|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 2:16:36 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HardKnox
FG,
quote:
I'd like to compliment you here, HK. This is the best post you've done to date. Glad to have you join the debate.
I’ve been in the debate all along. Your post #6487 clearly shows that you are not. You basically are claiming to believe everything about exclusive theo-centric salvation and total human inability which is Calvinistic, and yet you are arguing vehemently with us Calvinists. Up to this point, I have been arguing the human, inability side of the debate which has great weight. But since you say you believe what you say you believe, I’ll hold you to that. Rwe at least is honest enough to admit he does not believe in exclusive human inability. In this, he is consistent and knows what he believes, and probably understands the “tension” as he likes to put it.
I'll just have to conclude that you missed what I posted to you, then.
Here is the issue once more. Man cannot save himself. Believing in Christ does not cause man to be saved. iow, man cannot cause himself to be saved.
When the Bible speaks of man's inability, I see that as inability to save himself, which is why Christ went to the cross. Hope you see this difference.
quote:
Now, let’s shift the debate to the power side. The Gospel is the intermediate means. No believing takes place without the Gospel first. Not repentance, not faith, not believing, not receiving, not responding... those all come later.
I've never argued otherwise. I've always said that one must hear the gospel and understand it before they can believe.
quote:
Let’s talk about 1 Thes. 1:5 (within the entire chapter) “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.” I’ve been talking about the power of God’s Voice for a long time now, something FG has chucked off (remember Psa.29?) as irrelevant.
That comment is totally untrue. NONE of God's Word has ever been "chucked off" by me as irrelevant. Your opinions, sure, but never God's Word.
quote:
Add that back into your thinking and things begin to take shape. Notice that Paul says “not... in word only...”. This is where we derive the doctrine of general call and the doctrine of effectual call. The preacher can preach the Gospel and the raw effect is the sound (air vibrations on the tympanic membrane) of words. Paul says there is no power there. It is ineffectual. An atheist can have his eardrum excited by the sound of the words of the Gospel and will not respond savingly because there is no power to respond, only words... true words, absolutely true words that come from Christ (Gal.1 and 2) and are a savor of death to the unbeliever.
Your opinion here is muted by the fact that the Holy Spirit can be resisted by men. Acts 7:51.
quote:
The Gospel must be accompanied in order to be effectual. It is accompanied with power (dunamos); which is always divine (see Luke 4:32; John 1:12; Acts 6:8; Romans 1:16, etc., etc., etc.) The power was given to Christ (Matt.28:17, Acts 1:8 et al) and is delegated to his ministers (Acts 4:10, et al— do not ignore the “et al”, I’m just throwing out one or two examples. These concepts are backed up by the entirety of the New Testament teaching on salvation.) The preach with power because they have been sanctified to the preaching of the Gospel. The power is in the office and in the faithfulness to the Gospel teaching (Rom. 15:16 et al).
God's Word IS power. I've never disagreed about that. But that doesn't change the fact that man is free to believe or reject.
quote:
Secondly, The Gospel must be accompanied by the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:8; Acts 10:4). If the Holy Spirit does not go forth in the preaching, the preaching is only words and is not saving (1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Pet.1:12).
Agreed. Always have.
quote:
The Gospel must also be accompanied with assurance or conviction. This assurance could be on the part of the preacher or on the part of the hearer, it could work either way. I think the context is the preacher, but I could be wrong (what I mean when I say my theology is not 100% correct, rwe... nobody’s perfect, nobody’s theology is 100% correct on earth). The point is “assurance” or “conviction”, if you will. It is not the same as faith or believing. It is behind faith, behind hope, behind understanding (Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 6:11; Col. 2:2). What is the assurance, the absolute basis for faith, hope, and understanding? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s assurance, that is, it is the faithfulness of God to his Promise (Acts 17:31). {{I’m saving faith in the resurrection for later, guys. That’s the portion that Reason, Will, and Belief alone fail at and that is the way God designed it, so that no one can boast, because without an act of God previously on the heart, no man can believe in the resurrection.}}
Re: Heb 10:22, I see the writer requesting the hearers to draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith. That assurance is on the part of the hearer, not the preacher.
