Where does faith come from? 2nd Rodeo

[DHK]

I snipped out all the other parts which were nothing but blundering bunk. The above is left to show how you debate and what arguments you use to make pretense as to actually have brought a rebuttal.

You have not.

This is one of the most inane responses you've come up with to date, and my friend that is a feat in itself! It only goes to show you have nothing as an answer.

The bottom line is that when God speaks it creates, the sources of life come from His Word, including faith and His quickening power, and therefore it is all directly from Him. You say it is not directly from Him. See how asinine that is? This is how you relentlessly curtail the Godhead daily and you don't even bat an eye over it.

There is a difference between God's revelation to mankind and God himself.
I know of a Muslim who memorized the entire NT. He still remains a Muslim. If God is speaking through His Word to him, then why doesn't he know God? God's revelation to man and God Himself are not the same thing as you have been asserting.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Dr. Cassidy is the only one here who has given an honest attempt at trying to show through scriptures that faith is a gift of God given to the unregenerate. Most of you just assert that it is and then use your philosophy and rationalization. You haven't "shown me umpteen times." You haven't given a single scripture that can prove that point.

More false charges. You've been shown numerous Scriptures by several brethren on here who have schooled your false teachings with truth.

 

[DHK]

More false charges. You've been shown numerous Scriptures by several brethren on here who have schooled your false teachings with truth.

Many scriptures have been taken out of context and all have been refuted.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I suppose I have to spell it out.

Please do.

I believe the Bible according to my own understanding through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and prayer.
You believe the Bible according to a set standard of beliefs according to Calvinism. Is that not true?

I have to admit you have tried, but you just can not help yourself. Those spots are coming back out for all to see. I believe the bible as it is laid out via prayer and guidance of the Spirit. Your 'my own understanding' is contrary to the word of God, seeing we are not to lean on our own understanding. You are exposing you flaws with each post. I commend you for trying to change, but when the 'rubber meets the road', you resort to your old tactics.

It is a known fact (I have seen the statistics) that Calvinistic churches are less evangelistic than non-Cal churches. It is a simple fact that their theology leads them to that conclusion. There is one poster here that does't believe the Great Commission is valid for today. I know you don't fall into that category, but many do. Look at all the opposition Carey faced. He had to write a book to convince others about the need for evangelism because they were so stuck in their non-evangelistic Calvinism. (So let the Hindus die. God will elect them according to his will, without our efforts.) That was the prevailing attitude, and seems to be the prevailing attitude toward many Muslim nations today.

Quit with the blanket statements. Yes, there are some anti-great commission. Never denied that fact. Look at the free will believers. One on here believes two gospels; one for Jews and one for Gentiles. One advocate mysticism in that they stated that Jesus Himself has appeared to tribes and a revival has broken out and souls were saved. That's full blown mysticism. Another believes everybody will hear the gospel. Everybody means everybody without exception. So those who died in infancy heard the gospel, because everybody, by golly, means everybody. Both camps have their 'loons', Monsieur.

I am not bearing false witness at all. It is the common belief among Calvinists. It has to do with the ordo salutis. Earnest Pickering wrote about this in reference to MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus"
In one small section he said:

"It may surprise you to learn that Scripture never once exhorts sinners to 'accept Christ.'" (p. 106). We are guilty, says the writer, of employing incorrect terminology when we plead with sinners to "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" (p. 106). In citing John 1:11-12 the point is made that "receiving Christ" is more than "accepting him" (p. 106, footnote). The explanation of the difference, however, is less than satisfactory. In an apparent reference to the problem of the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) MacArthur declares, "Thus conversion is not simply a sinner's decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual" (p. 107). We gather that perhaps he is teaching that regeneration precedes faith. Nevertheless, whatever his view may be on that, it cannot be denied that the sinner must make a decision. We must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He must "repent and believe the gospel." The Bible emphasizes the call to the sinner. Christ condemned the sinners of His day by saying, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (Jn. 5:40). While it is God that saves, there is still a responsibility to come, and we, as faithful witnesses, must issue that invitation.
http://rosesreasonings.blogspot.ca/2006/10/book-review-by-dr-ernest-pickering.html
--The above is an excellent article.

John MacArthur was spot on. The unregenerate want anything/everything BUT God. Bowing before Him is the last thing they want to do. When God quickens the unregenerate, their desires change...you love what you once hated...God. It's called repentance. In this quickening, faith is given as well.

I have not met a Calvinist yet who does't put regeneration before faith, and yet the Bible teaches the opposite.

The consistent ones hold to this biblical truth.

Believe and thou shalt be saved/regenerated (as bro. Cassidy attests happens simultaneously).

Without divine assistance...giving a new heart and spirit...new eyes to see with...new ears to hear with...they will never believe and be saved.

Dr. Cassidy is the only one here who has given an honest attempt at trying to show through scriptures that faith is a gift of God given to the unregenerate.

