I have never said that saving faith is something we already possess, the ability to have faith is! God made it so!
I have said that FAITH is something we must POSSESS for salvation! The scriptures are absolutely clear on that! Where the scriptures are lacking in arbitration, one must look to known factors!
Unfortunately, for you, the Scriptures are not lacking in this matter at all. We are saved by grace through faith, and that entire thing is a gift from God. That includes the faith by which we are justified. That's the construction of Eph. 2:8.
However, God made us in His image, meaning that we are NOT incapable idiots as certain adherents to Calvinism would have us believe. We are NOT totally depraved, else NOT ONE OF US could even hear the voice of the shepherd, let alone respond.
Yes, we are made in God's image, but we died. Our moral ability and our natural ability were severed asunder in the fall. Being made in God's image has nothing to do with the issue. Being fallen does. Reformed theology distinguishes between natural and moral ability just like God's own Word does in John 8:43.
God gave us:
1. The ABILITY TO HEAR.
John 8:43 says we do not have this ability.
Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Clearly, since some of them responded to Jesus verbally, they heard. Could Jesus mean something other than the natural ability to hear, like, maybe, the moral ability to hear?
2. The ability to believe.
But we do not have the ability to come to Christ and believe apart from being drawn (John 6:44)
The natural man CAN NOT understand spiritual things.
The Reformed position is NOT that the will is destroyed and has no natural abilities. We lack the moral ability to respond congruently with our natural ability to believe and thus be justified. You are arguing a straw man, not what we actually teach.
3. The ability to POSSESS FAITH.
No Calvinist says otherwise. That does not, however, mean we have the ability to use that faith, effectively meaning we possess a certain degree of faith that is generic, but faith that saves, e.g. pure, unadulerated, perservering, faith in Christ alone is either something we do not have, or if we do
possess it objectively, we do not
subjectively use it,
because we are not able to do so. Why? Because we are slaves to sin, dead in it, by nature children of wrath, etc. It is simply contrary to our fallen nature. Regeneration precedes faith, because our natures are changed, and we then believe as a natural result and are justified. In other words we use the faith we possess in a proper way, or, alternatively we are given this kind of faith a special gift by God, either way saving faith is a gift of God, not a present possession for one of those reasons.
Your entire position turns on a hypothesis about faith as some sort of state, just as unbelief is some sort of morally neutral state. Where is your exegesis to support that position? I have shown you that there is ample exegesis that disbelief is NOT morally neutral. I would suggest your understanding of what faith or lack of faith/ belief/disbelief is has no basis in Scripture, since you do not believe that unbelief is a sin.
It would be helpful if you would stop limiting the word of God to you own "accepted" definitions!
Pardon me, sir, but you are changing the definitions to suit yourself. I am not limiting the word of God. I am telling you what the definition of a theological term is so that you can understand what it means as articulated by the position against which you are arguing. That's called begging the question on your part. The definition of irresistible grace does not mean and never has meant that grace can not be resisted. It would be helpful of YOU to argue against the doctrine as Calvinists actually teach it, without creating straw men.
Because of "the mental persuasion" (Beliefs, and FAITH) of Jesus' audience, caused by lack of understanding of the prophesies concerning the Messiah that they held tightly too, this group was not able to set aside their "knowledge" and actually hear Jesus, whom John described as "The Word".
Really? Where in the text does it say this was why they did not believe? The text says that they did not believe because they did not come. They did not come because they were not drawn. They were not drawn because they were not given. The text clearly says that the the reason they had to be drawn was because they were not able to come. 6:37 - 45 explains Jesus statement in 6:36.
To borrow from Dr. White:
6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ
This text also says that many of those that heard these things turned and left Jesus and no longer walked with him. This same pericope very clearly says that all the ones given also come, because they are drawn, and all of those believe, because they are instructed, and all of them will be raised on the last day. ALL those given WILL come. Those that come are the ones that believe and are raised. All these are the ones drawn.
Now, why did some of them leave? If they were all able, which is what you have this text saying, and the text says that all who are instructed come and these are all the same ones, then why are some of them turning away and not coming, not believing, etc.?
This audience was deaf to the "drawing of the Father", their hearts were not ready to receive the Messiah as anything but a Conquering Hero on a Great White Charger, leading a vast army. You see in verse 45 that prophesy says that "Everyman is taught by God", but not every man heareth or learneth of God. Even if the prophesy applies only to the Jews, so does John 6 apply only to the Jews. He came unto his own and his own received Him NOT! Therefore only those who do "Hear the word of God" are actually drawn to the Son of God. The others have been taught by God, but have not heard, even though God was not partial or sparing in whom He teaches.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Wes. 6:45 says that all who are taught, and learn from the Father comes to Jesus. Why? Because they are drawn. Why must they be drawn? Because they do not have the ability to come. Jesus says that there are those there that do not believe. (vs. 36, which I see you failed to quote). Why do they not believe? In vs. 37 - 39, Jesus tells them, all that the Father gives the Son will come to the Son; the Son will save all who are so given to Him (6:39), and no man is able to come to Him unless it has been given/granted Him by the Father. They do not believe,
because they can not come . Why can they not come? Because they
are not able.
The text says a sum total of zero about them not being able to come
because of their beliefs. That is something you have read into the text. As far as understanding goes, in John, John is very specific about it. In John 3:3, he says man must be born again to see the kingdom of God. He will go on to tell us that one can only understand what we see, and we can't see in order to understand unless we are born again. Romans says the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and does not subject itself to the law of God
because it is not able to do so.. Paul says that the natural man
does not have the ability to understand spiritual things. What is unclear about this? We must be born again in order to see and we must see to understand. The reason we do not see or understand is because we are dead in our trespasses and sins. It is contrary to our nature.
God can not sin. Why? Because it is contrary to His nature. We can not exercise saving faith? Why, BECAUSE TO DO SO IS CONTRARY T
UR FALLEN NATURE. The CREATED nature is not the issue. The issue is "what happened in the fall?" WE DIED, contrary to what Satan said. We DID, however, become like God, because, like God, we no longer have libertine free will. God has free agency. Free agency means that a being acts within the constraints of His nature and not contrary to it. God gave us libertine free will. We abused it. We no longer have it. We have free agency, not free will. What would have happened if Adam and Eve had eaten of the other tree? Probably free agency, but only in the same direction as God. Unfortunately, that's not what happened, instead they ate the wrong fruit and sinned and we have free agency exactly opposite to God's.
Action: Fall.
Result: condemnation.
Death, the disjunction of moral ability and natural ability. Just as to die is to severe the union of our spirit and our body, so spiritual death is defined as the severance of moral ability and natural ability, resulting in free agency in accordance with our fallenness, e.g. slavery to sin, et.al.
Solution: Regeneration.
Result: faith
Result: justification.
What I said about chapter six applies here too!
Amen, and it doesn't support your position. Your position completely turns the text of John 6 on its head. According to you, says that man IS able, when it clearly says he is NOT able.
