FAITH continued . . .

Good questions(s) WD, although I am certain there are well thought out responses.

 

No it doesn't. God, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the triune Godhead, does not give spiritual gifts (faith, love, joy, etc.) to condemned sinners. This fruit of the Spirit is just that--fruit that comes as a result of having the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that God gives the unsaved faith, as a gift. This is a Calvinistic myth.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. They hear the message of gospel, and while hearing the Holy Spirit convicts them. That is his ministry.

Yes, faith is the ability to choose that God gave to us when he made us in his own image.
Faith is confidence in the Word of another (trust).
I have confidence in my wife. I trust her word for I have lived with her for a long time.
I don't have confidence in a beggar on the street who says he'll pay me back if I give him a dollar. I have no reason to "trust" him.
Trust is gained through a relationship. Some people trust their cars. They have driven in them for a long time and have confidence that they won't break down. Some day they will. Will their faith fail then? No. The car fails because it is built by man, who is fallible, and his product (the car) is fallible.

But God is perfect; His Word is infallible. The promises He makes can never be broken. I can have a perfect relationship with him. As a Christian the better I get to know Christ the more faith I will have in his promises. As an unsaved person the more convinced of the message of salvation, the more likely I will put my confidence, my trust in that message and be saved. Albeit I will not leave the working of the Holy Spirit out of it. But the faith is my own faith. The Scriptures clearly say:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
It is I that must believe. No one else can do it for me.

 

This much similar to an old thread of mine on Faith called:
A couple of odd things about faith

It is odd that some people will admit that men can have faith (just not in God). THEN go on to argue that man must be regenerated (made new, including understanding).. AND THEN go on to state that this regeneration does not affect one thing specifically.. man's ability to believe/faith.. So God must give him this, since it is the only thing that can not be renewed apparently.

Regeneration affects or makes new:
1. thoughts
2. desires
3. the heart
4. understanding
5. their relationship to God
6. eternal destiny

but not - their ability to believe.

 

Yeah, if one is really objectively looking at this without the whole Cal/Arm debate in view, it really does seem quite strange to suggest that God saw fit to judge men for the fall of Adam by making men's nature such that it is born able to believe lies but not truth.

Further, and stranger still, that God would make them born unable to accept the appeal to be reconciled to God BECAUSE they are born enemies of God. Isn't that kind of like the doctor with medication to cure his patient's illnesses saying to his patients, "You can't take the medicine because you are sick?"

 

I had the ability to believe before I was saved.
I also had the ability to work. I had the ability to do many things. I was a man, both before and after I was saved. Salvation didn't make me superhuman or supernatural.

Regeneration changed my desires. I still have the ability to believe. But the desire to believe is not in the pleasures of the world, but rather in the pleasures of Christ.
The object of my belief is now in Christ, and not in materialism. But belief I still had both before salvation and after.

I had the ability to work also. But who did I work for and why?
I worked for the world and served the devil before salvation, and sought nothing but my own pleasure.
Now I work for Christ, serve Him and desire that He be glorified and not myself.

But I was still able to work.
Ability to believe is not in question.

 

You folks on the other side sure are adept at ignoring the obvious. The argument is never about whether man has any ability to believe things but about whether he can have saving faith. The obvious you are ignoring is the fact that there are many kinds of faith. Your arguments may make you a good politician but not a good theologian. Can a man believe savingly on Christ apart from regeneration? No he can't because he first of all sees no need to believe on Christ and secondly because he does not see in Christ all his hope before God. The Scriptures are clear that the natural man is enmity against God, not at enmity but is enmity, and doesn't desire Christ but hates Him. All who came to Christ came because they had a need. All who believe on Christ believe because they have been given an understanding of their need. That is what regeneration is. When you find that you need Him you will come to Him in saving faith. You will not find that you need Him unless and until the Spirit does a work in you that you cannot and will not do for yourself.

 

What in the world are you getting at?
That doesn't even speak to what I was saying.

My point was that the reformed view, in which God must regenerate first, AND THEN give them faith because they do not have it.. was silly if you looked at what it encompasses (but also leaves out)

Regeneration makes new everything but the faith they have. That God must implant in them.. but everything else He restores.

 

The above, IMO, is untrue biblcally.

Scripture states man of or by himself, will not come to God because by himself he does not know he has any need, much less care for God. Note the qualifier - of or by himself, meaning apart from any of God's intervention via His grace. IOW - man apart from God, will not seek after God. But when God seeks after man, man is now faced with the truth of God. Now he must choose to believe it or reject it.

