Where does believing faith come from part 3

[webdog]

Yes, all of you have denied it! You have all claimed that saving faith originates within yourselves; that it is not the gift of God.

Are you now claiming that you believe that faith is the gift of God? If so you have had an epiphany! Perhaps it will be catching.
__________________

Non Sequitur. Whether it is a gift given (that is then yours) or you were created with it, it still has nothing to do with man being sovereign over God and man taking credit for salvation. That is plain ridiculous and ignorant as has been shown too many times to count.

 

[webdog]

No, it doesn't. Here's Paul's only two uses in Romans

Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 11:2
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

The underlined words are the same in Greek. Lexical information is important but Paul's usage is much more telling. In 11:2 he is using "foreknew" as an antonym against "rejected." He's stating definitively that God will not reject His own people--His chosen people. So, since he uses the same exact word (in the exact same form) to discuss the "chosen," it must be the case that this word in 8:29 means choose.

Paul clearly uses this word as "choose."

Strong's - to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
I believe any language with "fore" and "pre" with an omnitemporal God to be anthropomorphic in nature, as there is no "fore" or "pre" with God, which is linear language, something God is not bound to. I believe the correct understanding is actually just "know".

No, it doesn't. Because we know what James 1 says:

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
So your assertion is precluded by Scripture itself. Now, does it fit together nicely? No. Does it bother me? Yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't the way it works.

Actually it does fit together quite nicely with James...just not with your theology If everything is decreed by God, everything is. If it's "everything...but", it is no longer everything.

The verb "served" is plural. If Joshua were intending to say that only Terah was the idol worshiper he would have used a singular. So, Abraham is included in the lot.

Joshua was actually referring to the "fathers", those from whom the Israelites came from, not individuals in particular, but the fact Terah is named lends credence to him being the last in the line of idolaters, as is further supported by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews...
http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/b1c7.html

 

[The Archangel]

According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was born under the name Abram in the city of Ur in Babylonia in the year 1948 from Creation (circa 1800 BCE). He was the son of Terach, an idol merchant, but from his early childhood, he questioned the faith of his father and sought the truth. He came to believe that the entire universe was the work of a single Creator, and he began to teach this belief to others.

Abram tried to convince his father, Terach, of the folly of idol worship. One day, when Abram was left alone to mind the store, he took a hammer and smashed all of the idols except the largest one. He placed the hammer in the hand of the largest idol. When his father returned and asked what happened, Abram said, "The idols got into a fight, and the big one smashed all the other ones." His father said, "Don't be ridiculous. These idols have no life or power. They can't do anything." Abram replied, "Then why do you worship them?"

The problem is that this is not scripture. The world at that time was rife with idolatry and there is no scriptural reason to think that the above "tradition" is correct. In fact, the inspired writer of Joshua says Abraham was, in fact, an idol worshiper.

Joshua 24:2 (King James Version)
2And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.

This says that Terah served other gods. It doesn't say Abraham did.

In fact, it seems as though God saw that Abraham was different from his family.

Genesis 12
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

God is separating Abraham from his family. Could it be because Abraham did not worship other Gods as his father did?

Joshua 24 doesn't suggest Abraham to be different from the rest of the family. The language shows that the fathers of the Israelites--Terah and Abraham both served other gods. This is attested to by the plural "they." If the Joshua had intended to implicate only Terah or only Nahor, he would have used "he," the singular.

There is nothing in Genesis 12 or Joshua to suggest what the tradition you have related to us is correct and there is nothing to suggest that Abraham had faith before God began His work in him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

Non Sequitur. Whether it is a gift given (that is then yours) or you were created with it, it still has nothing to do with man being sovereign over God and man taking credit for salvation. That is plain ridiculous and ignorant as has been shown too many times to count.

webdog

You freewillers remind me of the Pharisee in the following Scripture. I bet you pat yourself on the back periodically saying: "Thank you God that I was smart enough and good enough". Those you call Calvinist are more like the publican in they following Scripture. They understand who is the Author and Finisher of their Faith!

Luke 18:9-14
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

[The Archangel]

Strong's - to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
I believe any language with "fore" and "pre" with an omnitemporal God to be anthropomorphic in nature, as there is no "fore" or "pre" with God, which is linear language, something God is not bound to. I believe the correct understanding is actually just "know".

Does Paul use it as "choose" in Romans 11:2? Of course he does, I don't think there is any disagreement about that. But, and this is where Strongs is not-so-strong--the context and a particular author's usage is much more informative than a lexicon. And so if Paul uses the same exact word in 11:2 and it means choose, then 8:29 also means choose.

