Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

And here in rest the how of God giving faith. One has no faith in God till God provides the means which will supply that faith. This is done as the eyes of the sinner is open to the things of God, and faith takes hold on the sinner where he then believes. Some eyes are never opened by God, and some are closed by God as seen in the state of the Jewish nation as a whole today, and therefore the means to have faith in God is not in that person. When scripture says God gives faith, it means he provides a way for that faith to take place in man. In the song "Amazing Grace" the writer writes..." taught my heart to fear". Newton is talking about when he was in the ship fearing for his life and knowing it could be taken at any moment. This fear made Newton think of death and also the fear of standing before God. Fear (in God) is the beginning of wisdom (Gods wisdom). This fear lead to Newtons salvation. Newton was saying it was this fear brought on by God that brought him the faith to believe in God. So you see God CAN give faith.

Newton saw the storm as the grace of God that drove him to God and also provided the means to have saving faith. Newton was a good Calvinist...no?

 

This is what I'm talking about James.
All men have the capcity of faith and because they do such capcity we see them plainly placing it in so many various things but not in God because they are blinded or their minds darkened due to sin. I totally and completely agree that it is God and God alone who provides the means which will supply that faith - Revelation of the Truth - Gospel/Christ ..et..

I agree with this but I believe their eyes 'were' opened but they rejected the truth He revealed to them. When I state "opened" I am refering to the fact scripture states they knew and understood (In order to know/understand any spiritual truths it can only be revealed by God Himself) but they turned from the truth for a lie (Rom 1:18- ; 2 Thes 2:10-12)
However I do agree with you that Nationally Israel is blinded - no real need to get into that.

Amen.

I understand your point here but this is not the same argument I typically come in contact with that states God has to give a person faith (as in place it in them) because they do not have it. Your argument is referencing God the process of coming TO faith not the giving of something they never had.

Thus God didn't give him 'faith'. God established his faith (which he already had the capcity of).. in Him through means. He already had fthe capcity of faith but it was a worthless faith because the object of his faith was worthless by Gods eternal standards. Thus God gave him Christ that he might believe or have faith in Him.

 

You making huge a assumption with these passage in trying to make them state your preference.

Look at it again.
This in no way states that men do not have faith but that not all men are apart of 'the' faith. You can see this in the NLT translation here:

Again this is not speaking of all men of all time regarding the having of faith or not but but those of the faith or not at that 'present' time or moment refering in contrast to the wicked men that will persecute them instead of giving them the freedom to preach the gospel.

Here is an excert from Matthew Henry on the passage "for not all have faith".

You have to do a lot of changing to make it state what you would prefer it to say.

 

I find it interesting how many people try to use both the passages you cited as proof-texts for God having to give faith to a person in the sense of literally placing it in them to use later because they don't have any faith.

This is speaking about spiritual gifts (like the ones in 1 Cor 12) and many Calvinists agree. Look it up. Check out John MacAuthur's Commentary on it. When I get home I'll post it up for you but at work I don't have access to it here (that is where I am).

Here is an article By J. MacAuthur in which he states that Rom 12:3-8 are about spiritual gifts that should hold you over till morning :

It does not mean what you assume it does.

 

Here is MacAurthur's Commentary on Rom 12:3 (specifically dealing with being given a measure of faith) - as promised :

This is from the notable Dr. John Gill on Rom 12:3 the same portion of the verse:

These are just a couple of Calvinists who disagree with your view of what the scripture means.

 

Herer is John MacArthur on 2 Thes 3:2 (the portion of 'not all have faith'):

MacArthur is saying just what I did but obviously much better.

 

As Allen has pointed out, even Macarthur and Gill do not believe the Scripture you supplied is saying what you want it to.

 

You didnt' answer the question

It makes no difference if someone refers to themselves as a Christian. That in itself does not make them righteous.

The point is ALL the Israelites (the nation) had the atonement made for them on behalf of the high priest. ALL the Israelites were not righteous, however. The atonement was NOT limited to the righteous Israelites only, as calvinism is trying to make the atonmment to be.

 

Me??
I have said consistantly that scripture talks of all men having faith no matter what type you personally wish catagorize it to.
Your the one who denies that even the 'regeneration' of a man has no effect on mans faith but even regernerate his faith remains in it's unregenerate state. Apparently it is the only thing that does not regenerate in your view and therefore God has to give something.

