The Knowledge of God

It IS the new birth and it takes place BEFORE faith in that verse.

Whoever BELIEVES (presently) HAS BEEN (in the past) born of God.

Whoever is eating HAS BEEN sitting at the table. That sentence tells us that sitting at the table PRECEDED eating.

Look back a page.
I John 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is (in the Greek literally HAS BEEN) born of him.

Is John saying that one is doing righteousness BEFORE he was born of God here? NO! NOBODY denies that.

This is the EXACT same language used by the EXACT same author only a FEW paragraphs earlier.

One more time literally just a handful of sentences earlier.
I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is (in the Greek literally HAS BEEN) born of God, and knoweth God.

Which comes first there, Willis? Loving or being born of God??

Being born of God of course! NOBODY reputable argues otherwise.

So in I John 5:1 John is saying that just like the new birth precedes righteousness in 2:29 and just like the new birth precedes loving in 4:7 the new birth precedes faith in 5:1.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...

 

Those who are dead, by the fact have NO spirit alive in them, just physical bodies are able to give mental assent to Gospel Bible God

NOT saving faith

 

In that case you would have a good excuse not to trust me, which is exactly the point Paul is seeking to disprove regarding what the people know about God..."his eternal qualities and divine nature"...certainly enough to find him trustworthy, don't you think?

Agreed, but earlier you said the natural man "cannot know God." I realize you MEANT in a "salvific" manner, but it is a given that they aren't saved, we are discussing their ability to KNOW and UNDERSTAND enough so as to trust him...to be "without excuse." To deny their ability to KNOW him in a salvific manner is a form of question begging because it presumes the point up for debate. It is just like saying "they can't be saved" as if that is the same as "they can't know him." But the truth is, they CAN and DO know Him, which is why they are without excuse for trading the truth in for a lie.

Again, I agree. The knowledge those people had didn't effectually cause them to trust, but why? To presume its because they couldn't is again question begging and seems to contradict the point Paul is making regarding their being "without excuse." They had the truth, they knew him, they clearly saw and understood. They had what they needed and there is nothing keeping them from doing as Rahab (for example) did and simply trust God. They have a choice and they are without excuse for the choice they made to trade the truth in for lie.

That's my point. Why do you think it would be different with God? You knew her a little in the beginning but you chose to pursue her and your knowledge of her grew and then you chose to commit yourself to her. Same is true with our relationship with God.

First, what does my gender have to do with our discussion? Second, do you really think I believe I'm wrong? Do you think I'm lying to you by arguing my point of view? I don't understand statements such as these. They seem so random and condescending.

And there is their perfect excuse. "God we didn't have sufficient knowledge to be saved." This is the very point Paul was arguing against.

 

No. And you don't either.

There is a minimum amount of what is revealed about God in the Gospel that is required before one can know him salvifically.

This is why Jesus said in John 17:3- "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

right because that is what I clearly said.

Without excuse has nothing to do with them knowing him enough to trust him. And really the key word is not "enough". It is "in a way that they could".

No it is not- because what has to be established is the link between knowing him and being saved. The point of discussion is that there is a knowledge that does NOT save and there is a knowledge that DOES.

The knowledge that does is not available to the unregenerate because they are not able to receive it.

????????????????

Since I don't KNOW you I don't trust you. I think it is very possible that you know you are wrong and still argue to save face.

I don't know that that is what you are doing but neither do I know that it is not. It seems to me that it is what you are doing.

Then you are saying that the knowledge they had was SUFFICIENT for them to be saved by it????

They did not have that kind of knowledge and not even Arminius would argue that the people in Romans 1 had enough knowledge in that context to be saved by it.

If you agree that they did not have enough knowledge to be saved by it (only natural revelation) then why would you say, "And there is their perfect excuse. "God we didn't have sufficient knowledge to be saved." ?

 

What is that amount and where in scripture is this taught specifically? According to Paul they clearly saw and understood enough to be "without excuse," so how can you presume more knowledge was required?

I'll stop here for now and wait for an answer...

 

The text reveals that all they had was natural revelation. You do not believe that is sufficient to save do you????

The historic position of the orthodox church is that SPECIAL revelation is necessary. That is not there in Romans one.

 

It's all any gentile had prior to the coming of Christ, yet there are those who feared the Lord and whose "faith was credited to them as righteousness." No one is saved apart from Christ's atoning work, but clearly there were generations of people who didn't know of his work prior to his coming but whose sins were "passed over" in "His forbearance."