Actually it does fit together quite nicely with James...just not with your theology If everything is decreed by God, everything is. If it's "everything...but", it is no longer everything.

I certainly didn't say "everything...but." Does God ordain that evil exist? Sure. Does He cause people to sin or to do evil? No (thus the James passage).

There certainly is a tension in the Bible about this and it is left unresolved. Facts are presented and though they don't fit nicely, they are still scriptural facts to be accepted. So, it fits with my theology.

Joshua was actually referring to the "fathers", those from whom the Israelites came from, not individuals in particular, but the fact Terah is named lends credence to him being the last in the line of idolaters, as is further supported by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews...
http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/b1c7.html

Josephus, as valuable as he may be from time to time, is not scripture. The question is: What does the scripture (specifically Joshua 24) say?

Furthermore, the grammar of the Hebrew does not single any "one" father out--all are included, again the masculine plural as opposed to the masculine singular.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

webdog

You freewillers remind me of the Pharisee in the following Scripture. I bet you pat yourself on the back periodically saying: "Thank you God that I was smart enough and good enough". Those you call Calvinist are more like the publican in they following Scripture. They understand who is the Author and Finisher of their Faith!

Luke 18:9-14
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There is no comparison in what "free willers" believe about salvation and the Pharisee. We non-cals know and accept that we are sinners in need of a saviour. The Pharisee did not believe he was a sinner.

You are essentially calling non-cals self-righteous. And we are not. Our righteousness comes from Christ alone.

 

[Benefactor]

webdog

You freewillers remind me of the Pharisee in the following Scripture. I bet you pat yourself on the back periodically saying: "Thank you God that I was smart enough and good enough". Those you call Calvinist are more like the publican in they following Scripture. They understand who is the Author and Finisher of their Faith!

Luke 18:9-14
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[offensive remark edited]
I am sure when you preach or teach this Sunday that there will be fellowship between you our Lord, that is if you get your heart right for this unnecessary slander you have leveled at fellow believers who simply see things differently.
In this case who has mud on their face?

 

[Benefactor]

Getting Things Back on Track

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is (1) the assurance of things hoped for, (2) the conviction of things not seen. Faith then is trust in something that cannot be seen, but is hoped for. What exactly is this that can't be seen, but hoped for? How is this understood in light of John 20:29 "Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." In this case some believed that saw Jesus and others that did not see Him. Faith then cannot be in the man Jesus per say, but in the message of what is offered, "hoped for" that the person, this case Jesus, can do or deliver. What good is an expression of faith in a man? If we say I have faith in a man and we know nothing of the man then there is nothing to believe in. Faith would be in a skill, or past record of performance or in a promise, something that gives hope. In the case with Jesus we know from Scripture, which we also take by faith as God's word, the things hoped for which are not seen, which are specifically expressed in God's word.



Also, one key word has far reaching implications as used in this verse, the word “things”. The definition given by the author of Hebrews does not seem to have a theological definition in mind but an accepted understanding of the definition of faith, one that would be normal and understood in the time in which it was written. The average reader would understand this kind of language as the accepted norm in its historical setting to convey the idea and understanding of faith in anything, in this case the "hope" of what is given by God in the then existing writings of Scripture.



The importance in understanding "faith" within Christianity has far reaching theological implications. Faith in simple terms is trust in something, but this simplicity is not so clear when it is spoken of in theological terms, especially when it is said to be a special gift given to man so that he will then be able to trust in Christ. This of course is the age long dispute between the belief systems of Calvinism and Arminianism.



Hebrews 11:1 clearly defines faith as that which is normally understood as trusting in something. It was not explained as some mystical or special infusion or gift for the purpose of trusting in Christ. Paul writes in Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. The recipients of the letters to the Hebrews and Romans would have understood it in the same manner, trust in something. Paul informs the Romans that in order for them to believe they must hear the gospel. Hearing the gospel gives the listener the information needed to make a decision.



Faith is presented in Scripture as always occurring first followed by salvation (born from above / regeneration). This is clearly seen in Luke 7:50 ‘And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”.

Faith is a capacity all humans have by virtue of the fact that we are created in the image of God. Believing faith is not a special infused gift whereby a sinner is force to believe. Regeneration follows faith and there are no scripture that teach otherwise in the Bible, faith is always first and regeneration/salvation second.

