Faith is "trust" ... not a "work"

[_Sean]

Hello again Bob,

Hi Sean,

Lets try and keep it real simple and avoid going down so many "rabbit trails" if we can, shall we?

All I can say is that I stand by the scriptures I pointed out in my last post.
-The scriptures say that regeneration is by faith and not the cause of it (Acts 15:9).
-The Parable in question doesn't talk about making good soil good (why would soil that's good need to be made good?)
-The Parable in question has an interpretation by Jesus that says good soil=man that accepts (isn't that a choice?) the word and goes on to bear fruit (isn't that not falling away?).

This proves that the ability to accept the word for a time and later fall away is possible.

Did you read carefully what I said about saving faith? Not all faith is saving faith is it Sean?

The doctrine that man cannot receive the gospel because it's spiritual, and natural man lacks spiritual discernment (1 Cor 2:14) seems to be denied by Jesus in this parable. Jesus Himself said that a man can receive it and later fall away if they don't persevere. Paul pleads with believers to continue in the faith and not lose hope in the gospel (as if Paul believed it were possible Col 1:23) You can't say that these men never really believed, or their faith wasn't real. Since the parable itself shows growth of the seed, although short lived. Faith can be denied (1 Tim 5:eight) and made a shipwreck (1 Tim 1:19). Paul wouldn't warn against loosing a false faith, but true faith.

To put it simply, faith in the word of God can come from a man who isn't ultimately saved. So the assertion that faith is only given to the elect who can do nothing but remain faithful to the end seems incorrect. The reason one's faith is ultimately a saving faith (or not) falls on the individual's spiritual growth, which can be hampered by lust of money, power, corruption of the world, worry etc.

In an Arminian view, the "soil" is changing its own nature and "saving faith" therefore becomes a self initiating enterprise of 'God will do this because of my free-will, although I had a dead, evil unresponsive heart to do so, and because I believed my bad rocky shallow soil (heart) is now "good soil" where upon God can do His work because I let Him!
This my friend, is the un-biblical reasoning of what the texts have said about regeneration and new birth where the object is passive! Jesus was not telling us in the Parable of the Sower how to be saved. He is telling us what the nature of our hearts are with no explanation of how the "good soil" was made "good".

So why the straw man misrepresentation of the Arminian view? You know this is not what we believe. Then you follow it up with your opinion of why the straw man is weak. Go back to my last post and disprove the conclusions made from the text itself. The wicked/evil man can ask God for the Holy Spirit and regeneration of the heart is by faith and not the cause of it.

So what kind of heart Sean did you have? A good, shallow or hard
heart? Think about it.

What good would thinking about it do? Either God gave me a good heart or not right? Will thinking about it change my heart?

Peace, bro.

[Guest]

Bob,

Does scripture teach that there is a faith that saves as opposed to a faith that does not save? How does one differentiate between the two if not by evidentiary works (fruit)? I suppose that the Calvivist answer would be that "unsaving" faith would be shown to be the person "falling away". That would seem to be an forced idea to uphold the P in TULIP, perseverance of the saints.

I think the faith that does not save is actually a reference to the belief of a set of facts with no action in accordance with said facts.

[Guest]

First off, Bob/Traveler, I must commend you for staying with us long enough to have a calm, composed discourse without a lot of animosity or bitterness. I appreciate your temperament. While I do believe that the Calvinism/Arminian question is important; I will also say other issues by necessity must take front seat.

... But since it was all the same seed that "fell" upon the various types of soil (hearts)

I'm just now catching the end of this discussion, so I don't know exactly what has already been established between both parties, but I would caution everyone of exclusively viewing the various types of soil as intrinsic, ingrained conditions of the "heart" which cannot be altered.

I have read some texts that suggest that Jesus wasn't making reference to the condition of a person's average soteriology at all, but merely describing an instantaneous period of time in the life of a believer (or unbeliever) -- such as a temptation, Grace in our time of need, etc.

