's an emotional appeal totally out of context!

REAL LOVE does what is best for someone, REGARDLESS of what they want.

Which "love" presumes a relationship which you can in no wise prove exists.

This is why (besides the ton of scripture) the denial of God's sovereign election is so wrong. It makes God less loving than Humans.

So your "sovereign in election" God never lets His children get run over by cars?? :tonofbricks:

Do you know what would be "unloving," Hd? To set up a glorious restroom and post a sign outside, "Whites Only." You've just basically told me that God doesn't invite everyone into His heaven -- that unless you are one of His "fair-haired elect," God not only isn't going to let you in but is going to exercise His wrath on you who have no other option but to commit the sin that provokes God's wrath! And this is LOVE?? To me, it sounds like Hitler ... Stalin ... Nero. Guess whose theology looks "unloving" now.

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

Do you know what would be "unloving," Hd? To set up a glorious restroom and post a sign outside, "Whites Only." You've just basically told me that God doesn't invite everyone into His heaven -- that unless you are one of His "fair-haired elect," God not only isn't going to let you in but is going to exercise His wrath on you who have no other option but to commit the sin that provokes God's wrath! And this is LOVE?? To me, it sounds like Hitler ... Stalin ... Nero. Guess whose theology looks "unloving" now.

O, STOP!! That's an emotional appeal totally out of context!

 

[psalms109:31]

Faith

Faith is given to us by God through the words of Jesus, but as the young rich ruler we can just walk away from it.

I have no problem with many things that calvs teach, but thier regeneration is after faith, for that is scriptual.

We are all dead until the words of Jesus is presented we are headed for destruction.

The words of Jesus does not incline us to believe, but it presents two roads belief in Jesus or unbelief and the consequences for the road we are on.

Paul was saying to the people i'm not lying God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, because they wouldn't believe Him.

That is a message for us to go reach the world with the Gospel.

Don't worry if you are the elect of God or not, trust in Jesus not men and you will not be disappointed

 

[webdog]

Webdog, correct me if I am wrong (do I actually think you might not?), but the ONLY way for Lot to be righteous is by faith?

You are correct. We are discussing "living in righteousness".

 

[webdog]

Abraham gave Lot first choice. It is YOUR interpretation that it was disrspectful for Lot to take that Land. Nowhere does it even imply in the text itself, that it was disrespectful of Lot to DO what his elder TOLD HIM to do...

Study the customs of the day and come back. It's hardly my interpretation...

Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughters, to protect the messengers of God. Misguided, sure. I suppose you condemn Abraham for raising the knife with the PURE intent of Killing Isaac?
Look here>

"I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

First, he called the wicked men 'brothers'...second, giving two virgin daughters to be molested is a sin, and he knew it. Sinning in order to prevent another sin is still sin.

True. However, how easy would it be for you to leave your in laws in a city about to be nuked?

That's eisegesis, as the text says nothing about his desire for his in laws. If God told me to gather my family and leave my city because it would be destroyed, I'd be out of here in a minute.

Yeah, after seeing his wife killed. Notice here>

Pro 31:6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Pro 31:7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

Why are you trying to find excuse for his sin? It's like this...is it sin, or isn't it? If it is, regardless of what excuse you can come up with, it is NOT living in righteousness!

Discount part of scripture if you wish. Scripture says Lot was righteous, and he was greatly distressed at the wickedness around him. I will believe scripture, You can believe whatever tickles your fancy.

Who's discounting Scripture? Surely not I! Someone not walking with the Lord can STILL be distressed by the wickedness around them, that proves nothing. There are plenty of people who are not Christians that do not support homosexuality and abortion. Are they now "righteous" because they are distressed at what the world has become?

 

[webdog]

We (Calvinist) never deny that we are born again by faith. We simply believe that saving faith is given by God.

...and as Allan pointed out, not necessary as you are already reconciled to God PRIOR to it.

 

[Amy.G]

1Cr 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits."


I think Lot is a good example of what can happen when we get too involved in "the world". Lot's righeousness was due to his faith, not because of his acts.
We have to be careful who we hang around with, because like Lot, we can be corrupted through the influence of ungodly people.

 

[Havensdad]

Study the customs of the day and come back. It's hardly my interpretation...

Ahh, the arrogance. Unless you have a Doctorate in Ancient history, my knowledge is at least comparable to yours. Ancient Semitic cultures were patristic> had Lot refused this gift from Abram, it would have been considered an insult. When the eldest in your family gave you a gift, you were required to accept it. Lot committed no sin here.

