Is belief the hinge of our salvation?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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??

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.

 

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.

 

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...

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, 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.

 

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.

 

Ummm. Test?

 

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.