Even as seen in James (Jauthur001) post, he show that man's common faith (though affected by Gods through drawing) is that faith which saves.

The scriptures you pointed out so far in no way supports your 'erroneous' contention that God 'gives' people (or places in them) some type of mystical faith that only works perfectly regarding salavtion but falls short in their christian life.

Each verse you gave I showed where other notable and respected Calvinists disagreed completely with your proof-text because it disagreed with the context. Don't get mad at me, I was simply quoting them.

Biblical support?
What you gave was proof-text out of context and nothing more.
I would suggest doing a lot more study on the subject because if you would study them without your presupposition you will find just how incorrect you are even amoung Calvinists becuase it is quite apparent that not all agree either.


I would be glad to look at any other text you might have which state that God must give or place into man this .. saving faith.

My argument is that faith in and of itself is worthless and God giving us faith is an absolutely pointless endevor. It is not faith that saves but grace and grace provided the means of salvation in Christ that he might be the object OF faith. Thus God does not 'give' (place inside a person) some new version of faith but that God works upon them that their faith might changed towards Him. (as seen in Jauthur's post)

 

It's too late in the night now, bro. and this dying horse has crawled x number of pages now for me to look up your original question and see how it was worded.
anyway.
you and yours have a good night.
I hope you've found a job.
I did.
for exactly 3 weeks.
and then they said I was not meeting the company's "speed" expectations and fired me.
polite way of saying "you've gotten too old for this job", and/or of escaping the penalty on that "discrimination against age" thing.

 

I had to laugh when I read the above. The day Allan recants is the day when pigs fly.Seriously, Allan radically departs from Scripture when he maintains that all people have faith, or have have the capacity for faith. And I too found it humorous that Allan wasn't aware that his citations of MacArthur and Gill went against his contentions.Perhaps he is willing to reconsider,rather than recant.Do you, Allan, wish to reconsider your errors under pains of torture?

 

Let's try this again because your obviously not understanding.
Regarding JM and Gill - my contention in using them was not to establish my primary argument but if you will actaully go back and read you will see that I was showing YOUR opinion concerning what the passages were saying (they show God giving faith or that not all are given faith) and that your opinion was not only incorrect according to my understanding but also according to other Calvinists. You were wrong.

The point was in relation to your proof-texting the passage out context to twist it into something other than it was intended. THAT was the reason for using them.

JOhn Gills portion you highlight speaks of all the things a believer has already and is not refering to saving faith. THAT is my point yet again. The passage is not speaking about what you are twisting it to say.

I know what the issue is and your still without textual proof. God does not give 'saving' faith but the means and drawing of men TO faith. Saving faith has nothing to do with the type of faith but the object of faith which makes it saving. That isn't a completed thing to understand. Niether of the previous men cited by me, who are well educated Calvinsts, agree with your .. position.

ALSO..
When John M. is speaking of spiritual gifts it has NOTHING to do with saving faith because the passage is not speaking of it but your the one trying to make it state such.

If it is folly to point out a persons misconceptions and misapplications regarding certain passages they are proof-texting (even using those of their own theological views), then by all means stop answering.

However I'm not one to sit back and let another just cite something without examining it first. And if it offends you to be corrected when you are wrong then I can not help with that but I will not just idly by and nod my head.

Lastly I would tread 'very' cautiously when equating another believer as thoug they are unsaved. In case you don't know what a fool is; it is one who has said in his heart there is no God (and non-believer). and acccording your last statement you are implicating me as a fool.

Your statement:

Scripture:

I am no fool and be careful my friend I'm not a ignorant of the scriptures either.

 

Actually I have very little problem admitting when I'm wrong and have done many times on the BB alone. I'm not ashamed to say I'm wrong however in this I am correct.

One can only be convinced according to the truth God has revealed to them. And on that I stand my ground without equivocation. I also have absolutely no problem changing my views IF they can be proven wrong and have done so on various issues a couple even through the BB.

Apology accepted and if I to seemed harsh it was not to be so and I also give my apolgies. Besides this thread is about "L" isn't it and not about faith.
Why not let's get back to it, we will agree to disagree on this matter - for now