What is Election?

[Deborah13]

What hurts is people not responding to simple requests to explain their doctrine. This surely isn't the first time someone has bailed out of a discussion when asked to explain what they believe.

Anybody? Where does the Bible say the work of believing is itself a work of the law that if we do it we are condemned as trying to justify ourselves? Anybody?

It's important for those that hold to the 'predestined election' doctrine to explain how taking credit for receiving God's gracious plan of redemption of one's own free will is the same as thinking you saved yourself.

You who believe in this doctrine, can't you see how that doctrine is predicated on the belief that even the work of believing can't be ours or else that would be a damnable works gospel? So if we can't believe in God ourselves to any extent whatsoever (because that would be 'works') we have no choice but to believe that God did our believing for us apart from our own will. So we have the predestined election doctrine to explain something that isn't even true in the first place that it needs to be explained anyway.

Well, Jethro, if you would quit calling it 'the work of believing' it might help. Faith/believing IS NOT A WORK, no matter how it came about. Man's work is of the flesh, not the Spirit. When we believe/have faith in Christ and His work, it is spiritual and of the Spirit, not the flesh. It somehow (it doesn't really matter how exactly) comes about by the Holy Spirit, maybe He breaths just enough life into our spirit that we can recognize the truth of God's love and goodness towards us. We repent/with true remorse and we are saved.
And I'm not talking about regeneration (salvation) before repentance.
And you know that it is not irresistible because sometimes we are aware of God working in our lives and know the truth, before we give up and give in, to His call to repentance.
So maybe that's even a more clear way to describe what happens. That it is not a decision with our will to accept His salvation, but a giving up of our will and giving in to what He wants to do for us.
I believe there are variations of how and what the giving up looks like.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, Jethro, if you would quit calling it 'the work of believing' it might help. Faith/believing IS NOT A WORK, no matter how it came about.

But, Deborah, Jesus said that believing is indeed a work. And a work that God requires:

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:28-29 NIV)

Many rationalize it away, because it's hard for people, taught by the church that any and all work is damnable, to accept believing as being a 'work'. The teaching in the church these days interprets Paul's 'works'--the works that can't justify--as any and all works, even the 'work' of believing. So, if you take even the slightest credit for accepting the gospel you are condemned as one who is trusting in his own work for salvation. But the Bible plainly says believing is a 'work' God requires. And the 'work' that Paul CONTRASTS with all other work, not included in the works that can't justify a person.

Man's work is of the flesh, not the Spirit. When we believe/have faith in Christ and His work, it is spiritual and of the Spirit, not the flesh. It somehow (it doesn't really matter how exactly) comes about by the Holy Spirit, maybe He breaths just enough life into our spirit that we can recognize the truth of God's love and goodness towards us.

I've been saying that this 'knowing' is the very power of faith at work in a person's heart. God sends the Spirit into the earth to convince people of what they otherwise have no capacity whatsoever to know is true. Faith is what the Spirit gives the person whom God is calling to salvation, so they can know for sure the truth of what God wants them to trust in and be saved by.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

Deborah, how can a person trust in Christ if they do not first receive this empowerment of faith, by the voice of the Holy Spirit, to know the gospel is true in the first place? Salvation then occurs when you place your trust in that which you now know to be true through the power of faith. But the church can't accept this because they think that any and all experiences of faith can only occur to saved people. But simply knowing the gospel is true (through the power of faith) does not save anybody. Trusting in that which you know to be true by the power of faith, is what saves a person.
Most people will reject the voice of the Spirit instilling faith in their hearts to know the gospel is true, calling them to trust in it and be saved, and so they are lost. So it is not simply knowing the gospel is true that saves. It is 'acting' on that which you now know to be true that saves, and what Jesus calls the 'work' of believing. It's the difference between simply being called (many are called), and being chosen because you believe in what God is calling you to (few are chosen)

We repent/with true remorse and we are saved.
And I'm not talking about regeneration (salvation) before repentance.
And you know that it is not irresistible because sometimes we are aware of God working in our lives and know the truth, before we give up and give in, to His call to repentance.
So maybe that's even a more clear way to describe what happens. That it is not a decision with our will to accept His salvation, but a giving up of our will and giving in to what He wants to do for us.
I believe there are variations of how and what the giving up looks like.

