Total Depravity...

[skypair]

God warned Noah of His coming judgment, not that God taught Noah cause there was no one else. Noah most likely had some godly influences in his life at a young age and by the time of God speaking to Noah concerning the flood they had died. (for example...Methuselah - a man of God and Noahs grandfather - had to die before God could send his judgment and there were other around with him) Could God have spoken to Noah as well? Yes. But then you have a hard time reconcilling God leading Noah to know Him and about Him, then later Noah found grace in Gods eyes.

I'm not going on "Noah most likely" -- I'm sticking with the text. And in those days (as was the case with Abram, too) God revealed Himself in commanding them to do something. If they did it, God gave them faith in Him. There may have been more behind it than scripture gives, but I don't see hearing some gospel and hearing direct from God as being events separated by time. Clearly BELIEVED at the time of speaking to God would be in view if you were standing in front of Him.

Noah walked with God, just like his father Lamech, his grandfather Methuselah, and his great grandfather Enoch (who walked with God and was not). See the connection?? He had a Godly heritage and upbringing.

Sure, but how do you then have God not finding ANYONE that isn't pursuing sin? And how do you see God ready to destroy ALL mankind (including Noah) at one instant and then finding Noah and family worth saving?? If you are going to demand logic and scripture from Pastor Larry, I'm going to demand it of you?

Actually that is from a study I did, when a couple of pastors could not give me an answer as to what faith is biblically. Long before I EVER heard of Calvinism.

Well, then how come you disbelieve Heb 11:1??

Besides that, it is the known definition and one Adrian Rogers held to well. And I KNOW he was not a Calvinist.

He wasn't Calvinist for sure. He may have held as you believe (though in almost 20 years of hearing him, I haven't noticed that stand). But just consider Heb 11:1 "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for [believed], the substance of things not seen." (Meantime you are confusing the Calvinists on this board with your concession.)

Faith (noun) is the fact or statements (Jesus and or Gods Word) we acknowledge are truth by acting according to what they state.

Not necessarily. Have you ever heard this --- before we believe without evidence, we can only act on what we think. Then, when God turns our belief to faith, we go "from faith to faith." That is, we can "act according to what the word states" because we have FAITH and not just BELIEF.

Ex: You don't know me from Adam. As a first time ever candidate for mayor, if I tell you I'm going to cut taxes, you may serious believe me if I claim a conservative bent. But you won't have faith in me till you see it, right?

Faith (verb) is the act of acknowledging a fact or statment (Jesus, or Gods Word) is true.

The same definitions just one concerns the object which we are to obey and the other concerns the actions we do in responce to the object.

I see "fatih" defined both times and belief not at all. Huh?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Can a man choose to believe something? Can a man choose to have faith in something?

Helen brought up faith in a chair. It got me to thinking. If I want to sit down, and there is a chair, I may believe it will support me, but I don't know it will support me 'til I sit in it. When I sit in the chair, I have put my faith in it's ability to hold me. I still didn't know it would support me, but I chose to sit in it.

Not only that but now you have faith in the chair and it is no more an issue of unsubstantiated belief that you sit in it again. You now have faith in that chair! :thumbs:

skypair

 

[skypair]

No, a man cannot choose to believe something (or someone) he does not believe.


No, a man cannot choose to have faith in something (or someone) he does not have faith in.

And so you married your wife on what pretext (besides choosing to have faith in her?)? Or maybe you don't have faith in her even now?? :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Blammo, here's a personal story that got me to thinking the difference between belief / faith.

I had the opportunity to buy shares in Kmart once they filed bankruptcy. The shares dropped to .08 a share. I honestly believed it would only go up in price, as the odds for it to go lower were historically not in favor of doing so. This belief came from research and prior knowledge of how investments work. Now, even though I believed it would go up, I did not buy any shares in the company. Why? I had head knowledge of the situation, but no faith in the company. Faith is belief in action. Had I had faith in the company, and not only head knowledge, I would be sitting on over $100 a share today (due to the Sears acquisition of Kmart). My lack of faith kept me from buying the shares, even though I had the head knowledge due to research the odds were it would go up from .08 share. I really believed it would be a good investment. I didn't act out in faith.

YOU GOT IT, WEBDOG!!

skypair

 

[skypair]

More on faith as a possession - I just wanted to recognize that many theologians, including Calvinists, do not hold to my emphasis of faith as a possession. Many see faith as a human quality that is already residing in every person, but that depraved man can not exercise his faith unto salvation unless his faith is supernatually awakened to Christ through regeneration. Classical Arminians also believe that faith must be awakened by God, but that it is universally accomplished, but some people are able to resist the exercise of that awakened faith.

