Receiving a gift is not also part of the giving

[Revmitchell]

What Mitchell is attempting to do is use a debate tactic that fails to recognize distinctions.

No, its a legitimate question that shows an inconsistency in the logic of calvinists.

It also is a nonsensical question, because it seeks to trivialize a momentous theological truth.

This just appears to be an emotional statement.

The free gift of salvation is dependent upon the receiver of the gift being able to actually receive it.God is the One who makes the receiver capable of receiving the free gift through regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner, making it possible for the receiver to accept the gift by faith. The fact that salvation is a gift, and received by faith (Romans 2:24), does not negate the need for the sinner to be made able to believe.

John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Spiritual life comes by believing.

Life = regeneration

 

[agedman]

No, its a legitimate question that shows an inconsistency in the logic of calvinists.



This just appears to be an emotional statement.



John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Spiritual life comes by believing.

Life = regeneration

This post caused me to smile for those who hold to a Calvinistic thinking, they consider anyone else as “inconsistent.”

 

[agedman]

Does not the Scriptures state how faith comes to the not yet redeemed? (Romans 10:17)

Does not Scripture state that justification comes with (by that) faith?
(Romans 3:28)

Does not Scripture teach that such justification is a gift? (Romans 3:24)

Does not Scripture declare justification is by His blood? (Romans 5:9)

Why then is there some drama with those who would support that one hmust attain or bolster up the human faith to activate what the Scriptures appoint is that work done by God?

It is as if some really think they can control God and to whom He desires to claim as His own!

 

[Reformed]

No, its a legitimate

If anything it shows the consistency of Calvinists. You may not like or agree with our consistency on this subject, but by-and-large our answer is always the same.

This just appears to be an emotional statement.

On the contrary, it was written without a shred of emotionalism. Your question makes no sense from a theological perspective.

Spiritual life comes by believing.

Life = regeneration

No Calvinist I have ever met denies that belief is a part of Ordo Salutis. However, regeneration/illumination occurs before belief (faith). As many other Calvinists have said (in this thread and countless others), God first regenerates the heart of the spiritually dead sinner; without no one can ever come to faith in Jesus Christ. Again, a sign of consistency of those who are Monergists in their soteriology.

 

[Jerome]

the consistency of Calvinists....by-and-large our answer is always the same....regeneration/illumination occurs before belief (faith). As many other Calvinists have said (in this thread and countless others), God first regenerates the heart of the spiritually dead sinner; without no one can ever come to faith in Jesus Christ.

John Calvin, Commentary on Jn 8:32

"when the Lord regenerates us by his Spirit, he likewise makes us free, so that, loosed from the snares of Satan, we willingly obey righteousness. But regeneration proceeds from faith"


John Calvin, Commentary on Rom 4:16:

"Here, in the first place, the Apostle shows, that nothing is set before faith but mere grace;...Hence, also, we may easily learn, that grace is not to be taken, as some imagine, for the gift of regeneration,"


Belgic Confession:

"We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin."


Reformed Baptist theologian Timothy George, in Theology of the Reformers:

"being placed into Christ (insitio in Christo) occurs in regeneration which, Calvin was careful to point out, follows from faith as its result"


Prominent late 1700s English Particular Baptist pastor Abraham Booth, in Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners:

"To contend, indeed, that regeneration must be prior to faith, and to justification, is like maintaining, That the eldest son of a nobleman must partake of the human nature, before he can have that filial relation to his father, which constitutes him an heir to the paternal estate, and entitles him to those honours which are hereditary in the family. For the human nature, derived from his parents, and the relation of a son, being completely of the same date; there is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. They are inseparable; nor can the one exist without the other— Thus it is, I conceive, with regards to regeneration, faith in Christ, and justification before God. For, to consider any man as born of God, but not as a child of God; as a child of God, but not believing in Jesus Christ; as believing in Jesus Christ, but not as justified; or as justified, but not as an heir of immortal felicity; is, either to the last degree absurd, or manifestly contrary to apostolic doctrine."