Re: Heb 6:11, I again see the writer urging the reader to have full assurance of their salvation (the hope).
Re: I see that Paul struggled for the Colossians in order that their hearts be encouraged and that they attain the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding. Again, the assurance is on the part of the hearter, not the preacher.
Why do you think the context in these verses is that the assurance is on the preacher?
quote:
And through this order, what does Paul now know about the believers in Thessalonika? 1 Thes. 1:4 “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,”
God has chosen all believers, per Eph 1:4.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 4:15:58 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1708
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
How much more when I was given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus. I was not forced to come to Him; I willingly gave up my old life to be with Him who is irresistibly desirable. The choice was unconscious and secondary. What was primary and foundational was sight of Him who is glorious – how could I choose anything else?
The key I see here is that you "willingly gave up". Maybe you don't think that God causes one to believe, but it sounds as though you believe that God causes you to be willing.
I don't see the key as "willingly gave up" but rather "I was given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus." Because I saw the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ I "willingly gave up" a God dishonoring lifestyle and came to Him. When I saw something of the glory of Christ I was willing. The emphasis is seeing. Once He is seen in His glory the choice is obvious. It’s like choosing between drinking sewer water or vanilla milk shake (fill in something you like better if like). The choice is moot.
quote:
quote:
For years I understood the gospel intellectually, but it was not until I was given light to see the glory of Christ Jesus in the gospel that I believed; and that belief was and is still willing.
Can you explain the difference between understanding intellectually and being "given light to see"?
Many during the time that our Lord Jesus was on the earth saw Him and understood His claims about Himself, but instead of rejoicing in Him, they tried to stone Him and eventually killed Him. They understood intellectually, but did not see or understand His spiritual nature; they did not see Him as the Lord of glory. So a person, on the one hand, can understand the claims of the Lord Jesus and understand the gospel intellectually, but not see the glory of Christ Jesus in it.
The "rulers of this age" did not understand spiritually and therefore crucified the "Lord of glory." They had heard Him teach, they had heard Him claim, "I am," and fully understood what He was saying, but did not see Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," as Peter did, for example. If they had seen Him in truth, they would not have crucified Him.
A person may understand the gospel intellectually and consider it foolishness, but when this same person is given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus, then he spiritually understands.
Blessings,
SH
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 4:31:54 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1708
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Until you can bring into the discussion some real proof that shows why Cornelius believed your position has no merit.
. . . . Since you have no proof of God causing anyone to believe, we'll just have to drop it.
I have never said that God causes someone to believe.
Apparently you don't read the posts of your reformed brethren. They all claim that God causes people to believe.
Sure I do. One thing they and I agree on is that based upon the revelation of God found in creation alone, natural man will never come to Christ.
quote:
quote:
I have argued that God enables a person to see that which he could never see without God's light being given. And that man left to himself will never come to seek Him or see Him in truth.
I agree with all of this. For me, man hasn't been "left to himself". God made sure of that when he revealed His existence to everyone.
This is where we disagree. The revelation of God found in creation has been disregarded by all men.
quote:
quote:
But back to the discussion of your Rom1 Theory . . . You still have not brought anything that is scripturally objective into the discusion that would prove your position (I can understand why you would want to drop it).
Not hardly. We should drop it because you have no convincing support for your pov, and you don't like mine.
Of course I don't like yours because there is no support for it. On the other hand I believe the Bible is clear that no natural man, based upon the revelation of God found in creation, will ever come to Christ on his own. And we are discussing that on other posts.
quote:
quote:
You have depended on human logic (such as if God creates man to seek Him then there must be some that seek Him) and conclusions based upon that logic (Cornelius proves the principle), but have nothing that firmly states what you state is biblically true.
Human logic? I have used the common sense that God gave to mankind to see how Scripture is connected.