I can believe that awareness of God resides in EVERY soul (what you call "faith"). What I can't see is that we have faith without faith, which is the description of it that you are asserting.

skypair

 

[skypair]

The bigger problem is to Biblically equate [belief and faith]. Scripture clearly declares, "You believe in one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" (James 2:19). For the Calvinist to equate belief -- even correct or proper belief -- with saving faith, is to say that these demons are, well, saved.

Belief is intellectual assent, agreement. Faith is TRUSTING it that which one has believed. Faith is indeed in the heart of all men, as Romans 12:3 states -- but man's will is not freed to believe until (and unless) God through His prevenient grace enables one to believe.

JDale -- I just thought this needed to be repeated!

skypair

 

[skypair]

As to the second, you must follow the context. James' point is about the nature of saving faith. He is pointing out that saving faith involves more than mental assent to the facts; it is commitment. The demons have mental assent that God exists, but have not committed themselves to him. Therefore, their faith is not saving faith.

BINGO! Demons have belief -- WE have faith!!

I turn the question back to you that I asked above: Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief?

Heb 11:1 -- "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for [BELIEVED], the substance of things not seen."

And how? If faith and belief are different, why does the Bible use the same word? #1 -- there are NO original manuscripts extant, larry. How do YOU establish that the translations are reliable?

#2 - there is belief and there is saving belief that is not "in vain." 1Cor 15:4

#3 -- if you rely on there being no distinction, then you are a good Calvinist :laugh: But if you see the distinction, you are a better Christian!! :thumbs:

Why did the apostles uses the same word to describe this, if in fact it was different?

To me, it seems they were being non-judgmental. They were encouraging followers to have saving belief that also grow unto the stature of Christ.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't disagree that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves -- if we understand that God has given us (humans) that faith and made us the custodians of that faith.

To conclude that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves in the sense that Jesus believes FOR US, that our "belief means nothing," would then imply several problematic conclusions:

(1) Universalism. Scripture clearly teaches that "whosoever believeth in Him," (John 3:16), and that "God is not willing that any should perish..." (II Peter 3:9). If Jesus believes FOR US, then He believes FOR ALL. Of cours, this gets into the pet doctrine of Calvinists regarding limited atonement...

(2) No need for repentance. Everywhere, Scripture tells us that coming to Christ begins with repentance. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That's why Jesus and John began their messages in the Gospels at the very beginning of their ministries with, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Hevaen is at hand!" That's why the writer of Hebrews (Paul, BTW :-D ) tells us that among the "elementary principles of the Gospel" are "repentance from dead works, and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1).

(3) No personal responsibility. If Christ believes for us, then we have no responsibility to live as Christ desires. If following this train of thought to a logical conclusion, Jesus believes for us, so it's up to Him to produce a holy life in us -- but, what if we don't WANT to live a holy life? What if we WANT to sin? What if we RESIST His will? Or, is this where "irresistible grace" kicks in?

To insist on this tortured interpretation of so many Scriptures renders them meaningless -- unless you are one of the "elect" god has chosen and you are thereby smarter than the rest of the pathetic losers God has predestined for hell. To me, this denies logic, defies Scripture and de-emphasizes God's love for ALL mankind, whom He desires to save -- IF they believe -- which He has graciously given them the abiltiy to do.

And in advance, forgive the hyperbole -- I am making a point, not being hostile in ANY way!

Blessings,

JDale

I can't believe there are no responses to this post, JDale! These go to the very heart of the issues we are discussing C vs A!

WAKE UP FOLKS!!

skypair

 

[JDale]

I can't believe there are no responses to this post, JDale! These go to the very heart of the issues we are discussing C vs A!

WAKE UP FOLKS!!

skypair

Eh, it's okay Sky...I'm used to being ignored :laugh:

JDale

 

[Allan]

JDale -- I just thought this needed to be repeated!

skypair

Then you hold to salvation as a mental accent??

Whosoever believes...
If you will believe with your heart...
Believe and you will be saved...

All of these are scriptures about what a person does to be saved. And according to your defintions they must give a mental accent to God to be saved.?

Your biggest problem skypair, is that you are not going back to the original language to see for yourself.
Look up the word believe and the word faith and show me they have two different meanings aside from a verb and a noun, and you will see they are interchangable because of what they mean since they are the same word.

I know of no scholar, theologian, or preacher who holds or held to you version of faith and belief. But historically and currently I can show my position (along side scritpure) to be consistant with the Churches view of faith and belief.

