Where Does Faith Come From II

[Revmitchell]

Nope, didn’t avoid it. I stated that using such illustration did not apply as you would want.

I gave you a more appropriate illustration.

If I were to accept you illustration as valid, then you would have to explain how “will of man” must be left out. For you illustration included that willful element of becoming a child of God that the Scripture expressly states cannot take place.

If you didnt answer it you avoided it. The will or the choice is God ordained and has nothing to do with who gets credit for what. Man did not devise the plan of salvation, man does not have the authority to devise it, and man does not have the power to implement it. He can only follow it choice given or not. You reformed folks take several things to far to include this understanding of will. Its just not biblical.

The record stand. No reformed person can answer the very reasonable question.

 

[Dave G]

Mark,

Firstly, I'd like to ask your forgiveness for any comments I've made in the past that have offended you personally.
Admittedly, in the heat of the back-and-forth and dealing with doctrinal subjects that I take very seriously, it is easy for me to give in to a spirit of criticality and also one of frustration which can lead to anger.

From here on out I'd like to assure you that I will do my best to avoid mis-characterizing you or anyone else, either in your own statements, or your motives.
I thought I was somewhat successful in the past, but I know that I can stand quite a bit of improvement.

With that said, I'm not "Reformed" ( but I realize that to you I may seem that way ), and since I agree with the TULIP as a summary, I'd like to answer your question, for the record:

No I don't. God is still the determiner no matter what response He requires from us.

According to what I see in your statement above, you seem to believe that since God sets up everything to make it possible for man to respond, then that is what makes salvation 100% "of God".
Is that a fair assessment?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

With this in mind, I'd like to answer your post below.
I'll quote it once to establish a "baseline":

If someone gives you a gift and you reach out and take it, is that taking it you did considered work you had to do to earn that gift?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that gift-giving involved the two elements that I see above ( #1 = The giving of the gift, #2 = the active taking of the gift ), but perhaps it is part of the society in which we live.
I know that in other places around the world, gift giving is very much different, and involves only 1 step...the giving of a thing that is totally unexpected, with no conscious awareness of the gift being available until it is placed into the hands of the person receiving it.

Also, true gift giving demands no obligation of the person receiving it, to respond in kind.
To summarize...
A gift is only a gift if the person receiving it doesn't expect it, and,
Does nothing to receive it except stand there.

To answer your question directly:

If someone gives you a gift and you reach out and take it, is that taking it you did considered work you had to do to earn that gift?

Yes.
Actively taking something from the hand of another is considered a reward per the language that I see you using.
To perform an action to gain something, that makes the gift not a gift...it is now a reward, because the desired item can only be gained by the "required action".

If it were strictly a gift, one would not know that it was coming... which is precisely what God's word says that salvation is...a gift ( Romans 6:23 ) that was bestowed to someone who didn't even know they had it ( Romans 10:20 ).
Since "I was found of them who sought me not" is the rule seen here, then God presents His gift to those who were completely unaware of it, prior to being made aware of it.
That's how it happened for me...
I heard the preaching of the word, and believed on Christ.
No one told me before-hand that I had to be saved by believing ( and if they did, I don't remember it )...I believed, and then realized that I was saved.

The record stand. No reformed person can answer the very reasonable question.

Again, although I am not "Reformed" because I have not taken my understanding traditionally from those who have taught "Reformed theology" down through the years, I think I have answered it for you, and very reasonably, even from a technical standpoint.
A gift is only a gift if it's dropped in your lap.

While I understand why someone would want to obtain the same gift that they see someone else receiving, simply wanting something that someone else has, cannot make that a reality.
The gift giver must be free to give it to anyone who wants it, and anyone they want to give it to.
Otherwise, it isn't a gift.

I'm sorry if you may not find my answer agreeable, but there it is, for the record.



May God bless you sir.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mark,

Firstly, I'd like to ask your forgiveness for any comments I've made in the past that have offended you personally.
Admittedly, in the heat of the back-and-forth and dealing with doctrinal subjects that I take very seriously, it is easy for me to give in to a spirit of criticality and also one of frustration which can lead to anger.

