Where Did Our Faith Come From?

[Dougcho]

Did we create our own faith …
and then believe in Jesus and the Gospel?
Or, did it come from somewhere else … like from God?

Jude 3
“… the FAITH which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (NKJV)
“… the FAITH that God has entrusted once for all time to His holy people.” (NLT)
“… the truth which God gave, once for all, to His people …” (LB)
Jude says our faith was given to us, and entrusted to us.

2 Peter 1:1
“To those who have received a FAITH of the same kind as ours …” (NASB)
“This FAITH was given to you …” (NLT)
“To: All of you who have our kind of faith. The faith I speak of is
the kind that Jesus Christ our God and Savior gives to us.” (LB)
Peter says our faith was given to us, and we have received it.

Acts 13:48
“Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (NKJV, NASB, NIV)
“When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for His message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.” (NLT)
Luke says these Gentiles were chosen first,
and then they became believers.
Jesus says, “You did not choose Me; I chose you.” (Luke)

Acts 16:14
“… and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” (NASB)
“… the Lord opened her heart, and she accepted
what Paul was saying.” (NLT)
“The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” (NIV)
Luke says Lydia needed God’s help to respond to (and accept) Paul’s message.
Even though she was a worshiper of God …
Lydia needed God to open her heart before she could believe Paul’s Gospel message.
Does this mean that God made her OPEN to believe,
or that God gave her the faith necessary to believe?

It appears that Scripture says:
we don’t create our own faith … God gives it to us,
so we can believe in Jesus and the Gospel.

 

[kyredneck]

did it come from somewhere else … like from God?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Mt 16

 

[37818]

One's faith comes from perceived truth.

First, personal experience.

Second, from the witness of others.

Good logic.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Dougcho

Jude 3
“… the FAITH which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (NKJV)
“… the FAITH that God has entrusted once for all time to His holy people.” (NLT)
“… the truth which God gave, once for all, to His people …” (LB)
Jude says our faith was given to us, and entrusted to us.

Faith here I believe is the body of Truth, not the Gift of Faith God gives to believe with.

 

[DaveXR650]

Faith here I believe is the body of Truth, not the Gift of Faith God gives to believe with.

I agree. There has to be specific things to believe which is a set of propositions. And there is no such thing as something like a bucket of faith which can be given to you and now you have saving faith. But to see that Christ is important, to understand your position before God as a sinner, and to desire Christ and understand how important this is to you is a gift given by God that you cannot conjure up on your own. We are completely dependent upon God as to whether he draws us this way and we are not told how this works, or how this gift is distributed, except that it is up to God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Mt 16

Like Ky quoted here, flesh and blood can of course understand the bare statement that Jesus is the Christ, but to actually believe in the true sense of knowing it in your own heart to where you would venture everything on it - that must be a Holy Spirit work. It must be "revealed" to you.

 

[Dougcho]

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Mt 16

Nice reminder ... Thanks!

 

[Dougcho]

God opens people’s eyes
“But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation,
both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power
of God to save them …” (1 Corinthians 1:24, Living Bible)
The translators stand against Arminian theology …
when they write that God opens the eyes of those who are “called”.
People are called after their eyes have been opened ... so they can believe.

God alone saves
“God has chosen a plan despised by the world, counted as nothing at all
… so that no one anywhere can ever brag in the presence of God.
For it is from God alone that you have your life through Christ Jesus
… As it says in the Scriptures, “If anyone is going to boast, let him boast
only of what the Lord has done.” (1 Corinthians 1:28-31, Living Bible)
The translators stand against Arminian theology …
when they write that God alone is responsible for one’s salvation!

But, it is God’s mercy and grace (unmerited favor)
that is the underlying reason for all of it.

 

[DaveXR650]

God opens people’s eyes
“But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation,
both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power
of God to save them …” (1 Corinthians 1:24, Living Bible)
The translators stand against Arminian theology …
when they write that God opens the eyes of those who are “called”.
People are called after their eyes have been opened ... so they can believe.