 

[webdog]

Allan, those are examples of where believes = faith. As has been shown on this thread, belief doesn't always = faith even thought the original word is the same for both. The word for dead is used both spiritually as well as physically...and doesn't mean the same thing in both instances. The demons "believe" in Christ...but they don't have faith in Christ (James 2:19)

 

[JDale]

Then you hold to salvation as a mental accent??

Whosoever believes...
If you will believe with your heart...
Believe and you will be saved...

All of these are scriptures about what a person does to be saved. And according to your defintions they must give a mental accent to God to be saved.?

Your biggest problem skypair, is that you are not going back to the original language to see for yourself.
Look up the word believe and the word faith and show me they have two different meanings aside from a verb and a noun, and you will see they are interchangable because of what they mean since they are the same word.

I know of no scholar, theologian, or preacher who holds or held to you version of faith and belief. But historically and currently I can show my position (along side scritpure) to be consistant with the Churches view of faith and belief.

Salvation is ALL of God. That does not absolve US from the responsibility of being obedient and doing as He instructed us in order to gain salvation and entrance into His Kingdom!

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (John 6:28, 29).

JDale

 

[David Lamb]

No place in Scripture does regeneration precede faith in Christ. Pastor Larry would even agree to that.

But an unregenrate sinner is "dead in trespasses and sins". In such a state, how can that sinner exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? 1 Corinthians 2.14:

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

Put it another way, could Lazarus have got his four-day-dead, stinking corpse out of the tomb before Jesus restored him to life?

 

[skypair]

Then you hold to salvation as a mental accent??

Whosoever believes...
If you will believe with your heart...
Believe and you will be saved...

Yes, allan. God promises to give us faith for our belief in the truth. And yes, mental assent is the first step with the will and emotions following along in what I see as the "filling of the Spirit" that causes repentance and conversion. Do you see that?

Your biggest problem skypair, is that you are not going back to the original language to see for yourself.

You are right. I hear it here all the time but discount many "word arguments" as being meant to subvert the hearers (just like scripture says). We live in the era of the Spirit, not of the "letter."

I know of no scholar, theologian, or preacher who holds or held to you version of faith and belief. But historically and currently I can show my position (along side scritpure) to be consistant with the Churches view of faith and belief.

I aren't either :laugh: And neither do I rely on tradition more than scripture. That is unhelpful in many ways (especially in eschatology).

Do demons believe? Is there belief in vain? Is "faith the evidence of things believed, the substance of things spiritual?" Is there not a operative distinction even though there is not literal distinction?

skypair

 

[skypair]

But an unregenrate sinner is "dead in trespasses and sins". In such a state, how can that sinner exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? 1 Corinthians 2.14:

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

David -- welcome to our discussion. :wavey: This scripture you cite has been used frequently but is a misapplication in this case. In 1Cor 2, Paul says he came to them in simplicity preaching the gospel which they could understand. Then in 2:6, he goes on to say he will reveal things that the lost can't understand -- the "hidden wisdom" of God revealed in parables and mysteries. So, no, that is not a viable citation for blindness of the natural man to the gospel.

Put it another way, could Lazarus have got his four-day-dead, stinking corpse out of the tomb before Jesus restored him to life?

This is another classic Calvinist misapplication. No one living is like Lazarus -- completely dead and void of mental/spiritual capacity!

Conversion begins with "hearing" which is mentally processing words into theorems, if I may. The Holy Spirit -- mind of God -- is, of course, involved in this when the gospel is preached. The critical point He plays is conviction (John 16) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

IF one comes away from that process believing but doing nothing about it, one still is not saved. But if one repents and receives (1Cor 15:1-4), then one is saved receiving faith from God thereby.

I hope this helps you see the issues more clearly - how unregenerate sinners can belief unto faith (which distinction - faith vs. belief) we are trying to describe here lately).

skypair

 

[MB]

I don't disagree that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves -- if we understand that God has given us (humans) that faith and made us the custodians of that faith.

He does give us that faith however we must believe from our own heart in the Son of God in order to put on the righteousness of Christ. It only makes sense to me that our faith isn't righteous enough to save because we can't save our selves. Only His righteous faith is able to save

To conclude that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves in the sense that Jesus believes FOR US, that our "belief means nothing," would then imply several problematic conclusions:

I see that too. Our belief is important although it isn't perfect as Christ is. It's just as necessary because we must believe in order to put on His righteousness. In His righteousness, is perfect saving faith, something we aren't capable of.

(1) Universalism. Scripture clearly teaches that "whosoever believeth in Him," (John 3:16), and that "God is not willing that any should perish..." (II Peter 3:9). If Jesus believes FOR US, then He believes FOR ALL. Of cours, this gets into the pet doctrine of Calvinists regarding limited atonement...