In an Arminian view, the "soil" is changing its own nature and "saving faith" therefore becomes a self initiating enterprise of 'God will do this because of my free-will, although I had a dead, evil unresponsive heart to do so, and because I believed my bad rocky shallow soil (heart) is now "good soil" where upon God can do His work because I let Him!
This my friend, is the un-biblical reasoning of what the texts have said about regeneration and new birth where the object is passive! Jesus was not telling us in the Parable of the Sower how to be saved. He is telling us what the nature of our hearts are with no explanation of how the "good soil" was made "good".

As described above, not all Arminians or Non-Calvinists would agree so inclusively on what Christ meant by this parable. I am a Non-Calvinist myself, and I certainly don't believe that I must somehow convince God to save me because of my intrinsic goodness, or because I exercised my "great willpower" apart from God. While I do believe that salvation of the believer is contingent upon the finished work of God, I also believe that man must receive the gift of salvation; although I believe this reception is not a meritorious good work. What begets this reception? I have my theories, but I also think it's partly a mystery. I do not believe it is 100% a mystery, because the Bible clearly expounds on why certain people do certain things and others don't.

The common straw-man that some Calvinists may take advantage of Non-Calvinists with is this continual allegation that a reception of God's gift is something to boast about, something that somehow detracts from the glory of God. Not so. The poll at the beginning of this topic does speak volumes. Many folks have said it better than I could ever have, but this same pushing down of straw-men must remain consistent on both sides of the fence.

[Guest]

Brothers All,

The issue of Regeneration has long been debated by more formidable minds than all of us over the course of Church History. It is not my purpose, nor am I qualified, to present the 'convincing' proof that most of you seek. As I've said in previous posts, I spent most of early my church life in a Wesleyan/Arminian Nazarene fellowship. I am not involved in a Reformed church now, or ever was. I have read 'some' Reformed material by J.I Packer, R.C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, and a few others. Yes they are 'hard core' Reformed theologians. However, most of what I understand about Regeneration (or believe I do) came from my bible.
These authors were affirming however, what I was only beginning to understand about God's grace and the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.

I must say, I have heard a lot of 'preaching' of the Gospel (if it be right to call it as such) that is so empty and void of the Spirit and His power to transform and regenerate, that I thought I was at times listening to a Dr Phil show on "self improvement". I am sure some of you can relate.

My entire thought was to approach our discussion by looking 'behind the door' so to speak, and see what our Lord was doing in our lives before we came to faith. In my case, looking back, there were a lot of "foot prints in the sand". An Arminian would call this preveinent grace, or that grace of God bestowed upon some which enabled or prepares one to come to faith.
Thats ok, I guess. But the problem I've always had with this view is it says far too little about man's depravity and far too much about man's free will. Calvinism, especially 'hyper-Calvinism' goes to the other extreme; 'no free will' and a sometimes a too radical view on 'total depravity'. So is there a balance? I think there is. I am not saying I've found it between these differing views. But I am hoping there is one. Until then, the Lord be with you all. I'll be off the boards for a while. I will be in the hospital tomarrow (short stay hernia operation). Your prayers are appreciated.

In Him,
Bob

[/i]

[Guest]

Brothers All,

The issue of Regeneration has long been debated by more formidable minds than all of us over the course of Church History. It is not my purpose, nor am I qualified, to present the 'convincing' proof that most of you seek. As I've said in previous posts, I spent most of early my church life in a Wesleyan/Arminian Nazarene fellowship. I am not involved in a Reformed church now, or ever was. I have read 'some' Reformed material by J.I Packer, R.C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, and a few others. Yes they are 'hard core' Reformed theologians. However, most of what I understand about Regeneration (or believe I do) came from my bible.
These authors were affirming however, what I was only beginning to understand about God's grace and the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.

We are agreed. The debating of doctrine, as I see it, is important, but not nearly as important as other issues. Men more Godly and more wise than I will ever be on both sides of the argument have disagreed. One of the prime examples of such disagreement would be John Wesley and George Whitfield. Both men, in my opinion, were closer to God than I. One a stark Calvinist, and the other, a stark Arminian. They both loved God and each other. What can I say?

