Where does believing faith come from part 2

Believers are lost??


2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost

The Gospel is "hid" from believers?

We "believe not"? I do not "Believe not", I believe!

2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Sorry, bro, but you are wrong on this. This verse is saying the reason people do not see and believe the Gospel, is because they are "blinded" by the God of this world (meaning they CANNOT see it: a blind man cannot suddenly "choose" to see something he is not aware of).

And yes, Paul is contrasting believers: why do we believe?>

2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


I am sorry, brother, but that is exactly what it is talking about. Christ came to "set the captives free." Unless Christ opens your mind, heart, ears, and eyes to the Gospel, you cannot see it, cannot understand it, and cannot respond to it.

 

Believing or saving Faith is the Gift of GOD to those chosen to salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world!

 

That's about the most creative eisegesis I've seen thus far.

If I said that everyone who is a member of baptistboard.com has been given a server-generated email welcoming them to baptistboard.com, I am not saying that people received a server-generated email prior to them joining. What I'm saying is that all who have joined then received the email. What John is saying here is that 100% of those believing have been born again.

That is untrue, although the falseness of the statement really doesn't matter, in this case. However, for the sake of the truth, I quote Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 431, who is describing the passive:

Basically, every time believers are spoken of, and their belief is being assumed, the Calvinists here jump at the opportunity to use the ambiguity to claim that faith is not prior, even though faith, when mentioned, is prior to regeneration in Scripture. And any other appeals involve really bad understanding of Greek.

 

Actually, the addition of the words "libertarian free will choice" inserted by so many here into the Bible, would be much more creative, since it is not even mentioned any the Bible, anywhere.

Actually, you are wrong: the phrase "has" or "have been" is just the best way we have of translating the Greek Perfect tense. The Greek perfect tense cannot be translated perfectly into English.

If a person, right now, is believing, they HAVE BEEN, in the past, born of God. This gives being born definite, logical priority, over believing. Those who have been born, believe, NOT those who have believed, have been born.

Nothing that Wallace said contradicted what I said. This would only be true if I was claiming it was against their will. On the contrary, I believe God causes it THROUGH a change of their will.

The passive just indicates that it is not the CAUSE. It may be in conjunction with their will, but their will is not the CAUSE of it.

Faith is ALWAYS AFTER "Hearing the word". "Hearing the Word", is ALWAYS AFTER (never before) "being freed from the power of Satan", "Having ears opened", etc.

Who are you calling a Calvinist btw? I don't agree with Calvin, on almost anything! You probably agree with him more than I do. I am going to start calling you a Roman Catholic, because you agree with Erasmus.

 

The lost can absolutely hear God's word. Were Adam and Eve lost after they sinned? Yes. Could they hear God's word? Yes.

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Adam could clearly hear God and had a conversation with him. And he was not regenerated when he heard God's voice as he was afraid and hid himself.

And if the unsaved are completely unable to respond to God, this is where it should have all started, in the garden with Adam and Eve. God did curse Adam and Eve, but nowhere is it mentioned that they would be unable from this point forward to hear and respond to God.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God told Eve he would multiply her sorrow in childbirth, he said her husband would rule over her. For Adam, he cursed the ground and made his labor difficult. He spoke of physical death and returning to the dust.

But God did not curse their natures so that they could do no good thing, or hear and respond to God. In fact, Adam hearing and speaking to God shows this did not happen.

So, the doctrine of Total Depravity, or rather Total Inability is a man-made doctrine. It is found nowhere in the scriptures and is not mentioned in God's curses on Adam and Eve.

 

My friend, this was before the fall, so it is a moot point. Adam was not yet cursed, nor thrown out of paradise.

So, you are denying scripture then? Scripture says they cannot hear. That Satan has "blinded them to the light" so that they CANNOT see. I just want to be clear that you are saying that scripture is lying.

 

What? This is the fall (a man-made term itself). These are the curses. Show me where God cursed man's nature, I would love to see those verses.

There is nothing moot about this. If man's nature was cursed by God so that from this moment forward a man would be unable to respond to God, then God completely neglected to mention it. This is a far more serious curse than having pain in childbirth, or having thorns and thistles spring up. It is more serious than physically dying and returning to the dust.

This would be the greatest curse ever. A man would have a sick and diseased nature, hating God and being absolutely unable to respond to God.

But God never mentions this whatsoever, and it is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture either.

You can't just blow this off because you don't like it.

 

Hmmm. Really?

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"


Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

And, of course...

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope


Men and Creation were subjected to sin and death, for the sake of the hope of that comes in Christ. NOT WILLINGLY, means it happened at the curse, not at the tree...