From here on out I'd like to assure you that I will do my best to avoid mis-characterizing you or anyone else, either in your own statements, or your motives.
I thought I was somewhat successful in the past, but I know that I can stand quite a bit of improvement.

Thank you. I will be sure to do the same.


A gift is only a gift if it's dropped in your lap.





May God bless you.[/QUOTE]

This is simply not understood by anyone as being the case. In fact, if it is dropped in your lap you still have to take an action to receive it. You can push it away and reject it or you can grab a hold of it and make it yours. Truth is no gift in the world is ever dropped in someone's lap. But somehow when it comes to salvation we are to understand the giving and receiving of a gift in a completely different manner than what is known common among men.

It is just not credible to say that the receiving of a gift is an action that cause the gift to be earned. No where in scripture is it described that way. It is just no realistic

 

[Dave G]

This is simply not understood by anyone as being the case.

With respect, many people, even here on the BB, see a gift as being defined as I have defined it.

In fact, if it is dropped in your lap you still have to take an action to receive it.

Not from my point of view.

You can push it away and reject it or you can grab a hold of it and make it yours.

Technically, that would make it a reward, at least to me.
For example, if my dad came up to me and dropped a set of keys to a brand new car in my hands and said, "it's yours", and title was already in my name, I wouldn't have had to do anything to make it mine...it was all set up.

But somehow when it comes to salvation we are to understand the giving and receiving of a gift in a completely different manner than what is known common among men.

I'm not asking you to understand it that way, only that that is the way that I do...which is one of the reasons why we differ.
Whether or not it's "credible", and whether or not that is the way it is commonly done among men, does not change the fact that, in my mind, a gift doesn't require any effort, while a reward does.

That is the "technical" aspect of it.
That is why I consider any act of men to gain salvation to be a work, while grace is completely divorced from the efforts of men.

That is what I see Romans 11:5-6 stating.

 

[Revmitchell]

With respect, many people, even here on the BB, see a gift as being defined as I have defined it.


Not from my point of view.



Technically, that would make it a reward, at least to me.
For example, if my dad came up to me and dropped a set of keys to a brand new car in my hands and said, "it's yours", and title was already in my name, I wouldn't have had to do anything to make it mine...it was all set up.



I'm not asking you to understand it that way, only that that is the way I do...which is one of the reasons why we differ.
Whether or not it's "credible", and whether or not that is the way it is commonly done among men, does not change the fact that, in my mind, a gift doesn't require any effort, while a reward does.

That is the "technical" aspect of it.
That is why I consider any act of men to gain salvation to be a work, while grace is completely divorced from the efforts of men.

That is what I see Romans 11:5-6 stating.

You can't just get a car put in your name unless you sign for it. Your signature would be required. Further, your understanding of what a work is does not line up with scripture. I ask you for two things:

An example of your understanding of what a gift is from scripture.

An example of your understanding of what a work is from scripture.

 

[Dave G]

Further, your understanding of what a work is does not line up with scripture.

With respect, I'm sure you will find it no surprise that I disagree with you.
I think it lines up perfectly with what I see in Scripture.

To me, in the spirit of a work ( an effort of men ), actively taking something from someone else presumes that it is offered wholesale.
It's not.
Eternal life, as an example, is promised to a limited audience...those that believe on and in Christ, from the "heart".
I see Scripture defining eternal life not only as being a gift, but one that no one, in and of themselves, actually desires.
The reason?

Because mankind will not and cannot cut his love of sin loose, and reconcile himself to God without God doing all the work.
Without regeneration and repentance, mankind cannot be trusted to have a heart-to-heart relationship with his Creator.

While I'm confident that we would both agree on my prior underlined statement, I don't see us agreeing on the "mechanics" of it.
I don't see mankind as being provided the "key" to start the engine, nor the privilege to drive the car...God drives, and we sit back and go for the ride ( Philippians 2:13 ).