SBC Founder John Dagg, in his Manual of Theology:

"Faith is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore precede regeneration, when this is understood in its widest sense. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James uses the term, may precede."


Charles Spurgeon, in "The Warrant of Faith":

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate."

 

[Van]

It is rather difficult to discuss biblical doctrine, because those pushing unbiblical doctrine, misrepresent, make false charges, and insult their opponents.

Here is the actual doctrine being discussed, "We are saved by grace through faith." The alternate view is "We are saved by grace and given faith." The idea is that if God credits our faith as righteousness, that makes our salvation works based.

The first thing to note is one side (we are saved by grace through faith) can support that doctrine from scripture. The alternate view has no support in scripture.

Romans 3:22
even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Romans 3:25
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Galatians 2:16
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;​

Next we must consider Romans 4:2-5, where scripture teaches salvation through faith is not a salvation by works.

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness​

]

The case is closed, the evidence is obvious. Only those who ignore scripture will claim the bible does not mean what it says.

 

[agedman]

Amazing that one can think they have presented the truth and no argument can be raised.

Fact the word “through” is dia. We get the word DIAmeter from it. It is a preposition meaning to cross over, by, according to ...

The word “faith” is pistis. And never taken as human generated, but that given by God when used as pertaining to salvation and keeping.

In every “through faith” verse listed above, it can be rightly discerned as “according to God’s gift”.

Now, “case closed.”

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What Mitchell is attempting to do is use a debate tactic that fails to recognize distinctions. For instance, his question, "Where in the world or in the depths of history and time has the receiving of a gift ever been also considered part of the giving of the gift?" is an attempt at a 'gotcha! moment. It also is a nonsensical question, because it seeks to trivialize a momentous theological truth. The free gift of salvation is dependent upon the receiver of the gift being able to actually receive it. God is the One who makes the receiver capable of receiving the free gift through regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner, making it possible for the receiver to accept the gift by faith. The fact that salvation is a gift, and received by faith (Romans 2:24), does not negate the need for the sinner to be made able to believe.

ta da

 

[agedman]

Strong includes the following in this manner of defining the word faith as used in the Scriptures:

“More on what faith is . . . and isn't

1. In Scripture, faith and belief are not exactly the same. Faith always comes from God and involves His revelation therefore faith is beyond belief!
   
   
2. Faith is God's work; faith is never the work of people. We cannot produce faith ourselves, nor can we "drum it up at will." Rather, faith comes as Christ speaks His rhçma-word within (see Ro 10:17, Gk text).
   
   
3. In all of Scripture, only the term faith is ever used in the following way: Ro 14:23: Whatever is not of faith(4102/pistis) is sin." Heb 11:6: "And without faith (4102/pistis) it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (NASU).

Reflection: Nothing quite like this two-fold witness appears elsewhere in the Bible. These sweeping statements sober the heart and inspire the soul!

The Lord offers to inbirth faith in each scene of life – so that each matters equally in eternity . . . no matter how insignificant they seem (Lk 16:10 with Lk 17:6 and 2 Pet 1:2). “



There is a basic difference between the word faith and belief.

Faith is the gift of God, RESULTING in belief in Christ.

1) One cannot come to Christ without God first giving that gift of faith resulting in belief and expressed by confession and the ability to please Him.

2) Because all the unredeemed humankind does in working to attain God’s favor is Sin, the Scriptures state that without faith (that granted as a gift by God) it is impossible to please Him.

Would that all B.B. members could have there eyes opened and hearts illuminated to this truth.

 

[Van]

Lets review, the unbiblical assertion offers a redefinition of "faith" claiming it means what it does not mean. How many times did Jesus say, "your faith has healed you?" He never says, the faith I instilled in you via irresistible grace has healed you. Believe your bible folks.

Through (translated from the Greek preposition di or dia) could be translated "on the basis of" or "by the means of" faith. Here is the NAS Exhaustive Concordance:
Definition
through, on account of, because of

The three ways the agenda driven fictions are inserted into scripture is to either add a word or phrase (the things becomes "all the things" or remove a word or phrase or to redefine the meaning of a word (our faith becomes God's instilled faith.)