How is surrendering your will not in itself an act of your will to do so?

Just because it can't happen without God's gracious influence and persuasion, does that make it no longer an act of your will? This is the thing about 'predetermined election' that I find ridiculous. A changed will is still the will of that person. But predestination is being taught here as meaning 'it wasn't your choice, God did it for you, and God did it for you so it wouldn't be work that you can take credit for, for that would be the works Paul says can't save a person'. Which is why I ask, "please show me in the Bible where the work of believing is one of the works that Paul says can not justify a person."

See how this fundamental premise--a flawed premise--gives strength to the 'predestined election' argument so popular in the church these days? Expose the flawed premise and that argument can't stand any longer.

I wish Chopper would read this, and read it with an open receptive heart. I don't see how he could argue with the point I'm making about 'believing' somehow being a work that is included in the works that Paul says count nothing toward justification. That's exactly contrary to what Paul says DOES justify a person.

 

[ivdavid]

What hurts is people not responding to simple requests to explain their doctrine. This surely isn't the first time someone has bailed out of a discussion when asked to explain what they believe.

Anybody? Where does the Bible say the work of believing is itself a work of the law that if we do it we are condemned as trying to justify ourselves? Anybody?

It's important for those that hold to the 'predestined election' doctrine to explain how taking credit for receiving God's gracious plan of redemption of one's own free will is the same as thinking you saved yourself.

You who believe in this doctrine, can't you see how that doctrine is predicated on the belief that even the work of believing can't be ours or else that would be a damnable works gospel?

Perhaps you simply missed this post from a long while ago.

....but you resist the semantic difference 'faith' and 'believing'? How is that possible?

Read 1 John 5. There you will see John explaining how people hear the word of faith through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. They are shown that what they can not see is true--that is the Biblical definition of faith. But they reject that word of faith and in effect call God a liar.

I don't know why you're building an entire doctrine out of a semantic difference - which sadly doesn't exist. I did give you references to which you have not responded. And I did go through 1 John entirely - the word "faith" is used only in 1Jn 5:4 which is not even remotely "the Biblical definition of faith". As to your references - they are found in 1Jn 5:10, which has only the word "believe" used and no "faith". That seems so contradictory of what you're saying - so, where exactly are you getting this from?

So if we can't believe in God ourselves to any extent whatsoever (because that would be 'works') we have no choice but to believe that God did our believing for us apart from our own will.

No, He completely and sufficiently enabled us to believe - by regenerating us in the spirit from when we were in the flesh - with no neutral state of suspension between the two(flesh and spirit) at any point in time, which is what you seem to believe.My beliefs: In the flesh -> always sin. In the spirit -> always obey and please God. Man is born in sinful flesh -> always sins and disobeys God. God regenerates him in the spirit -> he always obeys God in the inner man. God sanctifies him by mortifying the deeds of the outer man.

What is your version? Is it - Man is born in the flesh -> always sins and disobeys God. God puts him in a neutral state of suspension(gives him 'faith') where man is neither in the flesh nor in the spirit and somehow without the influences of either of them (which is part of a person himself), he has to choose where he wants to be put in -> and accordingly God either turns him over to the flesh(continual sinning) or to the spirit(sanctifying obedience)? If this is what you believe, where in the Bible do you see this neutral state happening?

 

[ivdavid]

It does include free will when you consider that free will is expressed in the analogy in the design of the bullet.

You say God shoots bullets that by his own design,....

Wrong - I specifically said, "then putting the exact same bullets in the chamber[all men are created equal in the flesh]".