 

[jcjordan]

There is no comparison in what "free willers" believe about salvation and the Pharisee. We non-cals know and accept that we are sinners in need of a saviour. The Pharisee did not believe he was a sinner.

You are essentially calling non-cals self-righteous. And we are not. Our righteousness comes from Christ alone.

Amy, would you say that having faith is an act of righteousness?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, would you say that having faith is an act of righteousness?

An "act" of righteousness would be a work, would it not? Faith is not a work.

 

[The Archangel]

Faith then cannot be in the man Jesus per say, but in the message of what is offered

Jesus' message does not save; He Himself, through His sacrifice on the cross does. Therefore, it is Jesus, not His message, we have faith in.

Also, one key word has far reaching implications as used in this verse, the word “things”. The definition given by the author of Hebrews does not seem to have a theological definition in mind but an accepted understanding of the definition of faith, one that would be normal and understood in the time in which it was written. The average reader would understand this kind of language as the accepted norm in its historical setting to convey the idea and understanding of faith in anything, in this case the "hope" of what is given by God in the then existing writings of Scripture.

"Things" is defined and most likely means "events" because the author of Hebrews uses the same word regularly to describe events.

Hebrews 11:1 clearly defines faith as that which is normally understood as trusting in something. It was not explained as some mystical or special infusion or gift for the purpose of trusting in Christ. Paul writes in Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. The recipients of the letters to the Hebrews and Romans would have understood it in the same manner, trust in something. Paul informs the Romans that in order for them to believe they must hear the gospel. Hearing the gospel gives the listener the information needed to make a decision.

This is not so. In the Old Testament, especially important to the author to the Hebrews, faith is always a response to God. God is always the initiator and man is the responder. This is what is in view here (again, the Hebrew flavor of the book).

Faith is presented in Scripture as always occurring first followed by salvation (born from above / regeneration). This is clearly seen in Luke 7:50 ‘And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”.

No. Again, faith is always presented as the response to God. God is the initiator, man is the responder.

Faith is a capacity all humans have by virtue of the fact that we are created in the image of God. Believing faith is not a special infused gift whereby a sinner is force to believe. Regeneration follows faith and there are no scripture that teach otherwise in the Bible, faith is always first and regeneration/salvation second.

Really?! If this is so, again, explain Abraham. Obviously faith didn't come first in his case.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

I am amazed that Calvinists do not see that if God gives you faith, then there is no glory to God for this. You are nothing but a robot, a puppet obeying his command. How does that glorify God?

This is what is so stupid about the arguments presented on this Forum against the Sovereign Grace of God which some want to call Calvinism, a pejorative in their mind. That doctrine magnifies the grace of God. That doctrine glorifies God because it fully recognizes that Salvation is the work of God alone. If it were not for the Sovereign Grace of God no one would be saved.

Furthermore, it is stupid to say that we are robots and God forces us to believe, a puppet obeying His command. Nothing could be further from the truth. God through regeneration makes us a new creation in Jesus Christ.[Ephesians 2:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17] He changes the will which was against God to a will that desires God, a will that desires to follow and obey God. He then gives us the faith to believe the Gospel, the faith through which, believing in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, we are justified and declared righteous.[Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:23-31]

Salvation is not just regeneration as some on this Forum seem to think. First and foremost is the Sovereign choice by God of some unto Salvation in Jesus Christ, a choice made before the foundation of the world. [Ephesians 1:3-6] Then in time comes regeneration wrought in those chosen ones by God the Holy Spirit, [John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-8; Titus 3:5] made possible only by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for those given unto Him by the Father. After regeneration in which the will set against God is changed to a will that desires God the gift of faith is given. Subsequently, though not necessarily chronological comes the effectual call, conversion, union with Jesus Christ, repentance, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eventually glorification.

All this is summarized in the following Scripture:

Romans 8:29, 30
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I realize that some on this Forum fail to recognize that God has spoken to the Saints of past times but no man describes the affect of regeneration better than John Dagg.

Dagg notes [Manual of Theology, pages 277ff]:

“So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed, as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed”

2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV
17. Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Dagg further notes:

“The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for he that loveth, is born of God.”

“The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our understanding. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[John 3:8, KJV] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[James 1:18, KJV] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God, because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart.”

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

Believing faith comes from God and His word, through Jesus Christ. Who are the people God chose from the foundation of the world. The world may never know. What we do know of God is that He will hide this truth from the wise and the learned and reveal it to little children.

Zephaniah 3:12
But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD.

Are these the one's God has chosen before the foundation of the world?