Secondly, regeneration is the making of all things new (arguably salvation itself). Not waking up or simply coming to an understanding. Scripture tells us that even the unsaved has understanding of these thing but choose to reject them. We KNOW they understand them because scripture tells us that God 'makes it known TO them'. So you are faced with one of 3 possibilities concerning God:
1. God willing withheld some of the spiritual truths from some.
... If that is true.. why, since we know he at least gave them some of it? Is he afraid they would be saved so He kept the truth from them?
2. God was incapable of bringing some men to understand His truths which He reveals via His Spirit.
3. God did not really mean, they knew(or better to understand), he was just saying they did

Scripture tells us the Spirit of God is gone out into all the world revealing 3 SPIRITUAL truths.
1. Our Sin
2. His Righteousness
3. The Judgment to come

Note that in Rom 1:18-32 (even though this is being revealed in nature itself here) there are 3 things revealed to the sinners which God has made known to them.
Our sin, His rightousness, and the judgement to come. Yet scripture states they traded these truths for a lie. IOW - Knowing these truths, they rejected them for something more enjoyable and self pleasing. The problem is, you just can't get around the fact they knew. Some what to say, they knew but didn't really - KNOW. Problem- since when has God EVER done anything only half way. If God says they Knew because He made them to know.. we can not presume they didn't 'really' understand. And all of these things are SPIRITUAL truths which God revealed to them.. and they understood. WHy.. because their understanding was not dependant upon their intellectual compacity but God's ability to reveal His truth.

Thirdly, scripture NEVER, not once ever, speaks of a distinction of saving faith and another kind of faith. In fact, Faith (in the verb sense) HAS NO value by itself. The only value faith has is in the object to which faith has been set toward or fastened upon (ex. Christ). So whether one wishes to call one common faith or saving faith, it is by nature the same thing - faith. The nature of verb form of faith is 'the acting upon' but the [eternal] value of faith is contengent upon the object toward that which faith has been fastened.

Thus the only faith that is saving faith, is that faith who's object is Christ Jesus whish saves. .

Faith in the sense of the Noun, IS the value from which our action (faith in the verb sense) comes. Since the object of our faith is Jesus.

IOW - faith has no value except the value of object to which our faith has been placed. The only difference between the saving faith and vain faith is the object OF faith, and it is that object which faith fastens itself to that saves not faith itself. There is no such thing as the gift of saving faith. That is unbiblical. We do see in scripture a faith that saves and it is ALWAYS stated as - your faith, her faith, his faith, or their faith.

Faith is a gift ONLY in the sense that if it were not for God's grace through the revealing and convinciton of the Holy Spirit we would never know any real True nor THE Truth (Christ the Lord) that it may be of faith because of His grace.

But God giving us faith as though it was something we never had nor could have in any measure (thus the reason for giving it) makes no sense in light of the fact we have even the smallest measure of common faith, which is by nature no different from saving faith since both are 'faith'; with the exception (of course) regarding the object AND for the purpose to which faith set toward that object.

Thus to say our acknowledging that we have nothing of ourselves worthy to offer in exchange for but that we also acknowledge the Work of Christ and Himself being the absolute suffienctsness on our behalf; in no way imparts saving qualities whatsoever to us (or our faith), since it is God who saves and we acknowledgled that by placing our faith (action of reliance) in Christ.

Scripture is very specific that faith is not a work, and thus can not be seen as man doing something for his salvation. In fact the very point that faith has no value in and of itself, is the very point scripture speaks to. Our faith only gets it temporal or eternal value from the object to which it clings.

 

No, Jesus said the DEAD shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live. (John 5:25).
Let me ask you, was righteousness imputed to Abraham before or after he believed? AFTER. So, until he believed he was still unrighteous, he was DEAD in all his sins. It was not until after he believed that his sins were forgiven and he was made spiritually alive.
And John 20:31 says you must believe to have life. There are probably dozens of verses that show a person must first believe to have life. Your position is unscriptural.

 

Faithless

When we were faithless or even think of ourselves having little faith in Christ that even at this point we should come to Christ, because the author Paul tells us Christ is faithful and Christ cannot disown Himself. Jesus gives us our faith through His word.

What matters is we turn to Christ no matter what state you think of yourself, just come as you are.

 

The problem with this line of thought is that God doesn't restore anything in the old man He creates a new man in us. Believers are a new creation in Christ not a restored creation.

 

That's the problem it is your opinion. Your opinion is based on a false presupposition. You presuppose that man must have ability to have faith before he can believe and you then make the Scriptures say what you think it ought to say.

I agree. But again you presuppose that God seeks after all men when both the Scriptures and experience tells us that isn't the case. The Scriptures tell us that when Christ seeks His sheep He finds them. He lays them on His shoulders and brings them home.

You are referring to Rom. 1:19. But you have taken it out of context in order to make it fir your presupposition. The context is that He has made known to them the fact that He is God not that they need Christ.

Apparently Christ thought that the Father willing withheld saving knowledge from some. Matt. 11:25-27 He even thanked Him for it.

These 2 are pointless given the fact that they are based in a falsehood.

I simply don't have the time to respond to all of this. If you expect me to respond point by point don't make such long posts. You do not understand what the Lord is saying in John 16 about the work of the Spirit and you wrongly apply it. Go back and read it again. More than that you try to make it say the same thing as Rom. 1 but they are not even speaking of the same thing. Poor exegesis of both passages. Now once more the argument isn't about what faith is it is about whether man has the ability to have faith in Christ apart from being regenerated. Your assertion that because man has the ability to have faith in many things doesn't prove that man has ability to have faith in Christ. You are comparing a natural with the spiritual. Natural faith will not save. The devils believe with natural faith.