... and without consideration of the skill of the shooter....

Wrong again - "He now steps up to the gun, cocks it to manual mode, and shoots at the bullseye in such a way to overcome all opposing variances - and He hits the bullseye".

When you've got the crux of my version itself wrong, I am afraid I cannot respond to a misrepresented query until you've actually read what I've written.

My analogy has God shooting bullets of all kinds and qualities, flawed and unflawed...

The bullets have to be the same - All men are created equal. If you want to build freewill into this, you must refer to what the bullets choose to do after they are fired and before they hit the wall - which is what I said this analogy doesn't give room to for both sides.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Perhaps you simply missed this post from a long while ago.


I don't know why you're building an entire doctrine out of a semantic difference - which sadly doesn't exist. I did give you references to which you have not responded. And I did go through 1 John entirely - the word "faith" is used only in 1Jn 5:4 which is not even remotely "the Biblical definition of faith". As to your references - they are found in 1Jn 5:10, which has only the word "believe" used and no "faith". That seems so contradictory of what you're saying - so, where exactly are you getting this from?


No, He completely and sufficiently enabled us to believe - by regenerating us in the spirit from when we were in the flesh - with no neutral state of suspension between the two(flesh and spirit) at any point in time, which is what you seem to believe.My beliefs: In the flesh -> always sin. In the spirit -> always obey and please God. Man is born in sinful flesh -> always sins and disobeys God. God regenerates him in the spirit -> he always obeys God in the inner man. God sanctifies him by mortifying the deeds of the outer man.

Please read what I just wrote to Deborah.

What is your version? Is it - Man is born in the flesh -> always sins and disobeys God. God puts him in a neutral state of suspension(gives him 'faith') where man is neither in the flesh nor in the spirit and somehow without the influences of either of them (which is part of a person himself), he has to choose where he wants to be put in -> and accordingly God either turns him over to the flesh(continual sinning) or to the spirit(sanctifying obedience)? If this is what you believe, where in the Bible do you see this neutral state happening?

I've made it clear more than once that God is very active in persuading and influencing us to choose right at the crossroads of choosing righteousness, or unrighteousness. In fact, it is entirely impossible for a person to make the choice without that persuasion and influence. That's why man can not glory in it. But that hardly means man had no conscious input of his own will in determining his own fate.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The bullets have to be the same - All men are created equal. If you want to build freewill into this, you must refer to what the bullets choose to do after they are fired and before they hit the wall - which is what I said this analogy doesn't give room to for both sides.

Why do they all have to be the same. We are all the same in regard to being turned over to disobedience, but we are not all the same--using another analogy--in regard to the potential growth that can come from the soil of our hearts.

The angels weren't created equal in the sense you're using it here. Later, some were found to be flawed. Why do you think man can't also be found to prefer righteousness when given the chance, while others do not, simply by virtue of who they are in and of themselves, and not by what God crafted them to be?

Going to bed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Before I forget the thought (lol)...

What you're arguing for in the 'faith' discussion is that since the difference between 'faith' and 'believing' is (often) not a difference in syntax in the Bible, then the two can not possibly have a difference in semantics.

We all know that words can have the same syntax (be exactly the same word), but mean something different in any given context. And that is how 'faith' and 'believing' are different semantically speaking in the Bible, yet often identical in syntax. Faith implies 'knowing'. While believing implies 'trusting'.

How can a person accept the gospel if they do not first KNOW that the gospel is true? How does a person know the gospel is true if not by the enablement of faith? But the church can't see what I'm saying because they have been taught to automatically equate 'faith' with salvation, and that there is no distinction between 'faith' (knowing something is true), and 'believing' (trusting in that which you know to be true). Yet we see right in scripture that faith (head knowledge) can not save a person. Trusting in what you know is what saves.

 

[ivdavid]

Please read what I just wrote to Deborah.