I'm not lying to you. God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. If they don't hear the word and believe they will not be saved. The problem men run into is they are not meek and humble and trust in the name and the word of the Lord, they trust in their own understanding.

If a farmer left His land to God to do all the work and did nothing he wouldn't have any crops.

 

[The Archangel]

Now that is impressive: I can't acute my omicrons up like that but would if I could. I have to copy and paste, unless you want to buy me a word processor that supports that ability. Anyway the opinion on the omicron as being a definite article or relative pronoun is of course disputed, but you know that. I personally don't think it matters because of the context.

Question: "What does John 3:16 mean?"

Answer: We often see signs and banners at sporting events that say "John 3:16." Wrongly so, John 3:16 is often written as graffiti on highway overpasses. Some "entertainers" have thrown in a twist and replaced "John" with "something else 3:16." So, what is the big deal with John 3:16? Why is this one verse so important?

No other verse in the Bible so succinctly summarizes God's relationship with humanity and the way of salvation. Some consider John 3:16 as the "theme verse" for the entire Bible. John 3:16 tells us of the love God has for us and the extent of that love—so great that He sacrificed His only Son on our behalf. John 3:16 teaches us that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, God's Son, will be saved. John 3:16 gives us the glorious hope of eternal life in heaven through the love of God and death of Jesus Christ.

There is no more powerful way to deliver this message than to let John 3:16 speak for itself. Here is John 3:16 in 22 different English Bible translations. The words may be slightly different, but the glorious message is the same.

The fonts I use are from Tyndale House and they are unicode fonts. Since I am a Mac user, I have no earthly idea how this would work on a PC. But, you can go here for downloads and instructions.

Now, on to the substance:

There is no dispute over the ὅ and the ὁ as it relates to John 3:16. I've checked and there is no textual variant that I can see. Further the adjectival participle requires the omicron to be viewed as a definite article--the construction is rather formulaic.

I will agree with you on one thing (I know....there are gasps being heard from everywhere!)--John 3:16 is a magnificent verse.

God [demonstrated] His love for the world in a specific way--He gave His unique son. Why? For what purpose? The ἵνα clause give the answer: So that the ones believing in Him (note: not His message) will not perish. What is more, they will, instead of perishing, have eternal life.

That verse is remarkable and it should be preached from every roof top and every mountain top. Does the verse call people to believe in Christ? Sure. Does it show any type of agency involved (ie. does God do it or does man do it)? No.

This magnificent verse tells us what God did and why He did it. It mentions nothing of man or man's agency.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

This is what is so stupid about the arguments presented on this Forum against the Sovereign Grace of God which some want to call Calvinism, a pejorative in their mind. That doctrine magnifies the grace of God. That doctrine glorifies God because it fully recognizes that Salvation is the work of God alone. If it were not for the Sovereign Grace of God no one would be saved.

First, you need to fully realize that "stupid" is a pejorative that you should drop from your vocabulary while posting here.
Secondly, We agree that:
God is Sovereign.
Salvation is totally of the grace of God and not of works,
Salvation magnifies the grace of God
Salvation is the work of God alone.
Without the grace of God no one would be saved.

Just who are you arguing against?

Furthermore, it is stupid to say

Yes, indeed it is! "It is stupid to say!! And to say one is stupid is just plain stupid, so avoid the stupidity, please!!

that we are robots and God forces us to believe, a puppet obeying His command.

Nothing could be further from the truth. God through regeneration makes us a new creation in Jesus Christ.[Ephesians 2:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17] He changes the will which was against God to a will that desires God, a will that desires to follow and obey God. He then gives us the faith to believe the Gospel, the faith through which, believing in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, we are justified and declared righteous.[Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:23-31]

What have you said here:
1. God makes us a new creation in Jesus Christ (as in forces us).
2. He changes the will which was against God to a will that desires God. (He forces us again--God and his robots: wind them up and let them go)
3. He then gives us the faith to believe. (he forces us to believe--we have no choice.) Before we could have chosen from our own faith, but now given faith of God we have no choice but to believe.
Thus the conclusion: "We are justified and declared righteous." Yes, after all that we would be just, righteous, little robots "running around on this earth" as Benny Hinn puts it. Benny Hinn has "little gods," and you have "little robots." It fits.

Salvation is not just regeneration as some on this Forum seem to think. First and foremost is the Sovereign choice by God of some unto Salvation in Jesus Christ, a choice made before the foundation of the world. [Ephesians 1:3-6]

Instead of "the sovereign choice of God," an expression not found in the Bible, it is rather the choice of man made within the spectrum of God's sovereignty.