The fact that you are blind to your system of faith as a work doesn't negate the fact that in your system it is. Repeating that it isn't a work in your system because the Scriptures say that it can't be and be saving faith in no way makes faith in your system not a work. Denying a logical truth doesn't make it untrue.

 

Really,

But scripture tells us that we are washed, cleansed, even renewed.. all of these express the idea of something being brought back to it's original design.

If we need ANY of these things, then it is because of our old nature being renewed.. or made new. If we are given a new nature then we do not need to be cleansed, nor washed, sicne our new nature would have no need for these things.

We become 'new' (as in new man) in the sense we are no longer like the 'old' man. The contrast is seen clearly in Eph 4 as well as Col 3and in fact states 'we' are to put on the new man as opposed to living in the old.

However scripture, in the passage where we are a 'new creation' must be looked at with better care. For old things are passed away.. meaning no more, but all things have "BECOME" new.. literally to be made new.

This does not imply that God removes the old man and replaces it with a new man.. otherwise why the commands to put ON the new man.. to continue to renew our minds.. ect..

 

First you have to prove that a dead man can do anything. Second the Scriptures do not say when it was imputed to him for righteousness it simply says it was. You are reading into it what you want.

 

LOL.. I love it.
I can supply scripture after scripture for my point and you call it presuppostion.

Yet you are the one that MUST presuppose man does not have ability because scripture does not state it. Your view of this is based on a theological construct and must be read into the scriptures. The fact scripture tells us God gives them choice addresses the very fact ablity is indeed spoken to, and thus why they are both culpable and resposible. God even declares that these choices have consequenses (good and bad). If there is only one choice one can make.. there can not be another by which God can offer. Yet He does. The presupposition stands firmly in your court as it is not based from scripture but from a theology that denies choice.

No one disputes that Christ always finds His sheep. But the very FACT God does deal/seeks with ALL mankind (though in various ways) is established from scripture and yes, even experience. Romans 1 is just ONE of many verses that show God dealing specifically with those who will deny him, revealing to them basic spiritual truths. 2 Thes 2:10-12 shows this same thing. Those who will NEVER receive His truth, still God is reaching out to them. Israel is the same.. all day long reaching out to them.

Then you missed the context point. The text states they KNOW God (in a general sense), They what is right and what is not (sin), they know that God does not condone their way of living and worhsip (righteousness), and that they KNOW those who do such will be judged (judgment to come).

All these things are what Jesus stated is the Holy SPirits job, to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. SPiritual truths that can ONLY be known by the revelation of the Holy Spirit to them. The fact these are general truths, does not deminish the fact they reject these and by doing so reject the truths God has revealed (even The Truth - Jesus, of which they are apart)

The Matt passage though IS taken out of context. God did hide it from some.. whom He had judicially harded, as the prophet foretold long before hand. It was not that he was not letting some in on a whim, but because they had already denied Him and thus by extension Christ, they were hardened by God due to their previous choice.

This is a debate board. If you can't keep up, don't play. But if you want a person to tell something in 5 words or less of a view you apparently do not understand.. that is going to do nothing but cause more problems and frustrations.. as I have to make more and more posts to get you to even understand where I am coming from.

And yet they do.. Hmmm.

No.. the fact they are different is what you will never find in scripture. Faith is faith irregardless. What give faith it's eternal value or temporal, saving or common aspects.. is rooted specifically and soley in the object to which that faith clings. The fact man can believe, establishes that man has the ability to believe in/on Christ. There is NO distinction in scripture that seperates faith into different division EXCEPT on what that faith clings to.

The fact that the natural man can indeed know spiritual truths and understand them illistrate that God reveals them to man and establishes the fact that natural man can not come to these truths on his own. It MUST be revealed by God to them - and they must choose to believe them or not.

See, this is where you show you do not understand faith at all. Faith is not and can NEVER be even 'considered' a work. Rom 4 1-6 establishes this beyond all contestation.

That has got to be THE most illogical thing I have read in while.
That fact that scripture says it can't be, doesn't make it true

Well that settles it then doesn't it.
If scripture says it is so, then it ain't.

Thanks for the discussion.. enjoyed it

 

That is the silliest thing you have said now.

Your statement - "...Scriptures do not say when it was imputed to him for righteousness it simply says it was. You are reading into it what you want" :laugh:
Abraham believed and it (what is 'it' refering to) was imputed to him for righteousness.

Wonder who is twisting the scripture here

 

Not even close...but nice try.

 

Allan did more than an adequate job in addressing you, Ron...but I just wanted to ask you one thing... in your theological view, is man held responsible for not believing, and can you give me the etymology and definition behind the words respons-ibility and account-ability? What is the common denominator in both?

 

Can you say - OUCH!
I can