Jesus said that believing is indeed a work. And a work that God requires...Many rationalize it away, because it's hard for people, taught by the church that any and all work is damnable, to accept believing as being a 'work'.

Please read the linked post that perhaps you missed from much earlier. Is this work of 'believing', worked out of the flesh or out of the spirit - is the question?

Man's work is of the flesh, not the Spirit. When we believe/have faith in Christ and His work, it is spiritual and of the Spirit, not the flesh.

So it is not simply knowing the gospel is true that saves. It is 'acting' on that which you now know to be true that saves, and what Jesus calls the 'work' of believing.

Fair enough. But is this 'acting', acted out of the flesh or the spirit - accordingly, we'd be able to determine if it is salvific or not.

I've made it clear more than once that God is very active in persuading and influencing us to choose right at the crossroads of choosing righteousness, or unrighteousness. In fact, it is entirely impossible for a person to make the choice without that persuasion and influence. That's why man can not glory in it...

I am not asking what God does from without - I'm asking about the very nature of man. Is he still in the flesh when he's making that "choice" - or is he in the spirit?

Why do they all have to be the same. We are all the same in regard to being turned over to disobedience, but we are not all the same--using another analogy--in regard to the potential growth that can come from the soil of our hearts.

And who created that potential in man? Who designed the bullets? From within your own belief system, God cannot create one man with the potential to choose/do Right/Good while creating another without such potential - and then hold the second man responsible for not having chosen/done the Right/Good he anyway wasn't created with the potential to do. God is Just only if He creates every single man the exact same way (potential included) with respect to morality, and not personality - since He holds every man morally accountable while not judging over subjective personal choices. I am, however, okay with God designing the exact same bullets and then giving them the capacity to choose their path to the wall.

What you're arguing for in the 'faith' discussion....

Analogies help, don't they? This is how I see your beliefs on this - I think you've objectified "faith", say like a nice gift-wrapped solid object. And we have all men blindfolded and groping about in blindness. Now God goes to each man, temporarily lifts up the blindfold, and with outstretched arm carrying this gift-wrapped "faith" object - persuades that man to receive this gift of "faith". At that point of time, where that man can see clearly without the blindfold, he could either choose to receive the gift - in which case, God would then tear away that blindfold and set him free - or that man could choose to reject the gift - in which case, God replaces the blindfold and turns him over to his blindness. So, simply having this initial offer of the "faith" object doesn't constitute setting a man free - it is this man's receiving/retaining/having it that constitutes setting him free. Besides, no man can ever tear his blindfold by himself.

Have I got your beliefs right?

 

[Deborah13]

But, Deborah, Jesus said that believing is indeed a work. And a work that God requires:

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:28-29 NIV)

Many rationalize it away, because it's hard for people, taught by the church that any and all work is damnable, to accept believing as being a 'work'. The teaching in the church these days interprets Paul's 'works'--the works that can't justify--as any and all works, even the 'work' of believing. So, if you take even the slightest credit for accepting the gospel you are condemned as one who is trusting in his own work for salvation. But the Bible plainly says believing is a 'work' God requires. And the 'work' that Paul CONTRASTS with all other work, not included in the works that can't justify a person.



I've been saying that this 'knowing' is the very power of faith at work in a person's heart. God sends the Spirit into the earth to convince people of what they otherwise have no capacity whatsoever to know is true. Faith is what the Spirit gives the person whom God is calling to salvation, so they can know for sure the truth of what God wants them to trust in and be saved by.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

Deborah, how can a person trust in Christ if they do not first receive this empowerment of faith, by the voice of the Holy Spirit, to know the gospel is true in the first place? Salvation then occurs when you place your trust in that which you now know to be true through the power of faith. But the church can't accept this because they think that any and all experiences of faith can only occur to saved people. But simply knowing the gospel is true (through the power of faith) does not save anybody. Trusting in that which you know to be true by the power of faith, is what saves a person.
Most people will reject the voice of the Spirit instilling faith in their hearts to know the gospel is true, calling them to trust in it and be saved, and so they are lost. So it is not simply knowing the gospel is true that saves. It is 'acting' on that which you now know to be true that saves, and what Jesus calls the 'work' of believing. It's the difference between simply being called (many are called), and being chosen because you believe in what God is calling you to (few are chosen)



How is surrendering your will not in itself an act of your will to do so?