Yes, human logic as opposed to objective truth that is clearly communicated in the word of God. When you say, "Man is created to seek God, therefore some do seek God," in my mind you are using faulty logic. The word of God does not say this, so I don't believe it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
You are the one who has brought up Cornelius as a showcase of natural man's ability. Take responsibility for your own error. I am simply showing that you have no biblical ground for your claims . . . .
What is clear is what Cornelius did. You want to dismiss what he did "on the grounds that the cause was not clear".
I don’t dismiss what he did, I dismiss what you claim the cause is for what he did.
And since you absolutely no proof or even support for God being the cause of what Cornelius did, we'll just have to drop it.
It is not I that is showcasing Cornelius in the issue of the ability of man to seek God based on the revelation of God found in creation only. You have brought Cornelius into the debate as an example of just that. I have refuted your position by showing that there is no basis in Rom 1, Act 17 or Act 10.
No, you have refused it, not refuted it. They don't mean the same thing and they aren't spelled the same, either. 
No, I mean refuted.
quote:
quote:
If the point of Acts 10 was one way or the other it would be clear. But since it is not, you nor I cannot use Acts 10 to make any substantial argument regarding how anyone comes to believe.
On whose authority do you claim "if the point of Acts 10 was one way or the other"?
On the authority of what is stated in Acts 10 and what is not stated in Acts 10.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 5:32:38 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
quote:
How much more when I was given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus. I was not forced to come to Him; I willingly gave up my old life to be with Him who is irresistibly desirable. The choice was unconscious and secondary. What was primary and foundational was sight of Him who is glorious – how could I choose anything else?
The key I see here is that you "willingly gave up". Maybe you don't think that God causes one to believe, but it sounds as though you believe that God causes you to be willing.
I don't see the key as "willingly gave up" but rather "I was given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus." Because I saw the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ I "willingly gave up" a God dishonoring lifestyle and came to Him. When I saw something of the glory of Christ I was willing. The emphasis is seeing.
Agreed! And the OT is full of passages noting how the Jews weren't paying attention and refusing to listen or hear. Allo of which is by choice. Clearly, you and HK were willing to listen and see.
quote:
Once He is seen in His glory the choice is obvious. It’s like choosing between drinking sewer water or vanilla milk shake (fill in something you like better if like). The choice is moot.
I disagree.
quote:
quote:
quote:
For years I understood the gospel intellectually, but it was not until I was given light to see the glory of Christ Jesus in the gospel that I believed; and that belief was and is still willing.
Can you explain the difference between understanding intellectually and being "given light to see"?
Many during the time that our Lord Jesus was on the earth saw Him and understood His claims about Himself, but instead of rejoicing in Him, they tried to stone Him and eventually killed Him. They understood intellectually, but did not see or understand His spiritual nature; they did not see Him as the Lord of glory. So a person, on the one hand, can understand the claims of the Lord Jesus and understand the gospel intellectually, but not see the glory of Christ Jesus in it.
What you think is God putting light in you so that your response is guaranteed, I don't find that in Scripture.
quote:
The "rulers of this age" did not understand spiritually and therefore crucified the "Lord of glory." They had heard Him teach, they had heard Him claim, "I am," and fully understood what He was saying, but did not see Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," as Peter did, for example. If they had seen Him in truth, they would not have crucified Him.
They clearly rejected the Truth.
quote:
A person may understand the gospel intellectually and consider it foolishness, but when this same person is given light to see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus, then he spiritually understands.
That all sounds very nice and neat, but I don't read that being given the light guarantees believing, or causes believing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 5:43:23 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Until you can bring into the discussion some real proof that shows why Cornelius believed your position has no merit.
. . . . Since you have no proof of God causing anyone to believe, we'll just have to drop it.
I have never said that God causes someone to believe.
Apparently you don't read the posts of your reformed brethren. They all claim that God causes people to believe.
Sure I do. One thing they and I agree on is that based upon the revelation of God found in creation alone, natural man will never come to Christ.
I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I've never said that man can come to Christ from divine revelation of God's existence.