Being a Non-Calvinist, I do not believe that polar Arminianism and polar Calvinist can both be correct as they are polar abstractions. Two polar abstractions cannot be both true. There is only one Doctrine, one Baptism. But, convenient for us, being the fallible creatures we are, not one of us can say that we have arrived at any particular doctrinal persuasion, in any permanent sense. However, with that being said, I do enjoy reading some of the reformed writers as well, and although I may not agree with them entirely (I don't agree with any human entirely), I can still glean from what they have to say. Like yourself, my views come neither from Arminian nor Calvinist authors -- they come from my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures. This is the common ground that all true Christians should have, both Arminian and Calvinist.

An Arminian would call this preveinent grace, or that grace of God bestowed upon some which enabled or prepares one to come to faith.
Thats ok, I guess. But the problem I've always had with this view is it says far too little about man's depravity and far too much about man's free will. Calvinism, especially 'hyper-Calvinism' goes to the other extreme; 'no free will' and a sometimes a too radical view on 'total depravity'. So is there a balance? I think there is. I am not saying I've found it between these differing views. But I am hoping there is one. Until then, the Lord be with you all. I'll be off the boards for a while. I will be in the hospital tomarrow (short stay hernia operation). Your prayers are appreciated.

To a certain extent, a balance must be achieved. I believe that men down through the centuries have achieved such a balanced. For example, John Wesley was an Arminian, but had enough Anglicanism in him to counter some of the intrinsic goodness that many extremely palagian Arminians have. Wesley was an Arminian, but he had balance. He believed man was depraved and couldn't save himself. To use another example, J.C. Ryle was a Calvinist, and yet always emphasized holy living and evangelism of the lost. That's not to say that they both were ecumenically correct in the purest sense, but we need a balance, and yet we cannot become so non-committal, afraid to step out on a limb because of what someone will say, or that it might offend certain people by what we believe.

In the back on my mind I do wish for some unity on this issue. But, considering our human nature, such unity may not be possible in this life, we continue to walk on our side of the fence. With God, all things are possible, but He needs a willing people. Such people are in the minority, I'm sad to report.

Peace and praying for your hospital stay.

[_Sean]

Until then, the Lord be with you all. I'll be off the boards for a while. I will be in the hospital tomorrow (short stay hernia operation). Your prayers are appreciated.

Bob, may the peace of God be with you and may your recovery be quick. I'll be praying for you brother.

[Guest]

Brothers,

Thank you for your prayers. I am at home and all went well.

As soon as the "fog" lifts from the medications, I hope to resume our discussion. The key verse(s) I would like to further explore is Eph.2.
Paul reminds his readers that the gift of salvation is by grace through faith. IMO, this is a key foundational thought out of which flows much of what we either understand or misunderstand about God's work and our response in salvation.

In Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello Loaves'

Quote: "The common straw-man that some Calvinists may take advantage of Non-Calvinists with is this continual allegation that a reception of God's gift is something to boast about, something that somehow detracts from the glory of God. Not so. The poll at the beginning of this topic does speak volumes. Many folks have said it better than I could ever have, but this same pushing down of straw-men must remain consistent on both sides of the fence".

I want to say that I never entered into this allegation that the reception of God's gift in salvation is grounds for boasting. However, the asserstion is not baseless IMO. The allegation stems from the idea that regeneration either precedes faith and is solely a "work" of God, or it occurs as an act of or "work" of the will through which regeneration occurs. One view has man recieving regeneration passively and by that comes to faith, the other
view is where man initiates regeneration as an act of faith through free will. I believe in the former, not the latter. Both views consider regeneration a gift of God. It is my opinion that "regeneration" as I understand the Scripture, is a process that does not merely begin or end with the "new birth". Neither is it initiated by "natural descent, human decision, or a husbands will, but born of God". Jn 1:13. As Jesus explained to Nicodemus; "You (no one) cannot see or enter the Kingdom of God except you be born from above"..Jn 3:1-5.