Just because it can't happen without God's gracious influence and persuasion, does that make it no longer an act of your will? This is the thing about 'predetermined election' that I find ridiculous. A changed will is still the will of that person. But predestination is being taught here as meaning 'it wasn't your choice, God did it for you, and God did it for you so it wouldn't be work that you can take credit for, for that would be the works Paul says can't save a person'. Which is why I ask, "please show me in the Bible where the work of believing is one of the works that Paul says can not justify a person."

See how this fundamental premise--a flawed premise--gives strength to the 'predestined election' argument so popular in the church these days? Expose the flawed premise and that argument can't stand any longer.

I wish Chopper would read this, and read it with an open receptive heart. I don't see how he could argue with the point I'm making about 'believing' somehow being a work that is included in the works that Paul says count nothing toward justification. That's exactly contrary to what Paul says DOES justify a person.

Sorry Jethro, I couldn't get right back to answer you.
First thing I noticed was that the NIV, changes the Greek text. In the Greek, it does not say "the works that God requires".
It's says, "the works of God". So does Young's Literal Translation. So I looked in my old 1974 NIV, it says, "the work of God".
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
(John 6:28-30 NIV)
So they want to know what they must do to be able to do the works that God does.
He turns that around on them and tells them that the work of God, is to believe in the one He has sent.
Now they get it, because they say, What work are you going to do, so that we may see and believe? "What will you do?"
So there was no work for them to do, just believe in Him and His work.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
I have looked at this scripture every way I know how. What is the gift?
I finally realized it doesn't matter, we all agree that salvation is a gift. If salvation is a gift, than no part cannot be a gift.
If I baked you a cake as a gift but you have to provide the icing and put the icing on, is that cake still a gift, or is it partly of yourself?
You even said that God gives us that faith. In fact, I think at one point you said that faith was a gift. Faith is believing, is trusting in something. I have faith that the sun will rise over the mountains in the morning. I believe that the sun will rise over the mountains in the morning. I trust that the sun will rise.....
I don't have to work at believing something I just do, for different reasons.
I surely didn't work to believe in Jesus. He did all the work, I just received the blessings of His work.

You have mentioned people who say they are born again (saved). But they keep living their old lifestyle and think it's OK.
I wonder, are they recognizing Jesus as their Savior, the man that died for them, the man with the holes in His hands. But they are not recognizing the risen Lord. That He is their Lord, their Master. They need to open their other eye and see the Lord.
But I have confidence in the Holy Spirit and His power, that if they are saved (justified in Christ) then they are also sanctified in Christ, and He will accomplish the work He began in them.
I believe that the only way that cannot happen, is if they were not saved to begin with or they just totally reject Him. And when I say totally, I mean that they will cut off their own hand to get free of Him and they will never regret their decision.
But as long as there is a smoldering flax, the Holy Spirit will be ready to bring it to a burning flame. There's a scripture about that but I don't remember where it is.

 

[Deborah13]

Before I forget the thought (lol)...

What you're arguing for in the 'faith' discussion is that since the difference between 'faith' and 'believing' is (often) not a difference in syntax in the Bible, then the two can not possibly have a difference in semantics.

We all know that words can have the same syntax (be exactly the same word), but mean something different in any given context. And that is how 'faith' and 'believing' are different semantically speaking in the Bible, yet often identical in syntax. Faith implies 'knowing'. While believing implies 'trusting'.