Well said, I agree.

(2) No need for repentance. Everywhere, Scripture tells us that coming to Christ begins with repentance. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That's why Jesus and John began their messages in the Gospels at the very beginning of their ministries with, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Hevaen is at hand!" That's why the writer of Hebrews (Paul, BTW :-D ) tells us that among the "elementary principles of the Gospel" are "repentance from dead works, and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1).

I agree and repenting comes from our conviction of sin. We must repent and we must believe in order to do so. Conviction convinces us of our own sin and the need to repent and being convinced is believing from our hearts

(3) No personal responsibility. If Christ believes for us, then we have no responsibility to live as Christ desires. If following this train of thought to a logical conclusion, Jesus believes for us, so it's up to Him to produce a holy life in us -- but, what if we don't WANT to live a holy life? What if we WANT to sin? What if we RESIST His will? Or, is this where "irresistible grace" kicks in?

Calvinist would be the first to tell you that this is not what they believe. Although it has to be because, those who believe that God's Sovereignty means, He has absolute dominion over every aspect of there lives.
God is Sovereign but has given man dominion.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

In Order for man to have dominion he must also have dominion over himself.

To insist on this tortured interpretation of so many Scriptures renders them meaningless -- unless you are one of the "elect" god has chosen and you are thereby smarter than the rest of the pathetic losers God has predestined for hell. To me, this denies logic, defies Scripture and de-emphasizes God's love for ALL mankind, whom He desires to save -- IF they believe -- which He has graciously given them the abiltiy to do.

And in advance, forgive the hyperbole -- I am making a point, not being hostile in ANY way!

Blessings,

JDale

Election as I believe isn't what Calvinism makes it out to be at all. They use scriptures pertaining to the election of the Jews to support there theories. Some don't believe the Gentiles have been elected. Sometimes I must confess that I'm not sure I would even call it election but rather a choosing (same thing I guess). The Son of God chose to die for the unGodly. He didn't come to save the saved. Those who are ungodly included all of us before Salvation. There simply is no difference. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one is born saved in election and predestination from before the foundation of the world.
Christ died even for those vessels of wrath because they are no worse than unGodly
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I know your not being hostile no need for an apology.
MB

 

[Allan]

I'm not going on "Noah most likely" -- I'm sticking with the text. And in those days (as was the case with Abram, too) God revealed Himself in commanding them to do something. If they did it, God gave them faith in Him. There may have been more behind it than scripture gives, but I don't see hearing some gospel and hearing direct from God as being events separated by time. Clearly BELIEVED at the time of speaking to God would be in view if you were standing in front of Him.

No, your not sticking with the text because you are saying thing the text is not. I was showing that historically established by archeology that ancient people conveyed their beliefs, stories, and teachings in the manner I discribed. Scripture never tells us that God spoke with Noah before that time He declared Noah build an Ark.
AND...
Scripture does NOT say that after Noah obeyed God, that God gave Noah Faith. Noah would not have obeyed if it were not FOR his faith.
Hebrews 11 states

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

It was BY Faith Noah BUILT the ark for fear of what WAS (not yet seen) to come.
There is no validity to you accertion that a person does something and then faith is given. A person can not please God WITHOUT Faith and therefore can not do anything worthy by which God would give it to man.

Sure, but how do you then have God not finding ANYONE that isn't pursuing sin? And how do you see God ready to destroy ALL mankind (including Noah) at one instant and then finding Noah and family worth saving?? If you are going to demand logic and scripture from Pastor Larry, I'm going to demand it of you?

Because they were all dead by then!
Methuselah's Hebrew name appeantly was importand since it means: when he dies it will come, and through careful study of the dates in the OT we see Methuselah died the year OF THE flood. Prophetic it seems, huh?

Well, then how come you disbelieve Heb 11:1??

I don't DISBELIEVE Hebrews 11:1.
Please show how or even when I ever stated such.
Do a word study on it and you CAN NOT come away with your personal reasonings.

He wasn't Calvinist for sure. He may have held as you believe (though in almost 20 years of hearing him, I haven't noticed that stand). But just consider Heb 11:1 "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for [believed], the substance of things not seen." (Meantime you are confusing the Calvinists on this board with your concession.)

Yes, faith and belief in verb form mean the same exact thing, though you switched evidence and substance in the verse :laugh: . But it appears that now you are getting it.
What??? Confusing Calvinists with my concession???

Not necessarily. Have you ever heard this --- before we believe without evidence, we can only act on what we think. Then, when God turns our belief to faith, we go "from faith to faith." That is, we can "act according to what the word states" because we have FAITH and not just BELIEF.