First, I am not blowing anything off. I am doing what you are supposed to do: interpreting scripture in such a way, so that it does not contradict itself.

Secondly, you have a very arrogant attitude, for a person claiming to be the bastion of truth and orthodoxy. Perhaps instead of venomously spitting the name "Calvinist" at people, you could try gently correcting your brothers, if you believe they are wrong.

Third, I honestly believe that you are the one who believes what he believes because of a personal dislike of the alternative. I believe if you will look back through the posts here, you will notice that you several times appeal to emotion based arguments, rather than scripture. I have not done so.

 

I didn't mention it.

Wrong about what? I didn't make any comment about that. It was not my focus.

On the contrary, the author is differentiating believers from the opponents. The two are being contrasted. Those believing have been born of God and love the Father, but that is not true of the opponents.

Your comments about the meaning of the passive ARE contradicted by what he said. The issue was not anything else.

It may or may not be the cause of it. It is not the immediate cause in the passive.



Faith is ALWAYS AFTER "Hearing the word". "Hearing the Word", is ALWAYS AFTER (never before) "being freed from the power of Satan", "Having ears opened", etc.

Who are you calling a Calvinist btw? I don't agree with Calvin, on almost anything! You probably agree with him more than I do. I am going to start calling you a Roman Catholic, because you agree with Erasmus.[/QUOTE]

 

We are discussing the tree of life in another thread. This is not speaking of their natures. It is just saying that if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life that they would live forever. It says nothing about their natures.

And you cannot use Romans 1 as an argument in your favor, because it shows that unsaved men are aware and conscious of God. They are not blinded, because God has shown himself to them. It not only says they can see, they can understand as well.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It shows they knew God, but afterward became vain in their imaginations. It says after knowing God that they became fools. It says they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, showing they had knowledge of God. It shows they know the judgment of God.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


So, this does not at all agree with the doctrine of Total Depravity or Inability. It shows man can clearly see and know of God. It is those who love unrighteousness and do not want to submit to God that he gives up. They are given up after these sins, not before.

 

Perhaps you don't use the phrase. But you certainly do talk about it: else, why are we having this conversation, brother?

You alluded to a sentence in English. The way you were applying it (referencing an automated e-mail from Baptist Board), was wrong.

Right. He is saying "these people don't believe God, because they have not been born of Him. These people do believe God, because they have been born of Him."

"born of God" is the determining agent. Belief is the outward sign that they have been born. Just as Christ said..

Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

How do you know the wind blows? You see the results (you hear it's sound). How do you know someone has been born again? You see the results (they believe).

No, they are not. The passive shows something being done to us, not by us. Or volition can participate, but it cannot be the ultimate determining factor.

It is not the ultimate cause. It cannot be. It is something done to us, not by us.

 

God subjected them to futility: He prevented their access to the tree of life.

Nothing in what you just said contradicted what I have said. You are just missing the logical progression in the verses.

Right, the question is, who is Paul talking about?

Wow. You know, when I read that verse, I am overcome by conviction, because of my former life. I was truly wicked. I literally cussed at God. Got into all kinds of horrible stuff.

Not at all. Keep reading...

Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.


Remember, Paul is trying to expound the Gospel to Believers. Paul is telling these believers not to judge, because these same verses apply to them. We are not better than unbelievers. We also were "given over" to our own lusts, and blinded by the god of this world, so that we could not see the light of the gospel.

Again, are you going to deny scripture? Scripture says we were blind.

 

You are evading the subject.

Romans 1 clearly contradicts the doctrine of Total Depravity. It shows that all unsaved men know of God, because God has revealed or shown himself to them. And it says all men are without excuse. This does not agree with the Calvinistic view whatsoever. It shows God gives men up because they did not want to retain knowledge of him, and because they have pleasure in unrighteousness.

Why would God have to give up someone who is absolutely alienated from God already? Why would God have to harden the hearts of the unelect? They are already hardened against God if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true.

And Paul was speaking to Jews, and telling them not to think themselves better than the Gentiles. You cannot pull one verse out of context.

But if you read a couple of verses further, you will see that Paul shows man is able to seek after God and righteousness. This also shows he was not speaking of all men in Romans 1.

Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

So, this is what Paul is speaking about. He is speaking to Jews, and telling them that they are sinners just like the Gentiles. But in verse 7 he mentions men who patiently continue in "well doing" and who seek for glory, honour, immortality and eternal life.

And the Bible never speaks of men as being unable to respond to God.

