-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where does faith come from? 2nd Rodeo
- Thread starter SovereignGrace
- Start date
- Status
Bro. DHK, I am sorry if this feels like a 'Jump on DHK' thread. I commend you for staying in it as long as you have. Kudos.
But, this forum genders quite the heat, just like eschatology. And things do get out of hand, and I pray I have NOT stepped across the line. I don't think I have, but if I have, I offer you my sincerest apology.
Now, what I see is this...you are saying the OT was solely for the Jews. If this isn't correct, please accept another apology from me. This is how that came across to me. In some way, all the scriptures are applicable to all believers, in my opinion. You quoted Genesis 3:22. Yes that is applicable to all believers. Knowing good from evil further validates sinners' corrupted hearts. They know it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, kill, & beat people. So we know when we sin we have done wrong in His sight and repent of that sin(s).
But, this forum genders quite the heat, just like eschatology. And things do get out of hand, and I pray I have NOT stepped across the line. I don't think I have, but if I have, I offer you my sincerest apology.
Now, what I see is this...you are saying the OT was solely for the Jews. If this isn't correct, please accept another apology from me. This is how that came across to me. In some way, all the scriptures are applicable to all believers, in my opinion. You quoted Genesis 3:22. Yes that is applicable to all believers. Knowing good from evil further validates sinners' corrupted hearts. They know it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, kill, & beat people. So we know when we sin we have done wrong in His sight and repent of that sin(s).
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Here is how Paul treats the OT for NT believers:
Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. - 1 Cor. 10:11
Not jumping on Bro. DHK, just making a statement....
His dispensationialism has him viewing the church and Israel as separate entities. So he sees God dealing with His creation in two distinct groupings of belivers. So, it comes across this way to me, that he views the OT being to the Jews and the NT to the Gentiles. That is why he sees places such as Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26 and chapter 37 as dealing with their restoration.
Personally, my studying has lead me to believe that Israel(church and Israel as one entity of believing Jews and Gentiles) being restored ~2,000 by a Man dying on an old cross at Golgotha.
He sees the unregenerate as having an ability to believe in a fallen state. They are dull of hearing...deaf as a post...they are blinded by sin, bound by sin in satan's grasp, there is a giant chasm between them and God, yet they can hear, see, exercise free will, and get back to God while in that fallen state. It is after they have heard, seen, freed, and gotten back to God, He saves them. Of course. They did all the heavy lifting.
You had just said in an earlier post that the answer is free will.
It's a valid question. It sort of goes along with :"What makes one to differ from another?"
That is stupid on your part DHK. Just stupid.
Utter stupidity coming from your keystrokes DHK. You are the one making completely irrational leaps --which are entirely unwarranted. None of us are saying that all should be saved. Deal with what we say. Don't go on flights of fancy.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I don't believe anyone is really jumping on him, but on his teachings, yes. Certainly he takes it personally, but this is a debate forum and he has stated 'If you can't take the heat...' and I can and am not offended by it. Another issue is his failure to actually address the theological rebuttals given him as he instead erects a straw man or goes ad hominem, or debates something outside the topic. That is always the easy route.
Now when the lies and all that come with them it is a right thing to jump on him about those things since he professes to being a believer. We are accountable to one another and I offer no apologies to calling him on this behavior. Address the debate in context, stay in context.
You are correct that the dispy view muddles the OT Scriptures. It appears that they take 2 Timothy 3:16 as meaning the NT Scriptures. Often times DHK rejects the usage of the OT Scriptures, and dismisses their usage, the 'imprecatory Psalm' excuse is just one example.
God is sovereign in salvation, but man must do his part and exert his free will before He can save them.
In all of the above, who is in the driver's seat?
In all of the above, who is in the driver's seat?
Six Hour Warning sometime after 2am Pacific, this thread will be closed.
God is always sovereign. Man is always responsible. If God offers man a gift, and one so precious that it will save his soul and forgive his sins, it would only be proper and fitting that man should, by faith, accept that gift that he may be saved. The reception of the gift is not a work. Faith is not a work. Thus salvation is all of God. It always has been.
It has only been in recent years that faith has been redefined into "saving faith" along with a new doctrine of denying "carnal Christians" and this concept of Lordship Salvation, and the slicing and dicing of Christian vs. disciple. All of this came with the introduction of many of John MacArthur's teachings. Though not a heretic or a false teacher, he has introduced strange doctrines into the Christian faith that have led many astray. Some of these doctrines have affected the thinking of those who have been "attacking" (debating) me. For example,
Pickering explains:
2. Saving faith is more than mental assent.
A number of times, in various ways, this emphasis is given. Saving faith is "more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing" (p. 31). We do not know any fundamental preachers of the gospel who would disagree with that statement. We never have heard any reputable gospel preacher ever teach otherwise. The old Scofield Bible declared that "faith is personal trust, apart from meritorious works, in the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1302, Scofield Bible). The Ryrie Study Bible declares, "Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ" (note on James 2:14).