Now the "mystery" part you alluded to is IMO, the activity of the Spirit upon a person prior to conversion. This is what I think Jesus was describing to Nicodemus in Jn 3:6-8 . "Flesh" will only produce flesh. Spirit
will only produce the things of the Spirit; i.e., "regeneration". You can only percieve the Spirit or (wind) through or by what it effects. But as Jesus stated, "you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going".
The implication appears to say to us, is that the Spirit of God alone initiates the process, and the effect is "regenerated hearts" thereby
producing what the Spirit desires; "children of God". What is the result?
FAITH, i.e. SAVING FAITH. Our relationship with God starts with Him seeking us, not us seeking Him. This what makes His grace so amazing.
"Even while we were yet "sinners" Christ died for us. Amen?

For now, In Him,
Bob


[/b]

[_SoaringEagle]

Now the "mystery" part you alluded to is IMO, the activity of the Spirit upon a person prior to conversion. This is what I think Jesus was describing to Nicodemus in Jn 3:6-8 . "Flesh" will only produce flesh. Spirit
will only produce the things of the Spirit; i.e., "regeneration". You can only percieve the Spirit or (wind) through or by what it effects. But as Jesus stated, "you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going".
The implication appears to say to us, is that the Spirit of God alone initiates the process, and the effect is "regenerated hearts" thereby producing what the Spirit desires; "children of God". What is the result? FAITH, i.e. SAVING FAITH. Our relationship with God starts with Him seeking us, not us seeking Him. This what makes His grace so amazing. "Even while we were yet "sinners" Christ died for us. Amen?

Passages that speak of God changing a man's heart or giving a new one do not necessarily teach the Calvinist doctrine. It is not uncommon for the Scripture to speak of man's inability to do things without the divine influence; yet, this does not make man wholly passive. For example, in Psalm 127:1, we read: "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city the watchmen guard in vain."

Solomon is not here saying that man is passive and cannot erect a house until God supernaturally removes an inability toward building. This is figurative speech conveying man's dependence upon his God in all things. No one would think of contriving a metaphysical dogma that man is dead to building homes or guarding cities.

Man needs a heart toward God and righteousness. Sometimes the Bible tells us that God changes the heart, sometimes that man must change it. Both things are true. One text is looking at conversion from the divine perspective, the other, from the human.

The Calvinist may find support in Deuteronomy 30:6: "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul and live." But in Jeremiah 4:4 we read: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem...." One text speaks from the divine side, the other, the human.

Accordingly, the Psalmist asks that his heart might be inclined by God toward keeping the commandments (Psalm 119:36). Later on in the same Psalm, the writer says that he had inclined his own heart to do this (v. 112). Neither statement was intended to formulate a tenet of theology. They are simply two perspectives on the same subject.

Source

[Guest]

SE,

Merely God commanding man does not mean he has ability. Who keeps the Law? In an abstract sense, God may command we do certain things and at the same time knows we cannot keep what the Law requires. Righteousness is and is summed up by what Jesus said about the Law and our inability to keep it; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself, this sums up the Law and the Prophets-the whole counsel of God. Now if it were possible for the Law to change the heart, there would not be any need for a "new covenant". The Law could only make known what God requires, not change hearts. Anything "built" upon what man believes he can do or achieve, is on sinking sand. Regeneration precedes faith in that it recognizes the work of the Spirit. Man responds not because in and of himself he intiates the process, but because God is gracious and so effects the will that he comes of his volition. This is not a defense of Calvinism. Its part of the Gospel. As far as in what way we are passive in the process, the new birth or regeneration is solely the creative act of the Spirit. Look up the greek tense for born, is born, born again (anothen) from above.. Just like your natural birth, as in the new birth, you and I were passive.

Peace in Him,
Bob