Saving Faith: God’s Gift to Sinners or Sinners’ Gift to God?

[McCree79]

Apples and oranges.
Abraham, et. al. lived pre-cross. Cornelius didn't.
Roman 4 distinctly says that Abraham was justified by faith. Do you need any more clarity than that?
1Cor.15:1-4 clearly says that one cannot be saved without the gospel.
Do you deny scripture? Cornelius had not heard the gospel. Regeneration and salvation take place simultaneously. This is the contortion that you have to make it in order to force it into your pre-conceived model. It just doesn't fit. So now we have regenerated people, yet unsaved walking about on the earth. Absurd!



From Strong's

--There is no hint that the word must define a regenerated person. It is simply one who is pious or religious.
A Muslim or Hindu fits that definition.
He was a pious Jew. The Jews (Judaism), by this time, had become a false religion.

Oh and eusebes= devout, godly, pious. Per kohlenberger's......don't leave out godly

 

[DHK]

4 sentence fragments out of 3 different chapters from a book you haven't even read(I'm sure). Is that fair?

Where would you limit God's Sovereignty? At creation?

I don't limit God's sovereignty. Ironically the Calvinist does.
God is sovereign enough that within his sovereignty he allows man to have a free will, he being omniscient, knows exactly what man will choose, and will not force or interfere in that choice that he in his sovereignty has given him.

By omitting free will the Calvinist has tied the hands of God. He has limited the omnipotence of God. He has limited his sovereign power. Ironic isn't it?

 

[DHK]

Oh and eusebes= devout, godly, pious. Per kohlenberger's......don't leave out godly

The word is "godly."
Ask a "devout" Hindu if he is "godly"?
Do you know what he will tell you?

 

[McCree79]

Apples and oranges.
Abraham, et. al. lived pre-cross. Cornelius didn't.
Roman 4 distinctly says that Abraham was justified by faith. Do you need any more clarity than that?
1Cor.15:1-4 clearly says that one cannot be saved without the gospel.
Do you deny scripture? Cornelius had not heard the gospel. Regeneration and salvation take place simultaneously. This is the contortion that you have to make it in order to force it into your pre-conceived model. It just doesn't fit. So now we have regenerated people, yet unsaved walking about on the earth. Absurd!



From Strong's

--There is no hint that the word must define a regenerated person. It is simply one who is pious or religious.
A Muslim or Hindu fits that definition.
He was a pious Jew. The Jews (Judaism), by this time, had become a false religion.

How many lost people do you know that have reverence for God. That are God fears???? I have never heard anyone say he is a God fearing sinner. Never seen the bible say the natural man is enmity with God, but he has reverence for him. That is contradictory. How could the lost Cornelius, the enemy of God have reference for God? How could he be devout to a God he was an enemy of? He could be devout to another god, but not the God.

 

[robustheologian]

I don't limit God's sovereignty. Ironically the Calvinist does.
God is sovereign enough that within his sovereignty he allows man to have a free will, he being omniscient, knows exactly what man will choose, and will not force or interfere in that choice that he in his sovereignty has given him.

By omitting free will the Calvinist has tied the hands of God. He has limited the omnipotence of God. He has limited his sovereign power. Ironic isn't it?

Man's will is free yet bound. It is bound by God's sovereignty and man's sinful nature. Man's will is free to choose what God allows and what his nature can.

BTW, that term "free will" is tricky. A truly free will means that someone is able to whatever they want (or will). However, if I were to jump of a skyscraper and will to fly I couldn't. I view "free will" as a theological technical term.

 

[DHK]

Was Cornelius alive before Christ's work on the Cross??? Yes he was. This is not apples and oranges. Could he have started his relationship with God prior to Christ's death??? Yes. Most likely he did since he had not heard of Christ's work. He was devout to God committed to God. He wasn't a Muslim....he wasn't Hindu. Those comparison are of religious people who are not of God. Scripture makes it clear he feared God. The natural man...the sinner does not have reverence or respect for God.

You are straining at gnats; really reaching here.
This "devout" man was devout to a false religion--a religion that may have been devoted to the worship at one time to Jehovah, but a religion that had rejected the Messiah and had crucified him. They hated him. It was a false religion that persecuted true believers. This is the religion that he belonged to, and those are the people that admired him, and said that he was a good man, in spite of the fact "there is none good," as you affirm.
In your quest to affirm that this man is "good" you deny your own premise of the depravity of man. How ironic!

 

[DHK]

Man's will is free yet bound. It is bound by God's sovereignty and man's sinful nature. Man's will is free to choose what God allows and what his nature can.

"what God allows" according to the Calvinist--only the elect will be saved; all others are damned.
"man's sinful nature" no free will; he can only choose evil.
Ergo--no free will.

 

[DHK]

How many lost people do you know that have reverence for God. That are God fears???? I have never heard anyone say he is a God fearing sinner. Never seen the bible say the natural man is enmity with God, but he has reverence for him. That is contradictory. How could the lost Cornelius, the enemy of God have reference for God? How could he be devout to a God he was an enemy of? He could be devout to another god, but not the God.

You still ignore context. The context is "among the Jews."
The Jews hated Christ and hated Christianity.
He was not a God-fearing Christian. The God that they now worshiped was a false god of a false religion. Judaism was no longer a true religion, the way to heaven. God had rejected them, as they had rejected God.

 

[McCree79]

I don't limit God's sovereignty. Ironically the Calvinist does.
God is sovereign enough that within his sovereignty he allows man to have a free will, he being omniscient, knows exactly what man will choose, and will not force or interfere in that choice that he in his sovereignty has given him.