Then in time comes regeneration wrought in those chosen ones by God the Holy Spirit, [John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-8; Titus 3:5] made possible only by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for those given unto Him by the Father.

According to your wording here, God had to do some serious thinking about who he would elect. After a few millennia passed, then it came time to regenerate those who he chose to elect. It was a hard and difficult choice for God to do this. That is why regeneration could never take place at the same time as election in the mind of God. God doesn't have a sense of time does he? It would be impossible for him to work outside of the realm of time, even though Christ was the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

After regeneration in which the will set against God is changed to a will that desires God the gift of faith is given.

A man cannot be regenerated without faith. God will not give a spiritual gift to an unsaved man. Therefore the faith to believe is not a gift from God.

Subsequently, though not necessarily chronological comes the effectual call, conversion, union with Jesus Christ, repentance, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eventually glorification.

The regeneration and conversion take place at the same time. Without faith one cannot be regenerated, nor can he be converted. Both take place at the same time. You need to carefully study all those "whosoever" verses.

Dagg's comments were not very helpful. Look for a better commentary.

 

[The Archangel]

1. God makes us a new creation in Jesus Christ (as in forces us).
2. He changes the will which was against God to a will that desires God. (He forces us again--God and his robots: wind them up and let them go)
3. He then gives us the faith to believe. (he forces us to believe--we have no choice.) Before we could have chosen from our own faith, but now given faith of God we have no choice but to believe.
Thus the conclusion: "We are justified and declared righteous." Yes, after all that we would be just, righteous, little robots "running around on this earth" as Benny Hinn puts it. Benny Hinn has "little gods," and you have "little robots." It fits.

Yikes! Equating Benny Hinn with Calvinists is not fair. (Ugh...I finally used a smiley!) After all, we don't claim to be faith healers!

With all due respect, we don't think that God "Forces" us. I understand where those who oppose Calvinism get this--in fact, I used to make the same type of arguments (except for the Benny Hinn part).

We believe that man is not truly free until regenerated because we are slaves to sin (Romans 6). So, the slavery to sin means that sin is our master and, therefore, we are not free.

This is why the imagery between Old Testament Israel being set free from slavery in Egypt and the New Testament Christian being set free from slavery to sin is so striking. Notice, that God never required Israel to clean up her act before He'd set her free. He set her free first (because He is faithful to His promise to Abraham) and then He gave the law--after freedom had already been granted.

Instead of "the sovereign choice of God," an expression not found in the Bible, it is rather the choice of man made within the spectrum of God's sovereignty.

Here's a tired argument...but it works: The word "trinity" isn't found in the Bible, but you can certainly see it there.

According to your wording here, God had to do some serious thinking about who he would elect. After a few millennia passed, then it came time to regenerate those who he chose to elect. It was a hard and difficult choice for God to do this. That is why regeneration could never take place at the same time as election in the mind of God. God doesn't have a sense of time does he? It would be impossible for him to work outside of the realm of time, even though Christ was the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

Certainly God does have a sense of time. He exists above time for sure, but since He condescends to us, He exists in time as well, although He is not "bound" by time. He discusses a period of years with Abraham (the duration of the slavery of Israel), certainly He has a concept and exists in time as well.

God would not have to do "serious thinking" about who to elect. If He could speak the universe into being (presumably without thinking long and hard about it), He can elect without much thought. Anything that God does is ipso facto done well and done right. So, any choice He makes on whom to elect and whom to pass over is the right choice.

A man cannot be regenerated without faith. God will not give a spiritual gift to an unsaved man. Therefore the faith to believe is not a gift from God.

Why? God does all He pleases (Ps. 115). We don't have to give permission to God to do anything.

I contend the assertion quoted above is illogical based on two false assumptions leading to a false outcome.

How was Abraham chosen without faith (being an idol worshiper at the time God "approached" him)? The Bible doesn't say that God doesn't or won't give gifts of a spiritual nature to an unsaved man.

The regeneration and conversion take place at the same time. Without faith one cannot be regenerated, nor can he be converted. Both take place at the same time. You need to carefully study all those "whosoever" verses.

We hold that regeneration and conversion are not the same event. For how can a spiritually dead person (Ephesians 2) do anything spiritually? New life must be given.

Also, the "whosoever" verses are largely participles and are not prescriptive or imperative. They are largely declaratory--stating that the ones believing will be saved (as in John 3:16).