In this connection MacArthur laments, "Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit" (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of "merely" believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, "The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel. . ." (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170).
Haven't I been saying this all along? Faith is faith. The Bible doesn't speak of saving faith.
As he points out so clearly, people have believed what Scofield and others taught about faith (not necessarily dispensationalism, but faith) :
The old Scofield Bible declared that "faith is personal trust, apart from meritorious works, in the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1302, Scofield Bible). The Ryrie Study Bible declares, "Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ" (note on James 2:14)
Somehow the Reformers of today have been affected by MacArthur's teaching.
Read the entire article. It will take less than five minutes.
http://rosesreasonings.blogspot.ca/2006/10/book-review-by-dr-ernest-pickering.html
You men have stood for truth once again and offered many helpful verses to stand against the tide of error...thanks for your solid posting !
Man doesn't "do"
Man doesn't have "his part"
Man has a responsibility to respond to God. When man stands before God he shall give an account of himself. He will have no excuse for not trusting Christ (Rom.1:20; Mark 1:16)
There is no "doing" in receiving Christ, in being justified by faith. both of these phrases being biblical and used in the Scripture. If God gives salvation, man needs to receive it. God will not force his salvation on any.
Look, man stands condemned already thanks to Adam. If not for Christ, not one of us would be saved and still be justly condemned to an eternal hell. But God in His electing love and mercy, sent the very best heaven has to offer to redeem, to save a people...His people...from their sins. This 'force' stuff needs to stop. God does not offer salvation, He gives it to those who never were looking for it, had no desire for it, was running from Him, yet He sought them out and saved them from themselves.
It is like a baby. It had no say or lot in the matter of being conceived and birthed. This happened when sperm and egg from husband and wife had relations. The bible gives this example...
“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children. Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?” says the LORD. “Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?” says your God. “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her. For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance.” For this is what the LORD says: “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” When you see this, your heart will rejoice and you will flourish like grass; the hand of the LORD will be made known to his servants, but his fury will be shown to his foes.[Isaiah 66:7-14]
Zion, which is a picture of the church, she gives birth to her children. Christ is her Husband. Christ and His bride, the church, give birth to their children. These children have a Father, Christ. They don't raise bastards(hopefully no one is offended by that word), but children who have a Father. They don't raise satan's children(by relationship), but theirs only. These children were given to Christ by His Father. He has no other children that what God gave His Christ to redeem.
Man, the unregenerate, have neither lot nor say in this birth which is from above. Man has no ability to believe in God from his cold, dead heart. Once regenerated, birthed from above, born anew, regenerated, he can than exercise faith and repentance and believe and be saved.
Last edited:
Let's consider the Scriptures instead of philosophizing.
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
--Salvation sought; Salvation received through faith; salvation obtained.
God's salvation, the price paid by Christ, received in faith by the jailer. Very simple.
You simply complicate things with OT allegories. This is not NT salvation is it?
Zion is not a picture of the "church."
Not MacArthur, MacDonald nor the Bible Knowledge Commentary agree with you.
MacArthur says:
Here is another comparison with the human birth process (see Isa_13:8), intended this time to teach two lessons: (1) no birth can come until labor pains have occurred (Isa_66:7-8) and (2) when labor occurs, birth will surely follow (Isa_66:9). Cf. Jer_30:6-7; Mat_24:8; 1Th_5:3. The point is that Israel's suffering will end with a delivery! The Lord will not impose travail on the remnant without bringing them to the kingdom (Isa_66:10).
The passage is about Israel not the church.
Now back to the jailer who did what Paul told him to do and was saved; saved because he believed.
Acts 16:38 And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.
39 And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.
--Why didn't the magistrates trust Christ upon hearing "these words" and the events that happened?
Surely they had their opportunity! They will give account of themselves some day before God.
They were more interested in their position on earth, in their own earthly affairs than they were about God. They couldn't bother themselves with spiritual things. And so it is with so many today.
Unless man has his say God can not save that man. A '50/50' deal. That's a compromise not salvation.
I. Am. Done.
I. Am. Done.
Your dispensationialism has you straightjacketed. I was not giving you philosophy. I exegeted the passage. Until you see the church as an extension(not replacement but extension) of OT Isarel, you will continue to tear the scriptures into doll rags.