By omitting free will the Calvinist has tied the hands of God. He has limited the omnipotence of God. He has limited his sovereign power. Ironic isn't it?

That post is illogical. You claim that Calvin says God is all powerful...it fact he is so sovereign under Calvin's view, he losses sovereignty??? He loses his ruling power???? Really?

Oh, and you make it sound, once again, that Calvin believes we don't have the ability to think or make choice. Not true. You keep saying it.....but it won't make it true. You have choice....but the slave to sin only serves his master, his sinful nature. He does not and can not do anything to please God.

 

[McCree79]

The word is "godly."
Ask a "devout" Hindu if he is "godly"?
Do you know what he will tell you?

....the rest of the sentence.....who was he devout to? You refuse to take the sentence as a whole because it doesn't fit you theology. That sounds familiar.... Where have I heard that... Oh yeah.

 

[robustheologian]

"what God allows" according to the Calvinist--only the elect will be saved; all others are damned.
"man's sinful nature" no free will; he can only choose evil.
Ergo--no free will.

That needs some refinement.

"what God allows" takes into account God's sovereignty. Simply put, if God wanted all to be saved...all would be saved (Psalm 135:6). But all will not be saved (Matt. 25:46).

"man's sinful nature" does not mean he can only choose evil or is utterly depraved, it means he does not will to choose good...especially spiritual good.

 

[McCree79]

....the rest of the sentence.....who was he devout to? You refuse to take the sentence as a whole because it doesn't fit you theology. That sounds familiar.... Where have I heard that... Oh yeah.

It doesn't say devout and Hindu. It says devout and "God-fearing". Once again....the enemy of God does not have reverence for him. They don't respect him. Only the children of God do.

 

[DHK]

That post is illogical. You claim that Calvin says God is all powerful...it fact he is so sovereign under Calvin's view, he losses sovereignty??? He loses his ruling power???? Really?

Oh, and you make it sound, once again, that Calvin believes we don't have the ability to think or make choice. Not true. You keep saying it.....but it won't make it true. You have choice....but the slave to sin only serves his master, his sinful nature. He does not and can not do anything to please God.

Read more carefully.
I said that "I believe," that is "The non-cal has a view of God in which the sovereignty of God is greater than the view of the Calvinist. In our view God is sovereign enough to allow man to have free will. Compare it to the Book of Job. God allowed Satan to have his way with Job. Job still had free will, and Satan still is the god of this world. God had to come to Job and rebuke him near the end of the book. If everything was predetermined, Job saying exactly what God wanted him to say why would God have to "correct himself"?

 

[DHK]

It doesn't say devout and Hindu. It says devout and "God-fearing". Once again....the enemy of God does not have reverence for him. They don't respect him. Only the children of God do.

Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

You are battling a losing cause. Paul disputed with idolatrous but devout Greeks. I am sure they were devout to their gods.

 

[DHK]

That needs some refinement.

"what God allows" takes into account God's sovereignty. Simply put, if God wanted all to be saved...all would be saved (Psalm 135:6). But all will not be saved (Matt. 25:46).

"man's sinful nature" does not mean he can only choose evil or is utterly depraved, it means he does not will to choose good...especially spiritual good.

And that is why this discussion is about Cornelius who, though unregenerated, chose to do good.

 

[McCree79]

You are still bearing false witness. Can you provide any quote where I said a man "generates his own faith." In fact I repudiated such a statement. Why do you attribute to me the very things that I deny?

God does not give the unregenerate/the unsaved faith. I keep saying that, and keep asking for evidence from the Bible that if it is true provide Scripture. It is never provided. Why do you state fairy tale "truths." If you can't provide scripture don't post it.
Faith is not a work. Paul states that in Romans 4:4,5:
"But to him that worketh not but believeth but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness."
Faith is in opposition to works.

As I posted here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=98238&page=19

It was a post that was never answered because the thread was closed shortly after.

I never said faith is generated. Neither did Jesus.
But Christ commended their faith. Your theology contradicts the work of Christ.

How do you get your faith? From God or generated by yourself? There is only two options. Its you or God. You are doing a pretty song and dance to avoid answering the question.

 

[robustheologian]

And that is why this discussion is about Cornelius who, though unregenerated, chose to do good.

Was Cornelius' really unregenerated when he chose to do that good?

 

[McCree79]

Read more carefully.
I said that "I believe," that is "The non-cal has a view of God in which the sovereignty of God is greater than the view of the Calvinist. In our view God is sovereign enough to allow man to have free will. Compare it to the Book of Job. God allowed Satan to have his way with Job. Job still had free will, and Satan still is the god of this world. God had to come to Job and rebuke him near the end of the book. If everything was predetermined, Job saying exactly what God wanted him to say why would God have to "correct himself"?

I don't limit God's sovereignty. Ironically the Calvinist does.
God is sovereign enough that within his sovereignty he allows man to have a free will, he being omniscient, knows exactly what man will choose, and will not force or interfere in that choice that he in his sovereignty has given him.

By omitting free will the Calvinist has tied the hands of God. He has limited the omnipotence of God. He has limited his sovereign power. Ironic isn't it?

Read you own post. The words "I believe" is missing. You state Calvinism limits God's sovereignty.... Never said "I believe"

 

[McCree79]

And that is why this discussion is about Cornelius who, though unregenerated, chose to do good.

That would be contradictory to scripture. Psalms 14:1......no one does good.

 

[McCree79]

DHK,


....and half the posts I see from you bear false witness to reformed believes(and Calvin) on their believes. Don't lecture me moderator.