That's why I see God as having to do everything to bring someone to Him in faith and repentance.
Without Him doing everything, it not only isn't entirely "of the Lord", it leaves room for mankind to take credit for something, no matter how small.

Such as faith or belief.

 

[Dave G]

An example of your understanding of what a gift is from scripture.

Joseph's coat.
Isaac's wife ( from Isaac's point of view )
Hezekiah's extra 15 years.
Daniel's life in the lion's den.
David's wives ( 2 Samuel 12:8 ).
Solomon's riches, even though he only asked God for wisdom.

An example of your understanding of what a work is from scripture.

The entire first covenant...God promising blessings and cursings to His chosen nation of Israel through His prophet Moses.
It involved a very detailed exchange, and it all hinged on what Israel did...obeyed or disobeyed.

Anything the rich young ruler was willing to do, to inherit eternal life.
Simon trying to buy the laying on of hands to bestow the Holy Spirit upon someone.



Anything that requires action on the part of a person that wants something.
My judgment of this issue is not based on "the letter of the law", but on the spirit of it.

I hope that helps.

 

[37818]

Not certain that either passage is about "natural revelation."

Romans 10:17-18 < Psalms 19:4. ". . .Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. . . ." is being called the word of God by which faith comes.

 

[Revmitchell]

Joseph's coat.
Isaac's wife ( from Isaac's point of view )
Hezekiah's extra 15 years.
Daniel's life in the lion's den.
David's wives ( 2 Samuel 12:8 ).
Solomon's riches, even though he only asked God for wisdom.

All of those had to be received

The entire first covenant...

I hope that helps.

I agree, in fact in the NT whenever works are mentioned it is only and ever a reference to a reliance on the OT laws. Never do we find the reception of a gift a work of man.

 

[agedman]

If you didnt answer it you avoided it. The will or the choice is God ordained and has nothing to do with who gets credit for what. Man did not devise the plan of salvation, man does not have the authority to devise it, and man does not have the power to implement it. He can only follow it choice given or not. You reformed folks take several things to far to include this understanding of will. Its just not biblical.

The record stand. No reformed person can answer the very reasonable question.

Again, I did not avoid the question, you apparently rejected the answer as valid, clinging to an illustration that has not presented the basic truth of life giving. Find an illustration of one that needs life, that has no self acquisition ability, and is given such a gift not based upon their status, breeding, will, and strength.

The gift is not some neatly wrapped package, but life given to one dead and unresponsive to the giver.

Certainly God allows human choice. All choices resolve according to offer, not according to desire. One may desire to fly, but such natural ability is not offered to humans. Humans may choose good gifts, but not righteousness, for as you posted, “man does not have authority to devise it, and man does not have power to implement it. He can only follow it choice given or not.”

Now, in you view you claim the reformed take several things too far, in which I, too, would agree.

Were else might we agree?

Is it not true that the first Adam sinned?

Did that sin result in only partial betrayal, partial death, partial imperfection, and some attribute not corrupted? Will something and some attribute not corrupted be cast into eternal flams? Or was humankind completely corrupted including the natural will of the flesh?

What it seems some non reformed would purpose is that “the will” of humankind in some manner escaped corruption. In some manner, corruption of the will did not occur and therefore has the ability to become aware, accent and grasp incorruption.

 

[Reformed1689]

Matthew 23:13 teaches some men were seeking God, in fact they were in the process of entering the kingdom. However, they were prevented by false teaching. These, then ended up not believing, or not fully believing. In any event, their faith was not credited as righteousness.

Faith comes from using our God given ability to seek God and trust in Christ by believing the gospel of Christ.

The Bible says there is none that seek after God.

 

[Van]

The Bible says there is none that seek after God.

Yes and the Bible says some people do seek after God some of the time, such as Matthew 23:13.

Your view rewrites the verse (Romans 3:11) to say no one seeks after God at any time. My contextual view says the idea is no one seeks God while sinning, or all the time. What one person can read into the text, another can ignore.

 

[Dave G]

Yes and the Bible says some people do seek after God some of the time, such as Matthew 23:13.