As have I.

Most of you just assert that it is and then use your philosophy and rationalization.

Since when is Ezekiel 11:19 & 36:26, Hebrews 12:2, Romans 12:3, Philippians 1:29, John 1:13, Galatians 3:8, 2 Peter 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7, philosophy and rationalization. We take man(rightfully) out of salvation. God knows how to save and needs no help from us to accomplish His will in our lives.

You haven't "shown me umpteen times." You haven't given a single scripture that can prove that point.

*****YAWN*****

I gave no such charge.
If a person does not know the difference between God's Word, the Bible, and God Himself, He is thoroughly confused. God's Word is God's revelation, God's instruction manual if you will, to mankind. It is not God Himself.

God's spoken word brought everything into existence. It came directly from God. God's word...bible here...was spoken by God through His Spirit inspiring the prophets to write as He moved upon them. So even His word...which brings faith by hearing it...comes directly from God. You are fracturing God from His word.

Go back to your ordo salutis and see why. If it were God himself why does Theopedia make this distinction:

http://www.theopedia.com/ordo-salutis

In Theopedia's version it completely omits faith. But others insert it after regeneration somewhere.
This is contrary to the teaching of 1Pet.1:23 and Rom.10:17 when looked at in harmony with each other.

Paul also said:
1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
--The gospel that saved you is the gospel that you received. They received it by faith.

1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

God's word came directly from Him. When we hear it spoken, the Spirit moves through that word of faith that we preach.

 

[SovereignGrace]

There is a difference between God's revelation to mankind and God himself.
I know of a Muslim who memorized the entire NT. He still remains a Muslim. If God is speaking through His Word to him, then why doesn't he know God? God's revelation to man and God Himself are not the same thing as you have been asserting.

People out there buy bibles solely to gather info, to learn, just like you might buy a history book to learn how Canada became a country. I read the bible off and on for YEARS, but it was a bunch of meaningless words to me. This is where verses such as 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:7 come to the forefront.

My mother-in-law's dad right before he committed suicide had bad dreams and wanted to keep a small gideon's NT under his pillow. Yet, he had no desire for church unless there was a dinner afterwards. People can read the bible their whole lives and die lost. Unless God quickens them, they will not be saved.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Many scriptures have been taken out of context and all have been refuted.

Not by you.

 

[SovereignGrace]

By the way DHK, you never answered my question...

Do you have a new heart and spirit now or the same stony heart and dead spirit?

 

[DHK]

Please do.

God's spoken word brought everything into existence. It came directly from God. God's word...bible here...was spoken by God through His Spirit inspiring the prophets to write as He moved upon them. So even His word...which brings faith by hearing it...comes directly from God. You are fracturing God from His word.
God's word came directly from Him. When we hear it spoken, the Spirit moves through that word of faith that we preach.

Obviously God is separate from His Word. If He wasn't then you would have no problem believing that once an unregenerate person hears the Word of God (and faith comes by hearing) that he would automatically have all the divine faith he needs to be regenerated. Faith, of a necessity would precede regeneration. There would be no need to "impart faith" to the unregenerate because God through His Word has already done it.
If you are making your argument through IT's position then you have no problem dismissing your own position and admitting that God-given faith after regeneration is redundant, a useless gift. It comes from God (i.e., His Word. After all, they are the same. That is his position.

 

[DHK]

People out there buy bibles solely to gather info, to learn, just like you might buy a history book to learn how Canada became a country. I read the bible off and on for YEARS, but it was a bunch of meaningless words to me. This is where verses such as 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:7 come to the forefront.

My mother-in-law's dad right before he committed suicide had bad dreams and wanted to keep a small gideon's NT under his pillow. Yet, he had no desire for church unless there was a dinner afterwards. People can read the bible their whole lives and die lost. Unless God quickens them, they will not be saved.

And thus there is a difference between The Bible and God.
He can read and even memorize the Bible without having God speak to him, whether or not God is the author of the Word. The two are separate. This has been my position all along. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your position must be consistent in all cases.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Obviously God is separate from His Word. If He wasn't then you would have no problem believing that once an unregenerate person hears the Word of God (and faith comes by hearing) that he would automatically have all the divine faith he needs to be regenerated. Faith, of a necessity would precede regeneration. There would be no need to "impart faith" to the unregenerate because God through His Word has already done it.
If you are making your argument through IT's position then you have no problem dismissing your own position and admitting that God-given faith after regeneration is redundant, a useless gift. It comes from God (i.e., His Word. After all, they are the same. That is his position.

Again, you are missing my point. Every unregenerate person on the earth has a stony heart. They also have blinded eyes and deafened ears. They are spiritually dead. The words of God...bible here...have no effect to them in that state. Sure, the fleshly man hears those words, but the word of God must be spiritually discerned. This is where it is very important to understand that God must quicken the unregenerate to truly grasp the gospel. The unregenerate aren't zapped, as others accuse us of advocating. It's not like they are out in a field and He imparts faith to them there. He imparts faith through His word, through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And thus there is a difference between The Bible and God.
He can read and even memorize the Bible without having God speak to him, whether or not God is the author of the Word. The two are separate. This has been my position all along. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your position must be consistent in all cases.