Bottom line, we were saved by grace through our faith which God credited to us as righteousness. Romans 4. Receiving the gift of salvation by grace through our faith in Christ as credited by God, is not a works based salvation.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

It's not all that difficult.

 

[Reformed]

One cannot come to Christ without God first giving that gift of faith resulting in belief and expressed by confession and the ability to please Him.

This is a good statement. It really is the fulcrum on which the entire Mongergist vs. Synergist argument rests. Is sinful man truly spiritually dead? If he is, then total inability is an unassailable truth. If he is not, then Synergism must triumph. We can argue about predestination and election until the cows come home, but it is for not if the underlying premise has not been established. I will give you an anecdote.

20 years ago I used to sell rental uniform services for a large national company. I called on an Amtrak facility that had major problems with their uniform program. The garments were worn and the current provider was providing shoddy service. I was working with the shop steward and management. They liked my pricing and the programs we had that would ensure good service. The contract terms were approved and I was scheduled to have all the necessary signatures within a few days. I paid one additional visit to the prospective customer to make sure the implementation plan was to their satisfaction. It was. I made an offhand comment that our service would reduce the customers' labor hours by 30%, effectively saving Amtrak tens of thousands of dollars annually. Little did I know, but I just sabotaged the deal. How? This Amtrak location was a union shop. Fewer labor hours meant less money for union employees. The shop steward opposed the deal and management acquiesced in order to prevent labor issues. The point? I was unaware of the real issue behind the deal. Because I did not ask the right questions, I lost a huge commission check.

What does my sales failure have to do with Monergism vs. Synergism? Both issues have an underlying issue that must be addressed. Failure to do so usually leads to spinning of the wheels and a lack of progress being made. We tend to avoid root causes because they are more personal and harder to address.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is a good statement. It really is the fulcrum on which the entire Mongergist vs. Synergist argument rests. Is sinful man truly spiritually dead?

A couple of things. The original accusation by Ageman was that if man must believe and that belief comes from within himself then salvation is by works. The original accusation was not based on what is quoted above.

Second, the above statement assume one single understanding of what spiritually dead is. The reformed folks see it as dead like Lazarus. General baptists see it as dead like the prodigal. So total inability is never unassailable truth.

This distinction of synergism and monergism is based on faulty presuppositions of reformed folks. General Baptists do not see Faith nor believe as a gift, we do not see man's response to the offer of salvation as a work or even working in cooperation with God. The reason falls back to my original question. When has the receiving of a gift ever been also considered part of the giving of the gift. To call the receiving of the gift (i.e. responding to God by believe) implies that the receiving is also part of the giving which would make it no longer a gift.

 

[Reformed]

A couple of things. The original accusation by Ageman was that if man must believe and that belief comes from within himself then salvation is by works. The original accusation was not based on what is quoted above.

Second, the above statement assume one single understanding of what spiritually dead is. The reformed folks see it as dead like Lazarus. General baptists see it as dead like the prodigal.

Like all threads, this one morphed - it moved away from the OP. However, the issue I brought up really is the main thing. And you are right when you say that Monergists see it more like Lazarus and Synergists like the prodigal. Monergists believe verses like Ephesians 2:1 teach that sinners are spiritually dead, i.e. incapable of any virtuous act apart from divine grace. Synergists believe sinful man is not utterly sinful. There is some divine spark remaining that allows for the sinner to exercise free will. My point is that we usually debate the wrong issue. There is good and bad in getting down to the root. The good is that we get to the main issue right away. Why nibble around the periphery when that is not where the root cause lies? The bad is that the main issue is typically more personal and harder to discuss. It tends to be a debate killer.

