Faith a gift

Agreed.

I agree to an extent. Sometimes choices one makes through life affect the heart's condition. Scripture doesn't teach we are born hardened, it says we can 'become hardened' if we continue to rebel to God's revelation as most in Israel did.

Where does it say being an enemy makes one unable to respond to God's appeal for reconciliation?

 

All fallen humans are born with a totally fallen nature. By that I mean, every aspect of their nature is inclined/disposed toward evil from their mothers womb and opposed to light/truth/righteousness. Hardening has to do with more exposure to the light.

The same Sun light that melts butter hardens clay. Man is born with a clay nature and exposure to the light only hardens it.

The word is "enmity" not "enemy." It is "enmity" that makes one an "enemy." Enmity is the problem. Enmity is a state of war. Man is born with a heart which is in a state of war toward God and that is why it is impossible for that heart to submit to the law of God.

God's solution is not an overhaul or a surgery but a transplant. God's solution is to give a "new" heart that is not at "enmity" toward God but is a heart that loves light.

 

I would say hardening has to do with ones ability to hear, see, understand and repent. Calvinists teach men are born unable to do these things unless first regenerated, but the bible teaches differently. Consider this passage:

Acts 28:27 For this people's [Israel] heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

See the contrast between the Israelites who have been exposed to God's revelation for year in rebellion and that of the Gentiles? Notice the word "otherwise" and how it tells us exactly what they may be able to do had they not become hardened. This is why Jesus says you must become like a child to enter the kingdom. If all men are born in the same condition why would a child be any different from an adult? Why would a Jew be any different than a Gentile? The Gentiles, Paul says, will listen because their hearts are not yet calloused, they may see, hear, understand and repent.

What about those who are hardened and later get saved? Like Israel who is later provoked to envy by the salvation of the gentiles and come to salvation? (ref Rom 11:14)

Yes, but where does it say men are born unable to believe in the one who fulfills the law for us? Where does it say one who has enmity can't respond to the powerful Holy Spirit appeal to be reconciled? Seems like a waste for God to send a message meant to bring reconciliation to his enemies if the enemy was born unable to even respond to it.

It seems to me you are taking verses about man's inability to attain righteousness through pursuit of the law and applying it to their inability to attain righteousness through faith, but I don't see how that follows. It makes the other wise Good News, really bad news for most of humanity.

 

The answer is yes. I say this not because I like the idea, but that Paul conveyed that idea in Philippians 1:29. We might call it the privilege of suffering for Him.

Dr. Ligon Duncan III develops this in a sermon found here:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ans_Vols1_and_2/08b_philippians_1_29_30_2.htm

 

From The Potter's Freedom by James White:

Here Paul speaks of two things that have been "granted" to Christians. The term "granted" is...the term charizomai, "to give as a gift." And what has been "granted" to believers? The eye seems drawn to the final phrase, "to suffer for his sake." This is what seems to take up the mind when reading the passage. It has been granted as a gift to suffer for Christ! What a strange thought for many today who have not experienced persecution and suffering,but it surely was not to those to whom Paul was writing. But just as suffering is not something brought about by "free will," neither is the first thing granted to us :to believe in Christ. This is the normal term used for saving faith. God has granted us to believe in Christ. Why would this be if, as we are told,anyone can ____"believe"? (p.292 --couldn't type the Greek characters)

 

I love listening to James, he comes in my hometown every now and then to give presentations. Although I am limited in my resources he is one of the best modern theologians I can think of.

 

2 Timothy 2:11-13

11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.


Brother, I look at it like this. They persecuted and killed Jesus, eventhough He was unworthy of death. He, being made a little lower than the angels, tasted death for sinners. They beat Him, smacked His sweet face, plucked the beard from Him, spit on Him, mocked Him, and nailed His sweet hands and feet to the cross. He was unworthy of death. We should have had everything that was done to Him, happen to us. But because of His love, He bore our sins, and took the shame, beating and death, that should have been ours. So, if it takes someone taking my head off next to shoulders, being put in prison because I would fail to denounce Jesus as my Lord and Saviour, then so be it. They talked about Jesus, and even massacred(sp?) Him. I am in no way better than my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If afflictions come because I uphold the blood stained banner of Christ, let'em come. I will pray that He will give me the strength to bear them.

 

Yes faith is a gift.

Basically calvinists see fath as a gift given to only a few while arminians see faith as a gift taken by only a few.

Too simplistic?

HankD

 

While those of us that are neither see faith as a gift accepted by only a few.

 

Really... you are going to make a distinction between "taken" and "accepted"???