There are many passages that speak of man being accountable for the revelation they are given. Did Rahab the harlot understand the atonement of Christ? No, but she was saved by Christ through the means of her faith in what she was revealed.

 

Faith is faith.
I give mental assent that Nero was the Roman emperor when Peter wrote his first epistle. That doesn't mean I put my faith in him. It has nothing to do with faith of any kind.

Faith (in reference to Nero) would be in the author of the history book that tells me that Nero was emperor at that time. Faith is confidence and trust in the word of another. Faith has an object. Thus the object of my faith in that case would be the author of that particular book with that information. If his information is not correct did my faith fail? No. He failed. He is not infallible, but a fallible man with a fallible book.

But when I put my faith in Christ, I know that he is God, he is perfect, his promises will never fail. I have no reason to doubt his word. If he says that he will save me/has forgiven my sins, then I have no reason to doubt him.
Faith has an object. My faith this time is in Christ who can never fail.

We exercise faith every day, as we put our confidence in different people, and even things. All people and things fail. Christ alone will never fail. Christ alone can save. It is not "saving faith." It is Christ that saves through our faith in him. We are not Word of Faith people. We do not put faith in faith. We put our faith in Christ, the Christ that saves. Our faith does not save. Christ saves.

 

Have to have "real" faith in the "real" jesus in order to become saved...

Point is that people all the time around the World have 'faith" in Jesus agree that he lived, died some even was Son of God

because though never regenerated THAT kind of faith is like that Demons might have Know the facts no spiritual connection it God though

man MUST be equipped/placed in the position to even be able to have 'right" kind of faith, that is work of God!

 

Not true. Mental assent is not faith.
If the object of your faith is not the Christ of the Bible, then the object of your faith is misplaced. What is the object of your faith? Is it the Jesus of the J.W.'s or the Jesus of the Bible? You must have the right Jesus. It is not the faith that is wrong. It is the object that is wrong. Faith is faith. Faith is not mental assent.

Again knowledge doesn't save; Christ saves. Faith in Christ and his atoning work. The demons know about Christ, but do not have faith in Christ. Mental assent is not the same as faith. Do you really think that they are putting their trust and confidence in Christ, such as I put my trust and confidence in my wife? Not at all. They have knowledge as to he is. But not faith, confidence, trust. They oppose him, not trust him. How can that be faith? Knowledge is not faith.

 

Agree with all of that...
Point is from the biblical perspective is that mental assent is ALL a fallen sinful man can do with the message of Christ

need God to allow one to have means to make a "free will" decision!

 

God does not give faith.
He does not give faith any more than I have the confidence or faith that my car is going to start when I turn the key in the ignition. Or for a better example, the faith I have in my wife that when she says she will make supper tonight that she will do so. Faith is confidence in the word of another.
I can have faith in my wife.
I can have faith in God.
My wife can't save me; God can. It is the object of my faith that is important.

 

To those whom the Lord grants "the ears to hear" they will freely respond to jesus anfd become saved....

 

Has God chosen to blind the eyes and deafen the ears of some, lest they believe?

Is this God giving man up to his own demise?

 

A man is free to respond by faith whether his heart is opened or not.
If his heart is opened by the Holy Spirit it is likely he will be saved, but not guaranteed. He may resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)
His heart may not be opened and he may choose of his own free will to reject Christ altogether.

 

So you would agree with us Cals that God would HAVE to in some fashion quicken a sinner to be able to have means top accept Christ?

Gospel not able to do that, God will/has to do seperate act of grace to allow us option to accept/reject Jesus

 

I believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to prepare the heart for the message of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Once understood, the message is received by faith. The Holy Spirit's work is to convict of sin. When a person sees his own sinfulness in need of a Savior they will come to Christ, when they put their faith in him.

 

That's funny you use Romans 10:17 in the context of Gospel preaching here, and when I used it to prove faith doesn't come from us, you stated Romans 10:17 was not in the context of the Gospel to the lost.

But now it is all of a sudden in a context of Gospel preaching to the lost?

Go figure.

Faith comes from where? You? Nope. Or from hearing the Words of Christ? Yes. It certainly does not come from us. It came from His Word.

 

That is what John 12:39-41 clearly states, yes.

Don't you think this would be redundant if indeed men are born totally unable from birth?

He is blinding those who have rebelled against him for generations so as to bring redemption to the world. He has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

:applause::applause: Well said.