Here's Arminius himself: "I say, then, that it is very plain from the Scriptures, that repentance and faith cannot be exercised except by the gift of God". A couple of paragraphs later he said "But persuasion is effected, externally by the preaching of the word, internally by the operation, or rather the cooperation , of the Holy Spirit, tending to this result, that the word may be understood and apprehended by true faith." This is from "An Examination of Predestination and Grace in Perkins' Pamphlet".

That "God opens people's eyes" sounds pretty close to what Arminius said himself. Exactly where does this stand against Arminian theology?

 

[kyredneck]

"But persuasion is effected, externally by the preaching of the word, internally by the operation, or rather the cooperation , of the Holy Spirit, tending to this result, that the word may be understood and apprehended by true faith."

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

By this definition Arminius was a synergist.

 

[DaveXR650]

@kyredneck. What is your point? To be called a synergist may be a big deal to you but even Sproul said that the actual act of believing is synergistic. My point is that this:

The translators stand against Arminian theology …
when they write that God opens the eyes of those who are “called”.
People are called after their eyes have been opened ... so they can believe.

Looks exactly like what Arminius wrote.

 

[kyredneck]

To be called a synergist may be a big deal to you

It's a big deal not to conflate quickening with conversion.

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

 

[DaveXR650]

It's a big deal not to conflate quickening with conversion.

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

It could be if the question was whether you actually cooperate in regenerating yourself. I don't think, or at least I haven't come across this, that Arminius was saying such a thing. If you mean did he believe that no one would be regenerated without faith and that faith was something enabled by the Holy Spirit, then yes, in that sense there was cooperation. Is that a big problem? Not that you have to see it that way.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Dougcho

God has chosen a plan despised by the world, counted as nothing at all
… so that no one anywhere can ever brag in the presence of God.

Included in that plan/purpose is the fact that God sovereignly chooses those whom He will save unto eternal life and Glory and them He will consign to eternal destruction for their sins, to make His Power Known.

 

[kyredneck]

It could be if the question was whether you actually cooperate in regenerating yourself.

K. I get it. You don't believe in Total Depravity, and you believe that dead people are able to do something.

 

[kyredneck]

"Ever and anon the non-Cal cries, why doth He still find fault?" Aaron

 

[DaveXR650]

K. I get it. You don't believe in Total Depravity, and you believe that dead people are able to do something.

What I get is that whether regeneration occurs before one believes, the first conscious reckoning of this is that one believes. Without a conscious, rational link from the person to God (called faith), this is utterly meaningless. So say all the Calvinists. When John 3 talked about the mystery of being born again it is obvious that this is nothing but theological conjecture - but for us, what we are told is to believe. That is what we are told to do. And we are told repeatedly in scripture to believe.

What you need to understand is that you are making a huge mistake if you so camp on being "dead spiritually" and unable to to anything that you start telling people they can't do anything. It's so bad that some of the poor regular Baptists on here are rebuked for believing or telling someone to believe. This is theological malpractice and does nothing but cause division.

"Will anyone tell me that it is right for a man to sit still in sin? Will anyone say that a sinner on the road to hell ought to wait idly for some power to take him up and put him in the way to heaven?" Then a couple of paragraphs later:
"I will not waste time in trying to explain what cannot be explained, and unravel what cannot be unravelled. I will not attempt to show metaphysically in what way an unconverted man can look to Christ, or repent, or believe. But this I know, that it is my plain duty to bid every unbeliever to repent and believe. And this I know, that the man who will not accept the invitation, will find at last that he as ruined his own soul!"
That is from J.C. Ryle, who believed in the doctrines of grace, yet had the balance not to go in the unscriptural error you propose.

So, to answer your accusation, I do believe in total depravity. And I do think that dead people are able to do things, just like they are described in scripture as doing things. I don't think they can regenerate themselves or even desire to. But they can and should be told to repent and believe the gospel. The Holy Spirit will handle the rest, or not, and our understanding of the theology of how this works doesn't matter. But once again, your attitude of smugly announcing God's choosing of some to heaven and some to hell with no invitation to the reconciliation that Christ has provided for everyone who comes is a serious perversion of the gospel.