To me, the fact that some people actually seek after God is a miracle, given that:
"The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek [after God:] God [is] not in all his thoughts." ( Psalms 10:4 )

But I agree with you that the Bible does indeed present the fact that there are some who seek after Him:
"O taste and see that the Lord [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.
9 O fear the Lord, ye his saints: for [there is] no want to them that fear him.
10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good [thing]." ( Psalms 34:8-10 )

Who are the ones who seek God?

From what I see here, it is His saints;
Not the wicked, but those He has made righteous in the blood of His Son ( Romans 5:9 ), and that He Himself has justified ( Romans 8:33 ).
Those He has made the righteousness of God in Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ).

I believe that I read it out of the text, instead of reading it into the text.
To me, the number one "rule" of reading the Bible, is to always let it do the speaking.
We should set ourselves, as believers, to receive the word with all readiness of mind and to believe whatever it says.

I can only hope that we are at least agreed on this.

 

[Dave G]

My contextual view says the idea is no one seeks God while sinning, or all the time.

While I respect your beliefs, Van, I simply cannot agree.

My contextual view is that no one who is unsaved will seek God at any time ( Romans 3:10-18, Psalms 10:4, Psalms 53:1-3 ).
It starts out in many places in God's word, and establishes a default condition for man...admittedly, one that it seems most people who profess Christ do not agree with...
That mankind, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, is hopelessly in love with his sin, hates God and refuses to seek Him in his daily life.

Only those that are born again will genuinely seek God, because they have a new heart and their desires are now changed.
They are now new creatures in Christ....the old has passed away ( 2 Corinthians 5:17 ) and the new is now "in charge" ( Romans 8:1-11 ).
They have a new "want to", as opposed to the old "not want to".

Those of us that many call "Calvinists", have stated this for centuries.


Despite only being here on this board for a short time ( 1 year next week ), I've read back through years of threads and found that the comments are very similar...
Some believe that mankind can seek God in and of themselves or through some sort of grace that is given to all men, because they see evidence that some men do, indeed, seek the Lord;

While others make the connection, based on their reading and understanding, that it takes a special work of God in order to break the relentless chain and "get through" to men that are born sinners ( Psalms 58:3 ), haters of God ( Romans 1:30 ) and His Son ( John 15:18 ), because they see things that further define the "why" and the "why not".

At the same time, He doesn't so this for everyone.
By now you've discovered that I am one of those.


I wish you well, sir.

 

[Van]

To me, the fact that some people actually seek after God is a miracle, given that:
"The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek [after God:] God [is] not in all his thoughts." ( Psalms 10:4 )

But I agree with you that the Bible does indeed present the fact that there are some who seek after Him:
"O taste and see that the Lord [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.
9 O fear the Lord, ye his saints: for [there is] no want to them that fear him.
10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good [thing]." ( Psalms 34:8-10 )

Who are the ones who seek God?

From what I see here, it is His saints;
Not the wicked, but those He has made righteous in the blood of His Son ( Romans 5:9 ), and that He Himself has justified ( Romans 8:33 ).
Those He has made the righteousness of God in Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ).

I believe that I read it out of the text, instead of reading it into the text.
To me, the number one "rule" of reading the Bible, is to always let it do the speaking.
We should set ourselves, as believers, to receive the word with all readiness of mind and to believe whatever it says.

I can only hope that we are at least agreed on this.

First, thank you for offering an actual rebuttal (flawed in my view) of my position.

Two arguments are used to deny that some of the unregenerate lost can and do seek God and can and do trust in Christ.

1) The claim is made, as above, that those that seek God have already been regenerated. But Matthew 13 teaches lost folks accepted with gospel with joy, and other lost folks, treasured the gospel, but failed to treasure it more than other worldly treasures.

2) The second argument is to claim those seeking God were not "actually seeking God." However, Matthew 23:13 blows that argument out of the water because the lost were actually in the process of entering the kingdom. However, they were blocked by false teaching.