What??
You made absolutely no sense. But on the slim chance I understood you..
First - show me one scripture that makes the remotest claim that God turns our belief INTO Faith.
Second - Scripture says believe and you will be saved[/U]. But it also says that you are saved by grace through faith. So which saves?
If you continue in your understanding, then you must accert that mental assent saves some people and faith saves others.
Scripture uses them interchangable.

Ex: You don't know me from Adam. As a first time ever candidate for mayor, if I tell you I'm going to cut taxes, you may serious believe me if I claim a conservative bent. But you won't have faith in me till you see it, right?

I see "fatih" defined both times and belief not at all. Huh?

skypair

No, my action (voting for you) is the foundation for what I am expecting. That action is the judicial proof used that others may see.

My faith is not established after the fact but IN the fact I was moved to do something not having seen it. (at least in the verb form)

 

[David Lamb]

David -- welcome to our discussion. :wavey: This scripture you cite has been used frequently but is a misapplication in this case. In 1Cor 2, Paul says he came to them in simplicity preaching the gospel which they could understand. Then in 2:6, he goes on to say he will reveal things that the lost can't understand -- the "hidden wisdom" of God revealed in parables and mysteries. So, no, that is not a viable citation for blindness of the natural man to the gospel.

This is another classic Calvinist misapplication. No one living is like Lazarus -- completely dead and void of mental/spiritual capacity!

Conversion begins with "hearing" which is mentally processing words into theorems, if I may. The Holy Spirit -- mind of God -- is, of course, involved in this when the gospel is preached. The critical point He plays is conviction (John 16) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

IF one comes away from that process believing but doing nothing about it, one still is not saved. But if one repents and receives (1Cor 15:1-4), then one is saved receiving faith from God thereby.

I hope this helps you see the issues more clearly - how unregenerate sinners can belief unto faith (which distinction - faith vs. belief) we are trying to describe here lately).

skypair

Thanks you, Skypair, for the Christ-honouring tone of your reply. Although I don't agree with everything you wrote (I believe in the "doctrines of grace", so I am probably what you would call a Calvinist I am so pleased that your careful choice of words prevented the thread degenerating into another "Calvinist versus non-Calvinist" diatribe. I will try to follow your example.

 

[Allan]

Yes, allan. God promises to give us faith for our belief in the truth. And yes, mental assent is the first step with the will and emotions following along in what I see as the "filling of the Spirit" that causes repentance and conversion. Do you see that?

Then by your definition and understanding we are to reccon the demons as saved.
The devils believe (mental assent) and tremble.

You are right. I hear it here all the time but discount many "word arguments" as being meant to subvert the hearers (just like scripture says). We live in the era of the Spirit, not of the "letter."

It might behoove you to research what the word "logomachia" (Greek for 'word' in that verse) actually means.
Your contention says we should not argue about words in scripture (which you do alot - as do I) but we are to study the scriptures to show ourselves approved unto God. A workman that needs not be ashamed. But this is really pointless or unnecessary because we are in/under the Spirit now and not the letter.

Additionally, it was the Spirit of God who wrote the Word and so niether will contradict the other. Study to show thyself approved unto God - This means study of the Word. ALso you are trying to make that scripture mean more than its context allows for Sky. The 'letter is in reference to obedience to the Law regarding salvation which we are no longer under but under the Spirit.
So on both points, you are wrong in your assumption.

I aren't either :laugh: And neither do I rely on tradition more than scripture. That is unhelpful in many ways (especially in eschatology).

And I do? I have yet to give any scholar, theologians, or others thoughts on the matter, but strictly scripture and the original language.

Do demons believe? Is there belief in vain? Is "faith the evidence of things believed, the substance of things spiritual?" Is there not a operative distinction even though there is not literal distinction?

skypair

It is not an 'operative distinction' but the object OF disctiction - Christ Jesus the Lord.

Faith is the same whether in a chair or in Christ. But it is the object in which the faith is placed which makes it salvic or distinct.
One is faith in vain (salvic) and the other is saving.

 

[Allan]

Salvation is ALL of God. That does not absolve US from the responsibility of being obedient and doing as He instructed us in order to gain salvation and entrance into His Kingdom!

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (John 6:28, 29).

JDale

If it is ALL of God then there is no need to beleive in the sense you are speaking of. Yes, salvation is ALL of God but man must believe or man will not be saved.

There is no need for the pleading of God and his ministers for man to believe, save yourselves, be reconsiled, and resist not the Holy Spirit.

Unless YOU believe you will NOT be saved, regardless of whether God gives you faith or not. YOU must beleive or YOU will die in your sins.
Man is resposible.