Again. I. Am. Done. Here. With. This. Thread. With. You. Godday. Sir.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Here is the thing you do on regular occasion DHK. You stated faith comes from the Word of God, not from God directly. I provided solid theological evidence that this is not possible, that is, that it can come from His Word but not directly from Him. You have ignored all the evidence, which is typic al of you, then you pretend that 1) None was offered; 2) That the evidence didn't prove anything. However you do this without actually ever showing how or why it is faulty. You do not because you cannot so you take the route of denial then move into a straw man argumentation.
So here is how you did it in this area. You went from that argument to saying that I said God is the same thing as His Word, and, that the Word (Bible) is not God. Then you began to denigrate that position making pretense it were my argument. This is a deceitful and dishonest handling of what was spoken, yet this is how you react and interact in debate here. This is a well known fact and many have attempted to help you.
One last time I will offer my rebuttal. The thing is that you simply cannot and will not argue within the parameters given, nor can you disprove the position by careful exegesis, yet I will offer it one last time:
Part of the issue of DHK's misplaced theology stems from his thoughts and presuppositions on the position of man and God. It goes much deeper than this, but that is the basis.
DHK believes things come from man, such as faith. This is a subtle denial of God's omniscience but only on the surface does it appear to be subtle. When hashed out theologically, it is a fatal error. Discernment is needed to defend the faith from these false teachings; Jude 1:3, note Hebrews 5:11ff.
What he fails to realize, or at the least to utilize at all times in his theology is that God is the source of all things. All things. Not just some things. Everything. All power to live, breath, walk, think are given to man by God in this realm of time.
Since from God's Word comes faith, then that source of faith is directly from God Himself. To believe this is to hold to a consistent view of Him via the revelation of truth that all comes from Him. Doing this, preaching this is rightly dividing the Word, 2 Timothy 2:15.
DHK stated that faith comes from the Word (and I thought perhaps he was getting on the right track but that was short lived) then he undoes that belief of the truth with his presuppositions, defense of his Finney-like system by stating 'but not from God directly'. A half truth is not truth. God will not be patronized or flattered by this type of wresting of the truth He has revealed.
Everything that we have comes from God directly, and some abuse what power He has granted, by living in sinful ways, yet God even allows this.
We can do nothing without Him, we receive all things from Him; Job 1:22; Job 2:10; John 15:5; John 3:27; 1 Corinthians 4:7; Romans 10:17. There is plenty more but the fact is that it is God who is Omnipotent and Sovereign from which all these things come. For a person to deny that faith, that comes by His spoken Word, does not come from Him directly is a calamitous error and denial of truth.
So here is how you did it in this area. You went from that argument to saying that I said God is the same thing as His Word, and, that the Word (Bible) is not God. Then you began to denigrate that position making pretense it were my argument. This is a deceitful and dishonest handling of what was spoken, yet this is how you react and interact in debate here. This is a well known fact and many have attempted to help you.
One last time I will offer my rebuttal. The thing is that you simply cannot and will not argue within the parameters given, nor can you disprove the position by careful exegesis, yet I will offer it one last time:
Part of the issue of DHK's misplaced theology stems from his thoughts and presuppositions on the position of man and God. It goes much deeper than this, but that is the basis.
DHK believes things come from man, such as faith. This is a subtle denial of God's omniscience but only on the surface does it appear to be subtle. When hashed out theologically, it is a fatal error. Discernment is needed to defend the faith from these false teachings; Jude 1:3, note Hebrews 5:11ff.
What he fails to realize, or at the least to utilize at all times in his theology is that God is the source of all things. All things. Not just some things. Everything. All power to live, breath, walk, think are given to man by God in this realm of time.
Since from God's Word comes faith, then that source of faith is directly from God Himself. To believe this is to hold to a consistent view of Him via the revelation of truth that all comes from Him. Doing this, preaching this is rightly dividing the Word, 2 Timothy 2:15.
DHK stated that faith comes from the Word (and I thought perhaps he was getting on the right track but that was short lived) then he undoes that belief of the truth with his presuppositions, defense of his Finney-like system by stating 'but not from God directly'. A half truth is not truth. God will not be patronized or flattered by this type of wresting of the truth He has revealed.
Everything that we have comes from God directly, and some abuse what power He has granted, by living in sinful ways, yet God even allows this.
We can do nothing without Him, we receive all things from Him; Job 1:22; Job 2:10; John 15:5; John 3:27; 1 Corinthians 4:7; Romans 10:17. There is plenty more but the fact is that it is God who is Omnipotent and Sovereign from which all these things come. For a person to deny that faith, that comes by His spoken Word, does not come from Him directly is a calamitous error and denial of truth.
- Status