Matt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

This command of Christ would be completely unreasonable if man was unable to seek God. Of course, if unsaved man is able to seek God, then this command is not unreasonable whatsoever.

When Moses spoke to the Israelites, he said the way of righteousness was not hid from them, and that they were able to do it.

Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

And then he tells them to choose God, which also contradicts Total Depravity or Inability.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

If man is not able to seek God and choose him, Moses never mentions it. He clearly speaks to them as being able to choose God. Three times he mentions "do it".

Yes, all men are sinners, but all men know of God, and all men can repent and turn to God.

 

That hardening is exactly what Paul is addressing. He is not addressing some "extra bad" group of people. Will we play the part of the Pharisees, now? Shall we say "God, I am not bad like THOSE people?"

Paul is expounding the GOSPEL. He is explaining the condition of every single person who has not come to Christ, including us, before we came. ALL OF HUMANITY was given over. That's why Paul says, in verse 1 of chapter 2, that this is us as well, and so we have no right to judge.

WHAT?! Where is that phrase? Oh, it's not in Chapter 1. So the "Therefore" in Chapter 1 does not apply to Jews, but to the Roman Church, to whom Paul is writing: which had a large body of Gentiles.

Paul states that man is able to seek God, without the empowering of God, in direct contradiction to other scripture? Where?

Oh. This in no way excludes the prior work of God on a persons heart. Paul doesn't say that this happens without God enabling us.

No, Paul is telling everyone that they are totally depraved, Jew and Gentile alike.


Presumably, these people "continue in well doing" by the enabling hand of God, as spoken by Jesus. You know, because Jesus doesn't lie and all. And Because Paul, just a little while later, specifically says NNE does this. That means someone else (God) must be doing this through them.

Yes, it does. It says no one can hear, to receive faith, unless God opens their ears

They are physically able. They are not morally able. We might tell a serial Killer "Stop murdering people", but he can be morally incapable of doing so. This in no way relieves him of guilt.

I will let God determine what is reasonable and what is not. I will not appeal to emotional arguments. My emotion is too fallible. I was just trust Christ, when He said:

Joh 10:26 "but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock."

No choice, there.

Joh 6:44 No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

You say men can come to Christ of their own free will. Christ says they cannot come, unless enabled by the Father.

I will trust Christ. Sometimes I must confess, I do not like the doctrine, and it doesn't satisfy my human nature. But I will trust God anyway, because that is clearly what He has taught through His word. I will "Lean not on my own understanding."

I never said that after God has called people (as He has clearly done here) that they are incapable of doing good, and following God. Israel, who were God's people, had already been called of God, and could choose whether to follow or not.

Pharaoh, on the other hand, was not allowed by God to repent. He was forced to hold to his position, so that God could destroy Him.

 

Hardly. I can say "had been welcomed" or "is welcomed" to capture the same idea. The point being that if you know how the tense functions, you can fill in the meaning.

Not right. The comparison is between believers and their opponents in the present. What is the difference in the present? The difference is that those believing are/have been born of God. That is how we can differentiate between them and us.

:sleep:

That IS what Christ said, and as all the major modern Calvinist commentaries explain (Pillar Commentary)...,

On the contrary, it explains that only believers can understand. They have received the Spirit.

That was my point, which contradicts your initial point. Your initial point was that it excluded faith because it is passive. Yet all who believe receive the Spirit, so the giving of the Spirit and its reception are all passive, because they are being done by God. But that happens after faith, so to say that the passive excludes faith is false. That (your conclusion) cannot be concluded from the passive.

:sleep:

 

Well that proves that you have read very little of his works then.

I'd venture to say that if a professing Christian would say that they disagree with most of what John Calvin wrote (provided they actually read a good deal of his writings)-- they aren't Christians.

 

Havensdad said that, not me. The last two paragraphs on that post should be quotes of him, but because if an editing error on my part, it looks like I'm saying that. So you are saying that HAVENSDAD IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!

 

You didn't use the proper quote function to indicate those were his words.

I am saying that if a professing Christian has read a good deal of John Calvin's works but nevertheless concludes that they don't agree with most of what he taught -- then they are not actually Christians.

I think HD in his zeal to be as biblical as possible, has run away from things having to do with John Calvin. He and other Calvinists don't want to smeared (as we are on a regular basis) with the charge of following a mere man and not God.

We follow God -- not a mere man. But God raised up John Calvin as He has many other men throughout Church History. Their writings continue to bless and edify the Church.

If a fair-minded non-Calvinist like PlainOldBill, can testify that Calvin's teachings are very biblical in the main -- so can others from the non-Calvinist side of the aisle.