But once quickened by God, they grasp what the bible says.

God spoke to Satan, Adam, and Cain, yet Adam was the only one rsstored. Why is that?

 

[DHK]

By the way DHK, you never answered my question...

Do you have a new heart and spirit now or the same stony heart and dead spirit?

Do you have a new "apple"?
I prefer not to define doctrine using allegorical language from the OT that is directed to Israel, IOW taken out of context. My heart is still pumping blood and works just fine.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

However, I do have the Spirit of God. I am a child of God. I am led by His Spirit.
I have received the Spirit of adoption and have been adopted into his family.
His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am his child.
--And I believe that is enough evidence for me without speaking of "hearts and stones."

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you have a new "apple"?
I prefer not to define doctrine using allegorical language from the OT that is directed to Israel, IOW taken out of context. My heart is still pumping blood and works just fine.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

However, I do have the Spirit of God. I am a child of God. I am led by His Spirit.
I have received the Spirit of adoption and have been adopted into his family.
His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am his child.
--And I believe that is enough evidence for me without speaking of "hearts and stones."

So, you don't want to admit I shot a gaping hole in your usage of Ezekiel 11:19 & 36:26. I have been given a new heart...a fleshly heart that loves...and a new Spirit.

 

[DHK]

Again, you are missing my point. Every unregenerate person on the earth has a stony heart. They also have blinded eyes and deafened ears. They are spiritually dead. The words of God...bible here...have no effect to them in that state. Sure, the fleshly man hears those words, but the word of God must be spiritually discerned. This is where it is very important to understand that God must quicken the unregenerate to truly grasp the gospel. The unregenerate aren't zapped, as others accuse us of advocating. It's not like they are out in a field and He imparts faith to them there. He imparts faith through His word, through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I believe He does, before he is regenerated. And that is where we differ.

Let us go back to the Reformed position. Theopedia poses this valid question:

It is important to realize that the differences are much more than mere labels. One's "ordo salutis" has as much to do with salvation stages as it does with the cause(s) of salvation itself. For example, the reformed position has faith as an effect of election rather than a cause of it (as the Arminians have it). Thus, there is a sense in which a person is saved in order to have faith. Where, then, should blame be laid if a person does not believe?

It is obvious that the Word and faith in the Word precedes regeneration. If they didn't then that would make God the author of evil.

Here is another question.
Jesus said to Nicodemus: "You must be born again."
Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
If there is a difference between salvation and regeneration is it possible that Nicodemus was regenerated but never saved. Jesus never even spoke of "salvation" to Nicodemus, and yet you draw a line between the two as if they should be separated.

Nicodemus needed to believe Jesus in order to be regenerated. He didn't need to be regenerated in order to have faith. You have it backwards. He needed to believe Jesus first. Then he would be both regenerated and saved if he believed.

 

[DHK]

So, you don't want to admit I shot a gaping hole in your usage of Ezekiel 11:19 & 36:26. I have been given a new heart...a fleshly heart that loves...and a new Spirit.

I don't allow allegories or figures of speech to define my doctrine. That is how the RCC got into transubstantiation. You are taking scripture addressed to the Israelites and applying it to yourself.
What do "hearts and stones" have to do with me? Nothing.

 

[DHK]

But once quickened by God, they grasp what the bible says.

God spoke to Satan, Adam, and Cain, yet Adam was the only one rsstored. Why is that?

Free will.

Ten lepers came to Jesus. Only one returned.
Jesus said, Where are the nine? Why didn't the nine return?
Don't question the sovereignty of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Free will? Since when are slaves free?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Don't question the sovereignty of God.

Oh lawdy! You're the one that adamantly avers God can NOT save the unregenerate until they do something. You have man cooperating, helping God save themselves, not I, Monsieur.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Many scriptures have been taken out of context and all have been refuted.

Yes indeed, and they have been the ones that you have misused that have been regularly refuted.

 

[DHK]

Free will? Since when are slaves free?

Paul called himself a "slave" in Romans 1:1. Was he free or not?
He still had the choice to sin. We always have a choice. God made us that way.

In the same way God gave commands to the unregenerate:
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

And you know there are many more.
Just as the lepers freely came to Jesus so are we able to freely come to him. I believe your analogies fall short of the truth, that is the analogies of being slaves or dead. Slaves could ask for their freedom and many did.
Onesimus was a slave and was granted his freedom.
Paul himself was a slave in a sense, as he was taken prisoner to Rome, but was given a measure of freedom in the house he lived in.
To be dead simply means to be separated. Many of your analogies simply fail.