 

[Revmitchell]

and Synergists like the prodigal. Monergists believe verses like Ephesians 2:1 teach that sinners are spiritually dead, i.e. incapable of any virtuous act apart from divine grace. Synergists believe sinful man is not utterly sinful. There is some divine spark remaining that allows for the sinner to exercise free will. My point is that we usually debate the wrong issue. There is good and bad in getting down to the root. The good is that we get to the main issue right away. Why nibble around the periphery when that is not where the root cause lies? The bad is that the main issue is typically more personal and harder to discuss. It tends to be a debate killer.

This characterization is inaccurate as is the label of synergist.

 

[Reformed]

This characterization is inaccurate as is the label of synergist.

Inaccurate to you, not to me. Of course, both of us are free to reject each other's characterizations.

 

[Revmitchell]

Inaccurate to you, not to me. Of course, both of us are free to reject each other's characterizations.

And that is why these debates fall apart.

 

[Reformed]

And that is why these debates fall apart.

Partly. Internet debates are difficult to keep on track. When I used to debate face-to-face there was always a moderator to keep things on point. There were even rules covering the definition of terms. We do not have that here. I stand by my words. I do not believe I was mischaracterizing, and you do. As long as we are approaching our words out of goodwill (which is saying something), what else can we do? If we are both convinced of our point of view, are we supposed to bow our heads in defeat? No! We state what we believe and let the chips fall where they may. If it shuts down debate, so be it. Trust me. This subject will come up again in the near future. It always does.

 

[agedman]

A couple of things. The original accusation by Ageman was that if man must believe and that belief comes from within himself then salvation is by works. The original accusation was not based on what is quoted above.

Second, the above statement assume one single understanding of what spiritually dead is. The reformed folks see it as dead like Lazarus. General baptists see it as dead like the prodigal. So total inability is never unassailable truth.

This distinction of synergism and monergism is based on faulty presuppositions of reformed folks. General Baptists do not see Faith nor believe as a gift, we do not see man's response to the offer of salvation as a work or even working in cooperation with God. The reason falls back to my original question. When has the receiving of a gift ever been also considered part of the giving of the gift. To call the receiving of the gift (i.e. responding to God by believe) implies that the receiving is also part of the giving which would make it no longer a gift.

1). You have misrepresented the matter. The disagreement was NOT over belief, but that humankind have innate faith that when activated to some undetermined level will get God’s approval and oblige God to credit that person as righteous.

2) I posted the exact quote, and you have done nothing but distract by demanding an answer to a question, in effect supporting the quote by misrepresenting the quote’s words

3) Is it to be assumed that you apparently hold that humankind must do something and only IF that something meets some undetermined standard, THEN God is obligated to respond by crediting and transferring?

You present that there is a problem in my thinking, yet you do not acknowledge what was quoted presented a huge difficulty even within your own held view of “general baptists?

Are you seriously going to support that humankind can manipulate God?

That the holy Trinity is submissive to human effort?

Would you actually refute that FAITH COMES BY HEARING THE WORD OF GOD?

If “faith comes” from where does it come if humankind already have it?

 

[agedman]

Just in case the answer to Rev’s question was missed this is a copy of the answer.

See, I DID very accurately and thoroughly not only answer the question, but gave both Scriptural and practical application from living. I proved that history itself bears truth to the answer.

Does God not love us first that we might love others to the end they too might become His own?

Does the Lord give that one also give back from what they have received?

Does not the psalmist state that all God's works shall praise Him (Psalms 145:10)?

Does not one who is merciful have mercy given to them? (Matthew 5)

Does the lamp not give light that that others glorify God?

Does not the practical work of the farmer show that receiving the gift of nature is part of the giving of the gift to nature?

Your question has now been answered from both Scripture and practice.

You may not like or agree with the answer, but it never the less has been answered.

Now, take it upon yourself to deal with the real issue of the work to gain salvation that was posted on the other thread. That which you have yet to respond other than claim what was written was not what was actually written.

Do you in fact agree that, prior to salvation, the unredeemed heathen must gain the attention of God in some manner; thereby, having gained the attention, they may demonstrate such effort as to become God approved of the human effort, upon which God is obliged to "transfer" the person and "credit" them as saved?

Certainly, having answered the question, it is only polite to require an answer to the question ask in the quoted post above.