I have said that God's revelation of His existence is what makes man without excuse for not recognizing Him and seeking Him. Again, I know you disagree. God most certainly will not conceal truth from anyone who is seeking Him. The Bible promises that. 2 Chron 15:2.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have argued that God enables a person to see that which he could never see without God's light being given. And that man left to himself will never come to seek Him or see Him in truth.
I agree with all of this. For me, man hasn't been "left to himself". God made sure of that when he revealed His existence to everyone.
This is where we disagree. The revelation of God found in creation has been disregarded by all men.
You sure don't get that from Romans 1.
quote:
On the other hand I believe the Bible is clear that no natural man, based upon the revelation of God found in creation, will ever come to Christ on his own.
And I agree with that. And that is why God has made Himself evident to everyone, so that no one will have any excuse for not seeking Him.
quote:
When you say, "Man is created to seek God, therefore some do seek God," in my mind you are using faulty logic. The word of God does not say this, so I don't believe it.
If you want to continue to believe that God created man to seek Him, but man is unable to do so, that is fine. Or, if you want to believe that even though God created man to seek Him but everyone is unwilling (therefore forcing Him to cause man to seek Him), that is also fine.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If the point of Acts 10 was one way or the other it would be clear. But since it is not, you nor I cannot use Acts 10 to make any substantial argument regarding how anyone comes to believe.
On whose authority do you claim "if the point of Acts 10 was one way or the other"?
On the authority of what is stated in Acts 10 and what is not stated in Acts 10.
Funny. I stand on the authority of what is stated in Acts 10. I don't consider what is not stated, since it is not stated. But we all know what is stated, and your pov must assume more "behind the scenes".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 5:46:17 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Do some children believe in Santa Claus?
When they "no longer believe in him, that is a denial of what they once believed.
Free - you equate faith with mental assent to facts. Unfortunate.
A child believing fairy tales? What is this, "childlike faith" or something?
Believing a fishing story what Grandpa told you is not the same either.
Biblical believing is something different, hence "believe in thy heart".
Believing can be a deception, and I suspect many who "think" they believe
have not until the Holy Spirit comes - then we know we have believed savingly.
quote:
To me, the phrases say the same thing.
To "deny them faith" is to claim you no longer believe it
Peter denied his faith, correct?
We might even deny we have any faith and be deceived about that, too.
quote:
btw, what do you make of the word "apostate"?
The dictionary says it is someone who longer believes what they once believed.
An apostate is someone whose life and lifestyle and statements bear
no witness to the faith the are supposed to have.
An unbalanced view leads us to conditional security - I know, I used to be one of those.
You know, Heb 6 and 10 and all that.................
quote:
If you believe something, and later believe it to be false
(you changed your mind), you no longer believe it. As well, you
will deny that it (what you used to believe) is true
Free, I think you incorrectly equate belief with intellectual knowledge.
Biblical "believing" causes something to happen, namely a rebirth.
So to say a true believer can "change his mind" means his faith was
superficial, mere mental assent, and not saving.
quote:
Was he believing at that moment that Jesus was the Messiah? No.
That's why he did what he did. This is a good example.
I absolutely disagree!
He was immediately convicted and "wept bitterly", Free - Proof
of conviction of sin, BTW the best assurance a believer can have.
If you accept "deny the faith" as something that can be done, you
should be able to accept "former believer".
Lets just say whatever "denying the faith" means, it doesn't unsave us.
But lets not carry it too far, too, because then you deny the power of
God to keep a believer, but embrace the promise of security.
You can't have it both ways, Bro.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 7:37:38 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Do some children believe in Santa Claus?
When they "no longer believe in him, that is a denial of what they once believed.
Free - you equate faith with mental assent to facts. Unfortunate.
I equate believing with agreeing which facts are true.
quote:
A child believing fairy tales? What is this, "childlike faith" or something?
No, you find childlike faith in the gospels, such as Matt 18:3 and Mark 10:14.
quote:
Believing a fishing story what Grandpa told you is not the same either. Biblical believing is something different, hence "believe in thy heart".