How can a person accept the gospel if they do not first KNOW that the gospel is true? How does a person know the gospel is true if not by the enablement of faith? But the church can't see what I'm saying because they have been taught to automatically equate 'faith' with salvation, and that there is no distinction between 'faith' (knowing something is true), and 'believing' (trusting in that which you know to be true). Yet we see right in scripture that faith (head knowledge) can not save a person. Trusting in what you know is what saves.

The ONLY way we can know the Gospel is true is by faith. What do you mean the church can't see that?
We believe (trust) that someday Jesus will return and we believe, by faith in something that we don't have any absolute proof of.
The only physical proof we have that Jesus will return, is the words of several different men who we believe were inspired by God to write these things.
So tell me is that logical or rational by anyone's standards?
The only way we can believe is because God opened our eyes and ears to the truth. But that's just the beginning, He doesn't do that and then just leave us on our own. We could never keep going without Him prodding and guiding us along.

The root word for believe is the word for faith. That's how closely they are related.
One can have faith and believe, as you want to try to separate them but when it come to the Lord they go hand in hand.
But complete trust grows and becomes more consistent in mature Christians. We trust and then we take back the problem or situation after trusting God with it. It's a learning process. Sheesh Jethro, even Jesus grew in stature and wisdom.

If believing is so different from faith, why would Jesus in John, tell unbelievers to believe before they had faith unto salvation? They would have no way to believe. Do you see?

And here's one for you....that at time the Bible was written, supposedly from what I read, people thought that our thoughts can from our hearts, not the brain. But I have to check that out more.

 

[mondar]

Show me in the scriptures that the 'work' of believing is included in the work that Paul says can not justify.

This one error of doctrine all by itself has caused more error of doctrine in the church than probably anything else.

But if you are sure the work of 'believing' is included in the works that man does that can not justify then show me where the Bible says that.

This is one of the foundational premises that has to be laid aside--as you say you want to do--in order for you to see the error of election/predestination as you are putting it forth here. Are you open to the possibility that you, along with the bulk of the church, has misunderstood Paul's doctrine of works/grace?

This post of Jethro's more than others makes the difference most noticeable. With Jethro, it is the "work" of believing. With Jethro, faith is a work which makes one deserve salvation. He might deny this, but read his post above, it speaks for itself. While he makes a difference between works, and the "work" of believing, they still fit the same catagory of something accomplished totally by man. Thus also his denial of original sin. The scriptural teaching is that believing is a grace given to us by God.
Phil 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:
Faith is something "granted" to us. Faith is the work of God in man, and then God justifies man on the basis of that faith. Jethro reverses this and makes faith the work of man for God to deserve salvation. The key difference is faith. Is faith the work of man for God, or the work of God in man? The one kind of faith is man centered, the other is God centered.

 

[ivdavid]

Jethro makes faith the work of man for God, not the work of God in man.

Jethro's got quite some confusing definitions charted out for himself - to him, "faith" is completely given by God out of grace, which man has to then choose to receive by "believing". Until provided any evidence from the Bible, I see no reason to reject the most apparent grammatical explanation of "Faith" being the noun form of the verb "Believing [in/upon]", both being identical in semantics. But anyway, for the sake of the discussion, I think the last analogy in my previous post would help you understand his position.

As to the arguments you raised against his position, they still are valid - only replace the word "faith" with "believing" to adhere to his model.

 

[mondar]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
I have looked at this scripture every way I know how. What is the gift?
I finally realized it doesn't matter, we all agree that salvation is a gift. If salvation is a gift, than no part cannot be a gift.

Deborah, certainly this is a key text. If I can add some information to what you say.... I apologize in advance for how technical it is, because it involves greek grammar. Yes, I have been trained in the use of the greek NT. I am not the best student, and I am a stranger, so of course this needs to be checked out. Nevertheless, it is true.