DHK, I know you know these arguments and I'm not writing "against" you. There are important theological questions that the Arminian-ish theology cannot satisfactorily answer, at least in my estimation.

There are many Arminian-ish Christians that I hold in extremely high regard, so this is not a question of good Christian/bad Christian. And I'm sure many of the Arminian types are better Christians than I am.

Blessings to you,

The Archangel

 

[psalms109:31]

Regeneration

All believed before receiving the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit in God timming. You cannot be regenerated without he Holy Spirit, but you can believe without it to. Through the words of Jesus God can make a man alive to go down the road that God has placed before him to believe in Jesus and have life or not and be condemned.

What you think is impossible God can do.

All praise and glory goes to God through Jesus because without Him i can do nothing.

We do have an awesome message!

The word of God cannot be contained in religious beliefs.

 

[OldRegular]

DHK

First I want to say that I do not use the word stupid lightly. The use of this word was not allowed in my home. However:

1. I have been accused of lying and being ignorant by carpro. Are these pejoratives? What is the real difference between stupid and ignorant? Furthermore to accuse one of lying is even worse.

2. My God and Savior has been accused of making men robots and forcing them to believe by you and Winman. That shows an abominable ignorance of Scripture.

So I used the word stupid which is no more pejorative than ignorant or lying.

Now you say in your response to my post in part:

Posted by Moderator DHK
What have you said here:
1. God makes us a new creation in Jesus Christ (as in forces us).
2. He changes the will which was against God to a will that desires God. (He forces us again--God and his robots: wind them up and let them go)
3. He then gives us the faith to believe. (he forces us to believe--we have no choice.) Before we could have chosen from our own faith, but now given faith of God we have no choice but to believe.
Thus the conclusion: "We are justified and declared righteous." Yes, after all that we would be just, righteous, little robots "running around on this earth" as Benny Hinn puts it. Benny Hinn has "little gods," and you have "little robots." It fits.

The above remarks are simply a disgusting parody of what I said. I will say this. I had rather be God's robot than delude myself into thinking I am the author of my own salvation.

Furthermore, dragging the heretic Benny Hinn into the discussion makes me wonder. Are you, a moderator, calling me a heretic? I thought that was not allowed on this Forum. You take me to task for using the word stupid after I have been called a liar, ignorant, and believe that God makes us robots. And then you call me stupid and cleverly imply that I am a heretic like Benny Hinn.

You then say:

Posted by Moderator DHK
According to your wording here, God had to do some serious thinking about who he would elect. After a few millennia passed, then it came time to regenerate those who he chose to elect. It was a hard and difficult choice for God to do this. That is why regeneration could never take place at the same time as election in the mind of God. God doesn't have a sense of time does he? It would be impossible for him to work outside of the realm of time, even though Christ was the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

The above is completely false, furthermore, it is blaspheming God to make such asinine remarks as:

According to your wording here, God had to do some serious thinking about who he would elect. After a few millennia passed, then it came time to regenerate those who he chose to elect. It was a hard and difficult choice for God to do this.

I said:
Salvation is not just regeneration as some on this Forum seem to think. First and foremost is the Sovereign choice by God of some unto Salvation in Jesus Christ, a choice made before the foundation of the world. [Ephesians 1:3-6] Then in time comes regeneration wrought in those chosen ones by God the Holy Spirit, [John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-8; Titus 3:5] made possible only by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for those given unto Him by the Father. After regeneration in which the will set against God is changed to a will that desires God the gift of faith is given. Subsequently, though not necessarily chronological comes the effectual call, conversion, union with Jesus Christ, repentance, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eventually glorification.

The above is true if you will take the time to read and comprehend Ephesians 2:1-7. the Apostle Paul states:

2. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, [by grace ye are saved;]
6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

So you see God did regenerate us in time.

I then said:

All this is summarized in the following Scripture:

Romans 8:29, 30
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I could have said that in the mind of God on the basis of the above Scripture His elect were already glorified but I thought that would be beyond your ability to comprehend.

One final remark by you. You say:

Dagg's comments were not very helpful. Look for a better commentary.

First, Dagg's book is not a commentary. It is the first book of theology written by a Southern Baptist. Second, perhaps as you grow spiritually you will come to appreciate Dagg's remarks. Stranger things have happened but there is always hope.

 

[OldRegular]

Archangel

Thanks for your response to DHK. It was much more gracious than mine.

 

[psalms109:31]

save me

Who can save me from this body of death, praise be to Jesus.

Jesus is the only hope for a unregenerated man.

Praise be to Jesus. Amen