Everything is believed in the heart.
quote:
Believing can be a deception, and I suspect many who "think" they believe have not until the Holy Spirit comes - then we know we have believed savingly.
The Bible is clear. Man is saved by God when he believes. And the Holy Spirit comes when man believes.
People who are confused about what they believe are a case unto themselves. If people understand who Jesus is and what He did, and believe that to be true, that is what saving faith is about. Read through the gospel of John to get the drift of his message. I think it is clear enough.
quote:
quote:
To me, the phrases say the same thing.
To "deny them faith" is to claim you no longer believe it
Peter denied his faith, correct?
We might even deny we have any faith and be deceived about that, too.
Anyone who is deceived about what they deny is certainly more than confused.
quote:
quote:
btw, what do you make of the word "apostate"?
The dictionary says it is someone who longer believes what they once believed.
An apostate is someone whose life and lifestyle and statements bear
no witness to the faith the are supposed to have.
Since the Bible doesn't use that word, where do you get that definition, which is contrary to what our English word means.
quote:
An unbalanced view leads us to conditional security - I know, I used to be one of those. You know, Heb 6 and 10 and all that......
An unbalanced view leads to lots of stuff..........
quote:
quote:
If you believe something, and later believe it to be false
(you changed your mind), you no longer believe it. As well, you
will deny that it (what you used to believe) is true
Free, I think you incorrectly equate belief with intellectual knowledge.
No. Intellectual knowledge is merely understanding what is being presented. As any unbeliever can demonstrate by correctly explaining the gospel even while not believing it. Understanding is not believing.
In fact, one must understand the issue before they can believe it. If one doesn't understand the gospel message, they sure can't believe it or accept it as true.
quote:
Biblical "believing" causes something to happen, namely a rebirth.
Well, to be Biblically accurate, when man believes the gospel, God causes regeneration. I don't believe that man's believing has any innate power. God has the power to regenerate and save. Not man.
quote:
So to say a true believer can "change his mind" means his faith was superficial, mere mental assent, and not saving.
Well, that is your pov, but I don't see that anywhere in Scripture. In fact, the root meaning of "repent" is change the mind, or metanoeo.
Just as man is free to repent, he is free to believe or reject. And, both repenting and believing go both ways.
quote:
quote:
Was he believing at that moment that Jesus was the Messiah? No. That's why he did what he did. This is a good example.
I absolutely disagree!
He was immediately convicted and "wept bitterly", Free - Proof
of conviction of sin, BTW the best assurance a believer can have.
Yes, I agree. But, assurance doesn't save anyone. Assurance gives confidence of being saved.
quote:
quote:
If you accept "deny the faith" as something that can be done, you
should be able to accept "former believer".
Lets just say whatever "denying the faith" means, it doesn't unsave us.
Amen! Neither does being a former believer.
quote:
But lets not carry it too far, too, because then you deny the power of God to keep a believer, but embrace the promise of security.
The power of God to keep a believer continues in spite of what the believer does or thinks. And that is grace, the same thing we get when God saves us in the first place.
Do you realize that when Christ died for our sins, He died for all of them? Of course you do. So, why would you think that if one's faith fails and they no longer believe, that would lindicate they weren't saved to begin with?
quote:
You can't have it both ways, Bro.
What would be "both ways"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 8:22:39 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1708
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
rwe,
quote:
Free - you equate faith with mental assent to facts. Unfortunate.
A child believing fairy tales? What is this, "childlike faith" or something?
Believing a fishing story what Grandpa told you is not the same either.
Biblical believing is something different, hence "believe in thy heart".
Believing can be a deception, and I suspect many who "think" they believe
have not until the Holy Spirit comes - then we know we have believed savingly.
Couldn't agree with you more. Mere intellectual belief or mental assent is not biblical faith. If the heart is not involved a person does not genuinely believe.
It is this heartless kind of faith that has gotten the visible church in the mess it is in today.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 8:27:19 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I equate believing with agreeing which facts are true
OK - I'll give you my take before I get out the books, if we have to go that far.