In addition, recall all the passages addressing "false teachers." Under your theory of interpretation, false teaching would not matter because only those already saved will respond to the gospel, and even if their belief is now corrupted, they are already saved. That dog will not hunt.

 

[Van]

While I respect your beliefs, Van, I simply cannot agree.

My contextual view is that no one who is unsaved will seek God at any time ( Romans 3:10-18, Psalms 10:4, Psalms 53:1-3 ).
It starts out in many places in God's word, and establishes a default condition for man...admittedly, one that it seems most people who profess Christ do not agree with...
That mankind, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, is hopelessly in love with his sin, hates God and refuses to seek Him in his daily life.

Only those that are born again will genuinely seek God, because they have a new heart and their desires are now changed.
They are now new creatures in Christ....the old has passed away ( 2 Corinthians 5:17 ) and the new is now "in charge" ( Romans 8:1-11 ).
They have a new "want to", as opposed to the old "not want to".

Those of us that many call "Calvinists", have stated this for centuries.

Despite only being here on this board for a short time ( 1 year next week ), I've read back through years of threads and found that the comments are very similar...
Some believe that mankind can seek God in and of themselves or through some sort of grace that is given to all men, because they see evidence that some men do, indeed, seek the Lord;

While others make the connection, based on their reading and understanding, that it takes a special work of God in order to break the relentless chain and "get through" to men that are born sinners ( Psalms 58:3 ), haters of God ( Romans 1:30 ) and His Son ( John 15:18 ), because they see things that further define the "why" and the "why not".

At the same time, He doesn't so this for everyone.
By now you've discovered that I am one of those.

I wish you well, sir.

If you have read back, you have read how I have rebutted the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability. You say everyone always hates God but that ignores Matthew 23:13. You say those who seek God are regenerate, but that ignores Matthew 13 and Matthew 23:13.
You say no one seeks God at any time, but once again that ignores Matthew 23:13.

BTW, my view is the "T", the "U," the "L," and the "I," are obviously unbiblical, and no one has actually offered biblical evidence to the contrary. Instead, all I get are arguments as yours above.

 

[Reformed1689]

1) The claim is made, as above, that those that seek God have already been regenerated. But Matthew 13 teaches lost folks accepted with gospel with joy, and other lost folks, treasured the gospel, but failed to treasure it more than other worldly treasures.

Please exegete this passage to show how it says what you claim.

2) The second argument is to claim those seeking God were not "actually seeking God." However, Matthew 23:13 blows that argument out of the water because the lost were actually in the process of entering the kingdom. However, they were blocked by false teaching.

This passage does not say they were in the process of entering the Kingdom. How do you arrive at that conclusion?


I fully expect you to say "Taint So" and "Obsfucation" prove me wrong please.

 

[Van]

Please exegete this passage to show how it says what you claim.

This passage does not say they were in the process of entering the Kingdom. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I fully expect you to say "Taint So" and "Obsfucation" prove me wrong please.

Just read the passages, no rewrites are necessary.

If you are already "in Christ and regenerated" you cannot fall away.
1) The claim is made, as above, that those that seek God have already been regenerated. But Matthew 13 teaches lost folks accepted with gospel with joy, and other lost folks, treasured the gospel, but failed to treasure it more than other worldly treasures.

2) The second argument is to claim those seeking God were not "actually seeking God." However, Matthew 23:13 blows that argument out of the water because the lost were actually in the process of entering the kingdom. However, they were blocked by false teaching.

“The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.

“And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

 

[Reformed1689]

Just read the passages, no rewrites are necessary.

If you are already "in Christ and regenerated" you cannot fall away.

How did I know you weren't going to actually support your position? It's your MO.

 

[Van]

How did I know you weren't going to actually support your position? It's your MO.

Yet another "taint so" post addressing my behavior rather than the topic. This is all they have.

Faith comes by using our God given capacity to receive and accept the gospel of Christ, and if God credits our faith as righteousness, God transfers us into Christ, where together with Christ we are made alive (regenerated.)

Regeneration before we are transferred into Christ is as bogus as a three dollar bill.