Where does believing faith come from part 2

I was speaking primarily of Calvins ordo saludis, and the way that He explained certain principles.

You are very grumpy person, Mr. Bob. Try some Chamomile tea.

 

I was defending you and myself by showing him the implications of his error, my friend. My post ends with a sad face, indicating that I am sad about someone saying that about anyone. That is different than being grumpy. I hope you would be sad if the roles were reversed.

Did you miss the point that Rippon was questioning your salvation by default, based upon the words you used?

 

I already alluded to that. Yet, it did bring to light something.

I think his comment was clearly about content.

 

Huh? First, Titus 3:5 does not say that saved is the same thing as regenerated. It actually refutes it.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What does this verse teach us?

#1 It teaches that the "Why" of salvation, has nothing to do with what we do, but it is according to God's mercy.

#2 It teaches that the means of that Salvation is in two parts:

>>>>A. Washing of regeneration.

>>>>B. Renewing of the Holy Ghost (notice the "and).

The washing of regeneration, has to do with the opening the eyes those who are spiritually blind, the opening the ears of those who are spiritually deaf, and the bringing to life of those who are spiritually dead. Basically, it is God allowing us to respond to the Gospel, by freeing us from the power of the God of this world.

The "Renewing of the Holy Spirit", is speaking of the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is brought about by the hearing of the Word, and having faith.

The words "by" and "and" preclude ANY possibility that these are the same.

 

Phil. 1:29

 

Nice damage control...you want to apologize to HD for referring to him as not being a Christian?

 

Ergon: something we did. Not according to "something we did".

That is not what it says. It distinguishes the two happenings by an "and". The end result (our salvation) was accomplished by THIS and THIS. Two different things.

The washing of regeneration, and renewing RESULT IN being saved. They are not the same thing. One is the removal of evil or negative influence (sin), the other is imputation of Good, righteousness, etc. through the imparting of the Holy Spirit. Two different things, that result in salvation.

Not at all. Jesus said her faith had saved her, yes. But He does not allude to what caused that faith: He only refers to the end result.

He tells us, elsewhere, that if the father does not draw you, if the father does not give you ears to hear, if the father does not give you new birth you cannot even hear the Gospel, which the scriptures say is what causes faith.

So it works like this> God opens you ears so you can hear (new birth). You hear the Gospel preached> through the Word, you believe> the Holy Spirit indwells you, and imparts the righteousness of Christ to your account.


This is the ONLY order of Salvation that does not specifically contradict scripture.

 

Brother,

I do not believe that was his intent. Certainly I agree with Calvin on some of the essentials of the faith.

 

The scriptures say faith comes by hearing the word of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say God regenerates a person to believe.

The scriptures say if Christ be raised up, he will draw all men to him. The scriptures do not say you have to be born again to hear the gospel, they say just the opposite, that you are born again by hearing and believeing the gospel (Eph 1:13).

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

How can you believe in whom you have not heard? Are you trying to say a person is born again to be enabled to hear the gospel, and then be born again once more? Ridiculous and absolutely unscriptural.

You keep saying that God has to open a person's ears so they can hear, but never provide the scriptures to support it.

No, the scriptures say you hear the word of God, then believe, then receive the Spirit.

Eph 1: 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that (#1)ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that (#2)ye believed, (#3)ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

In the parable of the sower Jesus explains that the seed is the word of God. The same seed is distributed to all. Then Jesus explains the difference is the hearer. And then he tells them to take heed how they hear.

Mark 24:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

It is absurd to tell someone to take heed what they hear if your doctrine is true, because unless God enables them, they are absolutely deaf to God's word. Jesus never says anything remotely like this to anyone ever. He does say that to those who will listen and believe, to them more will be given and revealed, but to those who do not listen and believe, even that which was given to them shall be taken away.

 

In the parable of the sower, was everyone capable of hearing the word? Yes. Read for yourself.

Mark 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

Does Jesus say the unsaved are incapable of hearing his word here? No, he does not, in fact, he clearly states that they indeed did hear his words. And he mentions it twice! The difference is that they did not "receive it" or accept it, which means to believe it from the heart.

Unlike most, I believe only the first hearers (wayside) are unsaved. Those on stony ground and sown among thorns did receive the word and sprung to life. Only they let persecution and the cares of the world hinder them and did not mature and bring forth fruit.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

So, this doctrine that the unsaved do not have the ability of hearing God's word is absolutely unscriptural as shown in the parable of the sower.

 

I know it wasn't his intent...he intended to question the salvation of a non cal. Unfortunately, he suffered from keyboard in mouth syndrome and referred to you instead, then tried to backpedal. If he would leave the personal attacks and vitriol which seems to be his m.o. out it would have been a non issue.

 

He did refer to a non-cal: Me.

 

You know what they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...:smilewinkgrin:

 

Alright then. Since you agree with Erasmus, I am going to start calling you a papist.

 

That's why I prefer "Sovereign Grace," "monergism," or to a lesser extent "Reformed Soteriology." "Calvinism" is just ripe for ad hominems, attacks on the actions (whether true or not) of John Calvin, and "following a man and not God." "Calvinism" possibly asserts infant baptism among other things. Calvin did not make up the idea of Sovereign Grace. "Calvinism" as a moniker for Sovereign Grace or monergism is akin to "Arminianism" for synergism. And, we all know how most synergists here object to being called "Arminian."

 

The end result of this process (though likely this is an nearly instantaneous process), is salvation, yes.

I was also noticing that their seems to be two different word structures that are translated to being born again. The phrase "anagennao" seems to refer to the entire process of salvation, whereas "gennao anothen" refers to the initial step of the salvation process, which is an act of the Holy Spirit himself (and is translated better "born from above").

 

You know perfectly well what I said. If someone has read a good deal of John Calvin's works and yet concludes that they disagree with most of his writings -- then they are not real Christians. That's because he was a faithful expositor -- he was very scriptural. I'm with C.H. Spurgeon on this -- I agree with John Calvin in the main. That does not mean I'm in lock-step with him on every particular. And I don't have to check what his views were on a certain passage to see if my understanding is identical with his.

No, not at all. But then everyone knows you make false charges a lot of the time.

Hey pot.