 

[kyredneck]

What you need to understand is that you are making a huge mistake if you so camp on being "dead spiritually" and unable to to anything that you start telling people they can't do anything.

Have never done that.

It's so bad that some of the poor regular Baptists on here are rebuked for believing or telling someone to believe.

Have never done that.

That is from J.C. Ryle, who believed in the doctrines of grace, yet had the balance not to go in the unscriptural error you propose.

What unscriptural error have I proposed?

So, to answer your accusation, I do believe in total depravity.

It wasn't an accusation, a statement of fact, you don't hold to the doctrine of total depravity as I understand it.

And I do think that dead people are able to do things

And you don't understand death the same way I understand it.

But they can and should be told to repent and believe the gospel. The Holy Spirit will handle the rest, or not, and our understanding of the theology of how this works doesn't matter.

K. You got a post of mine in mind where I've opposed or railed against Finneyism?

But once again, your attitude of smugly announcing God's choosing of some to heaven and some to hell with no invitation to the reconciliation that Christ has provided for everyone who comes is a serious perversion of the gospel.

Can you produce a post of mine where I've 'smugly' announced such a thing?

You 'smugly' accuse, Dave.

 

[DaveXR650]

@kyredneck. Stop the juvenile back and forth. I put up some statements and a paragraph by J.C. Ryle.

"Will anyone tell me that it is right for a man to sit still in sin? Will anyone say that a sinner on the road to hell ought to wait idly for some power to take him up and put him in the way to heaven?" Then a couple of paragraphs later:
"I will not waste time in trying to explain what cannot be explained, and unravel what cannot be unravelled. I will not attempt to show metaphysically in what way an unconverted man can look to Christ, or repent, or believe. But this I know, that it is my plain duty to bid every unbeliever to repent and believe. And this I know, that the man who will not accept the invitation, will find at last that he as ruined his own soul!"

Do you or do you not agree with J. C. Ryle? If you do, then we have no disagreement. What is your answer?

 

[kyredneck]

@kyredneck. Stop the juvenile back and forth.

Stop 'smugly' accusing me.

Do you or do you not agree with J. C. Ryle?

Yes and no. If someone feels it is their 'plain duty' to 'street preach', then they ought to do it. But they ought not to tell me that folks are going to hell because I'm not a street preacher.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm not sure Ryle ever street preached. Whether he did or not why bring that up? I'm not interested in whether you feel guilty about being a street preacher. I'll try to be as plain as possible. I have noticed that while there are differences in our theological understandings of how exactly one comes to be saved the real differences are what we do with our beliefs. And I have noticed that there are plenty of 5 point Calvinists who have no trouble bidding people in general to believe and to be converted. You, and some others, come on and say that if you do like they do you must be saying one can conjure up faith by themselves and regenerate themselves.

If you read these guys, they are clear in saying that the person who comes to Christ (which is one of Owen's definitions of faith), is doing so because they have been regenerated. Others, not going that far, say that they come under the influence or working of the Holy Spirit but are not sure if regeneration has already occurred. Nevertheless, they attribute the coming to the Holy Spirit's work (which Arminius clearly does).

I got in on this when something was falsely attributed to Arminius, who I have been reading. I do believe that there is an actual change wrought in a person who is regenerated and not just a conviction or "moral suasion" leading one to believe. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Arminius on this but I think he is vague in this area. But this is important - some of the Calvinists on this site oversimplify greatly what is going on here in a person who is under conviction and in the process of being converted. Read Owen on the Holy Spirit and you will see what I mean. And what happens is that they begin to disparage any preaching to repent and believe because after all, we can do nothing on our own. This is unfortunate because that is exactly the kind of preaching needed. You are the one bringing up street preaching and Finney, which I don't know what that has to do with anything.