First, he called the wicked men 'brothers'...second, giving two virgin daughters to be molested is a sin, and he knew it. Sinning in order to prevent another sin is still sin.

Your reading your belief into the text. for all you know, this may have been Lot's literal Kin. The text conveys him speaking in a friendly manner, to try to get them to stop.
Also, you spoke of a knowledge of the culture. Well, apparently you don't have one yourself. Lot, as the host, was required to do whatever was necessary to prevent harm to his guests, even sacrificing himself and his family.

That's eisegesis, as the text says nothing about his desire for his in laws.

What Bible are you reading?

Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered (hesitated).

Why are you trying to find excuse for his sin? It's like this...is it sin, or isn't it? If it is, regardless of what excuse you can come up with, it is NOT living in righteousness!

Why are you making things up out of thin air? You are making the EXACT mistake that John warns us against!

1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

This is clearly NOT speaking of "positional justification". It speaking of ones actual lifestyle. and it even warns you NOT to let yourself be deceived!
If you go down, this is CLEARLY seen!!

1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.


This word means "shining, public, apparent". No one can "see" positional justification. It is talking about one's lifestyle.

Who's discounting Scripture? Surely not I! Someone not walking with the Lord can STILL be distressed by the wickedness around them, that proves nothing. There are plenty of people who are not Christians that do not support homosexuality and abortion. Are they now "righteous" because they are distressed at what the world has become?

It says that Lot because of his righteousness, was distressed. Lot, according to scripture practiced righteousness. Of course, we do still sin (just as Lot did). But we walk in the light> though we may stumble, from time to time.

 

[webdog]

Ahh, the arrogance. Unless you have a Doctorate in Ancient history, my knowledge is at least comparable to yours. Ancient Semitic cultures were patristic> had Lot refused this gift from Abram, it would have been considered an insult. When the eldest in your family gave you a gift, you were required to accept it. Lot committed no sin here.

The proper thing to do would have been to leave the choice to the patriarch...not take advantage of the patriarch, even when the deferrment by the patriarch took place. That is selfishness...sin.

What Bible are you reading?

Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered (hesitated).

I'll concede this...it was a brain cramp on my part. I was thinking his mother and father in law, not him being the father in law.

Your reading your belief into the text. for all you know, this may have been Lot's literal Kin. The text conveys him speaking in a friendly manner, to try to get them to stop.
Also, you spoke of a knowledge of the culture. Well, apparently you don't have one yourself. Lot, as the host, was required to do whatever was necessary to prevent harm to his guests, even sacrificing himself and his family.

Let's use your own phrase here "Ahh, the arrogance." I'm well aware of the hopitality requirements of the culture. It still stands today in some place in the world, mainly in Asia. HOWEVER, the proper thing to have done would be to offer HIMSELF and protect his visitors and his family...not sacrifice his family. Remember, knowing their evil ways, he told them to do what they thought was right with his daughters...the same things that "distressed" him.
Your non sequitur on positional justification is not needed. Fact is, Lot was deemed righteous...he was not living the lifestyle of one deemed righteous. Quite simple.

It says that Lot because of his righteousness, was distressed. Lot, according to scripture practiced righteousness. Of course, we do still sin (just as Lot did). But we walk in the light> though we may stumble, from time to time.

Define "time to time". Is this hours? Days? Months? Years?

 

[Allan]

We (Calvinist) never deny that we are born again by faith.

That my friend is not a Calvinistic position. The Calvinists position is that they are born again that they might use their God given faith in order to be saved.

I guess my new question is do you agree that it is by faith that we are born-again (or by faith we are regenerated) ??

Did your view change somewhat along the way??

We simply believe that saving faith is given by God

And the non-Cal view is that no man can have saving faith without God intervening.

In either case it is the mechanics not the truth which is seen differently. Yet the truth still remains - there is no saving faith with out God.

 

[TCGreek]

A point of clarification:

In the history of calvinism there have been two views in respect to regeneration:

1. For example Milliard Erickson, a respected calvinist and author of Christian Theology, believes that at the point of the Effectual Call of God, the heart of the sinner is open to express repentance and faith and then experiences Regeneration.

2. Grudem, on the other hand, author of Systematic Theology, believes that a person's heart is regenerated first by the Spirit and then the sinner is able to express repentance and faith.

 

[Havensdad]

Define "time to time". Is this hours? Days? Months? Years?

Same way I define an airplane pilot. As one who can fly the plane. Here is part of an Article I wrote a while back, to explain...

