Total Depravity...

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.

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?

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

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.)

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?

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

skypair

 

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

 

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

 

YOU GOT IT, WEBDOG!!

skypair

 

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

 

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

skypair

 

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

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:

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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)

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

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 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

 

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

 

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

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.

Well said, I agree.

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

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.

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

 

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

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.

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?

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.

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???

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.

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)

 

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.

 

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

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.

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

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.

 

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.