This type of believing is like "I believe ice cream is cold, concrete is hard,
and a ball will drop if I let go of it, the Gators will beat Bama Saturday (just kidding).
This is not "believing in one's heart", and there is a difference.
There are 3 kinds of knowledge: mind, heart and spirit.
With the mind we understand, reason, think and have our consciousness.
The heart in a biblical sense is the deep seat of knowledge and emotion -
different than mentally agreeing something is true.
Spiritual knowledge is enlightenment and discernment. I special, mysterious
kind of knowing often very difficult to explain, you just "know".
Don't you see that believing the gospel takes a whole nother kind of believing?
There is a repentance that is needed - a change of mind and an opening of the
heart that is needed before we can believe. The beautiful story of Lydia tell us this.
The heart must be opened to believe is true and it tells us (me) that it takes
more than "agreeing to facts", Free.
This does not deny the fact that they way to a man's heart is through his brain
and preaching appeals to man's intellect and mental understanding. This is why
Paul reasoned and why I say a man needs to be convinced before he can be convicted.
Have you ever wondered why you read a passage of Scripture and read it again at
a later date and get a different or augmented understanding of it?
It isn't because you double dosed the gingko, Free, its because the Holy Spirit has
opened your heart to a deeper understanding of the Word.
Brother - if all it took to believe savingly was a mental acknowledgment of certain facts
about Jesus, many more could be saved than were - in fact, even Satan would be
considered saved! He believed who Jesus was, didn't he?
Seriously, I believe there are many people who think they are saved because they
simply believe and have not experienced the life transformation that comes with it.
quote:
Everything is believed in the heart.
I don't think so. Biblically, the heart encompasses our deepest emotions.
It is the seat of our being, and where are true trust comes from.
We are told we must "believe in your heart". Why is that?
quote:
The Bible is clear. Man is saved by God when he believes.
And the Holy Spirit comes when man believes.
When he believes to Gods' satisfaction, Free.
Man is not saved based on his own definition of faith, but God's.
quote:
If people understand who Jesus is and what He did, and believe that to
be true, that is what saving faith is about. Read through the gospel of John to
get the drift of his message. I think it is clear enough.
This will not enable anyone to trust, another aspect of believing.
People like this might not trust Christ and therefore whatever they
think they believe, it does not meet the test of saving faith.
quote:
Since the Bible doesn't use that word, where do you get that definition,
which is contrary to what our English word means.
Honestly? I made it up. Came from my mind. 
quote:
No. Intellectual knowledge is merely understanding what is being presented.
As any unbeliever can demonstrate by correctly explaining the gospel even while not
believing it. Understanding is not believing.
But you started out defining believing as agreeing to facts that are true.
I'm confused now.
Are you saying "merely understanding what is presented" is all it takes to be saved?
I hope not.
quote:
If one doesn't understand the gospel message,
they sure can't believe it or accept it as true.
Sure. We appeal to a man's mind first - I agree. But in order for him
to believe the resurrection, it takes more than rational thinking.
Acts 17 proves that. There are certain things, like the resurrection,
that we can understand, but not believe.
An opening of the mind and heart must occur.
quote:
So to say a true believer can "change his mind" means his faith was superficial, mere mental assent, and not saving.
quote:
Well, that is your pov, but I don't see that anywhere in Scripture.
In fact, the root meaning of "repent" is change the mind, or metanoeo.
Just as man is free to repent, he is free to believe or reject.
And, both repenting and believing go both ways.
Are you saying a believer can repent of his faith? Never heard of that!
Christ died for more than this. God saves for more than this.
You'll never convince me of this theology, Free.
The same power of God that saves us and makes us born again
will keep us secure in our salvation AND our faith, regardless of
what kind of wandering and denying we do.
quote:
quote:
If you accept "deny the faith" as something that can be done, you
should be able to accept "former believer".
Lets just say whatever "denying the faith" means, it doesn't unsave us.
Amen! Neither does being a former believer.