And does the concept of a "gift" get culturally confused? In other words, we always assume that giving a gift requires 2 actions: 1 the giver offering & 2 the receiver accepting (or taking). But what if ancient customs tell us that giving a gift was a 1 step process: the giver bestows the gift period?

Modern scenario: you find a $500 deposit in your account and learn that your parents put it there. That was a gift that did not require the receiver to do anything but be humbly thankful for such giving parents.

 

With respect, you misunderstand the passage.

Acts 28:25-29 25 And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; 27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM."' 28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen." 29 When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves. (NASB)

The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with the ability or inability to believe. Paul witnessed first hand the hardness in the heart of some of the Jews who listened to his reasoning. He rightly diagnosed their condition when he cited the prophet in verses 26 & 27. Paul is connecting these contemporary unbelieving Jews with the unbelieving Jews during the time of the prophet. Their hearts were hardened; they were unable to accept the truth because their hearts were hardened.

Now, a good question to ask is, "why were their hearts hardened?" Did they bear any responsibility? Certainly! The DoG does not, as some wrongly assume, relieve mankind from responsibility:

Acts 17:30 God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

Man bears the responsibility for his own sin; whether in the free will schema or the DoG schema.

Since the passage in Acts 28 doesn't deal with the issue of ability/inability, we must look elsewhere in Scripture. Romans 9 is a perfect place.

Romans 9:14-20 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

There is precedent in Scripture to prove God does harden hearts. God does not harden the hearts of His children. On the contrary, He calls His sheep and His sheep hear His voice (John 10).

What about them? All of us came to Christ through a series of God ordained events. None of us are born saved. Ephesians 2 explains to us that even the Apostle was a son of disobedience before he was gloriously saved (Eph. 2:3). We are linear creatures that often times can't see past the tip of our nose. God is outside of space and time. He is the Alpha and Omega; seeing the past, present, and future before Him at all times. Is it possible that some of the unbelieving Jews in Acts 28 may have come to faith a later date? Sure. Does that exclude the possibility that, while in their hardened and unbelieving state, that they were unable to believe? No, it doesn't.

 

Yes, I will make a distinction. If I reach over and take something from you it is quite different than if I accept something you offer. I'm certain you can see the difference.

You modern scenario assumes that all children love their parents and would gladly receive a gift from them. I know people who would outright refuse a gift from their parents and would call the bank and have the deposit reversed. In Calvinism, those people never have that choice to refuse it, because God made them love Him and made them accept the gift.

My parents would much rather me love them by my choice than force me to love them.

 

Actually the Jews who rejected Christ by their own free will were in an unbelieving state. Because of their rejection God placed this on them and Calvinist try to claim that blindness was on every man.
There simply is no such thing as appointed Salvation yet most Calvinist believe they were regenerated before faith. That their Salvation was appointed to them before the foundation of the world. Which these claims mean they will be saved no matter what. If this were true then they would in fact be saved by a pre-existing appointment and were born saved.
If everything was preordained as Calvinist claim there would be no such thing as rebellion since rebellion is an act of the will. Not even Satan would be rebelious. In a world with no choice we would be worthless to a Loving God. He wouldn't want us.
MB

 

Calvinists don't try to claim that blindness (i.e. spiritual darkness) was on every man; the Bible makes that claim (Gen. 6:5; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 JN. 1:6; Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18).

 

The claimed support of the gift of faith, code for irresistible grace, the "I" of the TULIP, is without merit. The gift is salvation. The pronoun translated "that" is in a different gender than either grace or faith, and therefore Greek scholars say the "that" refers to the idea of the clause, i.e. salvation is the gift.

There is absolutely no support in scripture for Irresistible Grace, the Gift of Faith, or any of the other names Calvinist use to describe the false doctrine. God created us with the capacity to trust in Christ or not, to fully and from the heart trust in Him. God gave us the capacity to trust, and gave us the Truth, the gospel of Christ, to trust in, but the trust is ours. And it is our faith that God either credits as righteousness or not, Romans 4:4-5/24 that is the basis of God choosing us for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

If you will remember I beleive we agreed that intellectual comprehension is not the problem. The problem is their heart inclination to hate light and love darkness. The reaction of receding from the light they are given is the hardening process. Hence, hardening is the progressive response to what they can intellectually grasp and the more they grasp the more they harden toward what they do understand. The greater the light the greater the resistance.

Paul repeated this many times and based it upon prophetic scriptures. God would turn from Israel to the gentiles "until the fullness of the gentiles be come in."

This is what salvation is all about! It is doing what man cannot do and will not do. Who is the Savior? God or man?