Think of a Airplane pilot. Truly an airplane pilot can mess up. He can crash. However, a trained Airplane pilot, though not perfect, is CLEARLY distinguishable from a person who is NOT an Airplane pilot, under observation. While an Airplane pilot might mess up and crash the plane, a person totally ignorant of its function will ALWAYS crash the plane. This is the type of thing scripture speaks of, when it talks of our "walk". Like I said, either that, or scripture contradicts itself.
When people start speaking of salvation in such ways, it makes me think of this situation. Imagine, if you will, someone trying to talk the pilot into letting another gentleman fly the plane. The man says he is a trained pilot, so the rightful pilot acquiesces to his request.
Upon sitting down in the seat, the gentleman claiming to be a pilot begins flipping switches and hitting buttons. In the first five seconds, he turns off the engines, drops the cabin pressure, causing the masks to fall, and puts the plane into a nose dive. He then begins to panic.
"Your not a pilot!" the rightful pilot says, as he trys to regain his seat and save the passengers. The navigator grabs his arm, angrily, and says "Don't you remember last week when YOU forgot to tell the passengers to buckle their seat belts? I guess that means YOUR not a pilot, either, right?"
"Listen!", says the Pilot, "I mess up all the time. But that still doesn't change the fact, that it is VERY OBVIOUS this man is not a pilot! I am going to try to save him, as well as the other passengers!". Quickly the Pilot retakes his seat, and pulls the plane out of the nose dive.

The "how much sin" question is irrelevant. The Bible says it will be obvious (apparent/shining brightly) who are children of God, rather than children of the devil. So I expect it to be "obvious".

 

[Allan]

Hello to you too brother. I'm not on here much anymore, but in my studies I came across this John 8 text where I somehow had never noticed that Jesus addresses Jews who believed, but told that they would die in their sin.
I don't want to go into the argument of regeneration necessarily.... as we have been there before huh?
My main purpose is the argument of whether two groups of Jews are in question. I am aware of the argument that some say there were two groups, but I disagree. I just don't see how you can get that from the plain reading of the text. Was God unable to say "Those who didn't believe answered Him?" John 8: 33. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, `You will be made free'?''
It is clear that Jesus was talking to the same Jews who said they believed. You would have to read into the text what is not there in order to come up with the conclusion of two different groups. You know what that is called brother. We can not do that in order to support our system of belief. Don't you agree that the context of John is that we have to be born again? That is why John the third chapter goes on the tell the verdict of God sending His only Son so that they should not perish........ the verdict or judgement being that men loved darkness rather than the light. Belief is not enough. You must be born again.

Yes, I see what you are saying. The two groups he was speaking with (Jews and Pharisees) ends at verse 20.

The believe it is referening to here needs to be understood. They believed in their 'preconcieved' notions of who and what he was, NOT who and what He truly was and was to do. Thus when face to face against the truth (such as Him to die) it stood completely in contrast to their view of who and what he was to do (become King and destroy their enemies).

This is why I state that faith of itself does nothing and saves no one. The only thing that gives faith any value or distiction is the object to which faith clings. Thus if one clings to a false view of Jesus that faith is a vain one.
EX. If I beleive all the historical facts about Christ but contend he is actaully of Isis or Marduke, then that faith in that christ is a vain and empty faith that can not save. Not because they do not have faith but because they placed that faith into the wrong object and no salvation is possible.

IOW - Belief in a lie can not save, even if the lie is formed from a truth.

 

[Allan]

A point of clarification:

In the history of calvinism there have been two views in respect to regeneration:

1. For example Milliard Erickson, a respected calvinist and author of Christian Theology, believes that at the point of the Effectual Call of God, the heart of the sinner is open to express repentance and faith and then experiences Regeneration.

2. Grudem, on the other hand, author of Systematic Theology, believes that a person's heart is regenerated first by the Spirit and then the sinner is able to express repentance and faith.

Very True, thank you TCG.

But which is the Classical Calvinistic view?

I always thought (which is my blunder I know) Grudem was classical and Erickson more moderate.

 

[Havensdad]

Ummm. Test?

 

[webdog]

The "how much sin" question is irrelevant. The Bible says it will be obvious (apparent/shining brightly) who are children of God, rather than children of the devil. So I expect it to be "obvious".

Yes, Scripture does state that. What it doesn't state is what you imply "if their lives are not apparent/shining brightly they are not justified". God judges the heart, we don't. We are NOT called to be "fruit inspectors" or to judge who is or isn't saved. That is why I believe God referred to Lot as both righteous and godly, because he blended in with the sinful crowd. He knows who is justified...we don't.