He can't lose what he never had, Free - belief OR salvation.
quote:
The power of God to keep a believer continues in spite of what the
believer does or thinks. And that is grace, the same thing we get when
God saves us in the first place
I can't disagree with this, but shake is up and what falls out is something different
when you say it, Free. Your saying God keeps a believer secure based on what?
Only a promise? Or a work, too? God won't go back on his promise of eternal life,
and he doesn't undo a work he does, either.
quote:
Do you realize that when Christ died for our sins, He died for all of them?
Of course you do. So, why would you think that if one's faith fails and they no
longer believe, that would lindicate they weren't saved to begin with?
I already answered that above.
quote:
You can't have it both ways, Bro.
quote:
What would be "both ways"?
Our destiny is eternally secure but our faith might not be.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 8:35:58 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
rwe,
quote:
Free - you equate faith with mental assent to facts. Unfortunate.
A child believing fairy tales? What is this, "childlike faith" or something?
Believing a fishing story what Grandpa told you is not the same either.
Biblical believing is something different, hence "believe in thy heart".
Believing can be a deception, and I suspect many who "think" they believe have not until the Holy Spirit comes - then we know we have believed savingly.
Couldn't agree with you more. Mere intellectual belief or mental assent is not biblical faith. If the heart is not involved a person does not genuinely believe.
Where does the Bible clearly distinguish between "mere intellectual belief or assent" with "biblical faith"? John used "believe/believes/believed" a total of 93 times. Where does he make a clear point of distinguishing between believing with what you call "mere intellectual belief/assent"?
quote:
It is this heartless kind of faith that has gotten the visible church in the mess it is in today.
How do you distinguish between your own heart and soul? Can you?
If you can, please explailn how you do it. Then, please explain how you know from "whence" you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 8:36:06 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Couldn't agree with you more. Mere intellectual belief or mental assent is not biblical faith. If the heart is not involved a person does not genuinely believe.
It is this heartless kind of faith that has gotten the visible church in the mess it is in today.
Blessings,
SH
Yeah, I think of the martyrs who refused to repent of their faith, Free........ 
I suspect in countries like China and Iran, those who profess to being a
Christian probably really ARE a Christian, don't you? Doubt there's any
"profession with no progression" in those people's theology, is there?
We have our cockeyed views of Christian life and faith because we face no persecution -
of this I am quite convinced (unless the occasional 'Cafe Risque' billboard or
Disneyworld Gay Days qualifies as persecution....of course there are the Christian
college students and what they face is the closest thing.)
Maybe there would be more persecution if Christians were more willing to be "out there".
Later.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 8:54:58 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I equate believing with agreeing which facts are true
OK - I'll give you my take before I get out the books, if we have to go that far.
This type of believing is like "I believe ice cream is cold, concrete is hard,
and a ball will drop if I let go of it, the Gators will beat Bama Saturday (just kidding).
This is not "believing in one's heart", and there is a difference.
There are 3 kinds of knowledge: mind, heart and spirit.
With the mind we understand, reason, think and have our consciousness.
The heart in a biblical sense is the deep seat of knowledge and emotion -
different than mentally agreeing something is true.
There is no emotion in believing. It IS agreeing as true what ever is being believed.
John quotes on OT passage about "perceiving with the heart".
quote:
Spiritual knowledge is enlightenment and discernment. I special, mysterious kind of knowing often very difficult to explain, you just "know".
I find no support from Scripture for this definition of yours.
quote:
Don't you see that believing the gospel takes a whole nother kind of believing?
No, I don't. And neither does the Bible distinguish between "savingly believe" vs "non-savingly believe".
quote:
Have you ever wondered why you read a passage of Scripture and read it again at a later date and get a different or augmented understanding of it?
Yes. I attribute it to varying levels of attention.
quote:
It isn't because you double dosed the gingko, Free, its because the Holy Spirit has opened your heart to a deeper understanding of the Word.
One also has to be paying attention, and not resisting the Holy Spirit.
quote:
- if all it took to believe savingly was a mental acknowledgment of certain facts about Jesus, many more could be saved than were - in fact, even Satan would be considered saved! He believed who Jesus was, didn't he?