I believe you have reversed the true character of salvation. Justice would require God to condemn all men because all have sinned. If salvation hinged upon the cooperative willingness of the fallen nature, then no human beings would be saved because they hate the light and "will not come to the light." The only possible way to alter that response is to give them a NEW heart that loves light and hates darkness. God's grace intervenes to save some in spite of the fact they would no more cooperate in salvation any more than any others. Hence, salvation of some is pure mercy - not getting what they deserve - and pure grace - getting what they do not deserve more than any others.

All natural men will ALWAYS RESIST the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) apart from the Holy Spirit actually changing their nature by giving them a "new" heart (Ezk. 36:26).

No, it is just that man's fallen nature has lots of room for religious pride. Man's chosen way is through their own merits as they are the god of their own destiny. Their inability to "come" (believe) to Christ is due to their core nature that is in a state of war with God and refuses to submit to His revealed will.

God has chosen the means (the preaching of the gospel - 1 Cor. 1:21) as well as the persons that He will save (2 Thes. 2:13) and has commanded us to preach the gospel to every creature knowing that whether our hearers receive it or not God is glorified in those who reject it as much as He is glorified in those who receive it:

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

We do not know who will receive or reject it. We are responsible to preach it to all and call all to repent and beleive the gospel and trust God to save. Whosever will believe shall be saved but whosoever will not believe shall not be saved.

 

Herald, I respectfully disagree brother. If you look back up at the context of the passage you see how Paul is working to persuade his fellow countrymen and many of them are not listening because they are so hardened in their ways. This is about them believing, which is why he says, "OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM."

Turning and being healed comes through faith and that is something the Jews, as a whole, aren't doing at this time. Why? Is it because God does want them? Heaven forbid! He has held out his hands to them all day (Rm. 10:21) and longed to gather them understand his wings of salvation (Matt 23:37), but they were unwilling. This isn't about God not choosing them, this is about them choosing to rebel over and over again so as to "become hardened."

I agree. But above you said its not about being unable to believe and now you say "they were unable to accept the truth." What is the difference?

Plus, notice it says the 'become hardened' and not that they were born as such. It also contrasts them with the Gentiles who are listening and believing because they haven't grown hardened. This flies in the face of the doctrine of Total Depravity which suggests men are born virtually hardened and thus unable to see, hear, understand and repent.

I understand that is the claim of Calvinism, but the debate is if it is a biblically warranted claim. I'm willing to accept it if it is, but I don't believe that is what the scriptures teach, though I used to at one time. I don't believe it is consistent biblically to claim that a man is held responsible for something he was born created by God without the ability to do. Common sense, and scriptural revelation, backs up this claim.

Not a single person, save a Calvinists with an agenda, would claim it is just for a parent to punish a child by locking him in his room and then telling him if he washes the car he will be set free, otherwise he remain locked up. The OBVIOUS protest is, "How can he wash the car while locked in his room? You must let him out first." The Calvinist answers, "Well he deserved being locked up because of his wrongdoing and it would be just of the parent to never let him out," but that doesn't answer the objection regarding the offer of the parent to set him free if he washes the car. And it doesn't answer the question regarding the apparent lack of sincerity on part of the parent to make such an appeal when there is no intention on letting him out.

Yet, even you said of this passage, "they were unable to accept the truth." Now, is that because they were born unable as TD suggest, or because the had "grown calloused" according to the text in question?

Regarding Romans 9 how about you start a new thread and I'll be glad to meet your there, otherwise these post will get too long. Thanks

 

With all due respect, this is non-responsive to the text I presented regarding Acts 28 and those who have become calloused and what they may have done otherwise. Do you have a reply to what this passage is actually teaching and do you have biblical support for this theory?

And we can discuss the various interpretations of what that may mean, but it doesn't answer the question as to the distinction between the Jews who have become hardened and the Gentiles who will listen. Clearly there is a difference in their nature, generally speaking, since one group has been in rebellion in the face of God's revelation for years and the other group is being invited in for the first time.

No one is disputing that God is the Savior. I was addressing your comment about the sun hardening clay and softening butter by pointing out that some grow hardened prior to softening later in life. And I was pointing out the role of envy in the provoking of man's will as recorded in Romans 11:14. What possible purpose does the provoking of man's will by envy serve in the Calvinistic system?

No one is disputing this point.

But both of us agree we need divine assistance, we just disagree as the irresistible nature of God's assisting grace. So, while we do believe men have a "RESPONSE-ABILITY" in the saving process we don't teach it is initiated or carried by man, but by a gracious loving God who came to seek and save the lost.

In short, it is not about our ability to seek him. It is about our ability to respond to a God seeking us.

That essentially means God has to save us in order to save us, when scripture teaches that new life comes through faith, not the other way around.

John 20:31:
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

 

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

HankD​