You will have to show me from Scripture where there is clear distinction bewteen "kinds" of belief in Christ, one of which saves, and the rest don't.
I just haven't seen any support for that.
quote:
ly, I believe there are many people who think they are saved because they simply believe and have not experienced the life transformation that comes with it.
If they believe the specifics of the gospel, God HAS saved them.
quote:
Everything is believed in the heart.
I don't think so. Biblically, the heart encompasses our deepest emotions.
It is the seat of our being, and where are true trust comes from.
You'll have to show me some support from Scripture.
quote:
told we must "believe in your heart". Why is that?
That happens to be where everyone believes from.
If you think differently, where does the Bible indicate that "unless we believe from the heart", as opposed to believe from the soul, mind, etc, we won't be saved.
Further, how would anyone even know the difference in which "part" they are believing from? We don't have little switches, rw.
quote:
The Bible is clear. Man is saved by God when he believes.
And the Holy Spirit comes when man believes.
When he believes to Gods' satisfaction, Free.
Certainly you aren't suggesting that we have to earn anything, are you?
quote:
not saved based on his own definition of faith, but God's.
Yep. That's my definition. What God says. Just read through the gospel of John and let me know what you read.
quote:
quote:
le understand who Jesus is and what He did, and believe that to be true, that is what saving faith is about. Read through the gospel of John to get the drift of his message. I think it is clear enough.
This will not enable anyone to trust, another aspect of believing.
Well, bummer then. That was John's purpose in writing his gospel, to get people to believe. Why do you disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 9:03:47 PM
|
|
|
HisFish
Posts: 698
Joined: 8/3/2005
From: Rocky mountain way
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
I suspect in countries like China and Iran, those who profess to being a
Christian probably really ARE a Christian, don't you? Doubt there's any
"profession with no progression" in those people's theology, is there?
We have our cockeyed views of Christian life and faith because we face no persecution -
of this I am quite convinced (unless the occasional 'Cafe Risque' billboard or
Disneyworld Gay Days qualifies as persecution....of course there are the Christian
college students and what they face is the closest thing.)
Maybe there would be more persecution if Christians were more willing to be "out there".
Later.
I disagree with you concerning the subject of this thread, but i couldn't agree with you more on these points.
_____________________________
The theology of the present aims at the deification of man, but the truth of all time
magnifies God . C. H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 9:11:01 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
To: Freegrace
Re: Believing
Matthew 13:15(NIV)
For this people's 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.'
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind.'
John 12:40(NASB)
" HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT
THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART,
AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered
and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Rom 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your
mouth that you confess and are saved.
I think these verses show:
1) The mind and heart are separate and distinct sources of understanding.
2) Possible our mind perceives what our heart believes, and our heart
can only believe what repentance has enabled it to.
3) The mind, the heart and the soul are separate sources of understanding and emotion.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 9:13:24 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HisFish
I disagree with you concerning the subject of this thread,
but i couldn't agree with you more on these points.
What specifically, because I am "Calvinoid" in some of my thinking.
Uhhhh...if you fully understood my theology, you might
agree with me more than you think...........
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 9:24:21 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8275
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
To: Freegrace
Re: Believing
Matthew 13:15(NIV)
For this people's 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.'
We understand and believe with our hearts.
quote:
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Our emotions also come from our hearts.
quote:
John 12:40(NASB)
" HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."
We perceive (understand, comprehend) with our hearts.
quote:
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
We believe with our hearts, just like the next verse says.
quote:
Rom 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
yep.
quote:
I think these verses show:
1) The mind and heart are separate and distinct sources of understanding.
The only verse that mentioned the mind was Matt 22:37 and the context is loving God.
quote:
2) Possible our mind perceives what our heart believes, and our heart can only believe what repentance has enabled it to.
I didn't get any of this from these verses.
quote:
3) The mind, the heart and the soul are separate sources of understanding and emotion.
I don't get this at all from these verses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/3/2008 9:49:36 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
From Mounce's:
Heart
Old Testament | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
is obvious and moot. 