There is a small grammatical issue in Ephesians 2:8
8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
The issue is that the word "gift" is δωρον. That is a neuter noun for gift. The issue is that a neuter noun usually takes a neuter antecedent. In the sentence with verse 8, there is no neuter noun that could serve as the antecedent. So then, it is allowable for an entire phrase with both masculine and feminine nouns in it to serve as the neuter antecedent. A the beginning of the verse...
8 τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον
The noun "grace" (χαριτι) is obviously feminine because even the article (τη) is a feminine article. The noun faith is also feminine (πιστεως) but the aorist participle salvation (σεσωσμενοι) is masculine.
So then, the phrase by grace have ye been saved through faith has both masculine and feminine nouns and can serve as the antecedent of the neuter word "gift." So then, in saying that salvation is the gift your are correct, but it is also a little more. It is the entire phrase that is the antecedent of the gift.

 

[mondar]

Jethro's got quite some confusing definitions charted out for himself - to him, "faith" is completely given by God out of grace, which man has to then choose to receive by "believing". Until provided any evidence from the Bible, I see no reason to reject the most apparent grammatical explanation of "Faith" being the noun form of the verb "Believing [in/upon]", both being identical in semantics. But anyway, for the sake of the discussion, I think the last analogy in my previous post would help you understand his position.

As to the arguments you raised against his position, they still are valid - only replace the word "faith" with "believing" to adhere to his model.

Hmmm, I had not picked up on Jethro making a difference between faith and believing. Your also right in that I was using the terms in an interchangeably. I have not been following the thread quite as closely lately [edited by Staff]

Also, as you say, the verb "believing" (pisteuo)
is the verbal form for the noun "faith" (pistos).
The Greeks just took the verbal ending off and attached the noun ending on the same root. It would be grammatically very illogical to make a difference between the two terms. If there is a difference in meaning what would you do with a participle?

 

[Sparkey]

Per the Terms of Service comments are to address the issue and not the man.

~Moderator

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please read the linked post that perhaps you missed from much earlier. Is this work of 'believing', worked out of the flesh or out of the spirit - is the question?

I read the link. Now you'll have to show how it answers my question of where the Bible says Jesus' 'work of believing' is itself included in Paul's works that can't justify.

Fair enough. But is this 'acting', acted out of the flesh or the spirit - accordingly, we'd be able to determine if it is salvific or not.

It's the ministry of the Spirit working in the heart of a person to persuade them to choose the gospel.

I am not asking what God does from without - I'm asking about the very nature of man. Is he still in the flesh when he's making that "choice" - or is he in the spirit?

He's making a choice after being faced with the revelation of the truth of the gospel given by the Holy Spirit.

And who created that potential in man? Who designed the bullets? From within your own belief system, God cannot create one man with the potential to choose/do Right/Good while creating another without such potential - and then hold the second man responsible for not having chosen/done the Right/Good he anyway wasn't created with the potential to do.

Lol, that's my argument. It's a big reason it's impossible to believe in 'predetermined election', as in God purposely manufacturing believers and unbelievers apart from any input from them.

God is Just only if He creates every single man the exact same way (potential included) with respect to morality, and not personality - since He holds every man morally accountable while not judging over subjective personal choices. I am, however, okay with God designing the exact same bullets and then giving them the capacity to choose their path to the wall.

Perhaps the parable of the soil demonstrates how the soil of men's hearts vary. Not by God's pre-programmed design, but by some inherent quality of the spirit of a man that exists outside of that which God purposely creates, and which is exposed for what it is through the ministry of the Spirit in the world. The quality of the soil is exposed when the farmer tries to plant something in it, and whether or not it comes to fruition.

Analogies help, don't they? This is how I see your beliefs on this - I think you've objectified "faith", say like a nice gift-wrapped solid object. And we have all men blindfolded and groping about in blindness. Now God goes to each man, temporarily lifts up the blindfold, and with outstretched arm carrying this gift-wrapped "faith" object - persuades that man to receive this gift of "faith". At that point of time, where that man can see clearly without the blindfold, he could either choose to receive the gift - in which case, God would then tear away that blindfold and set him free - or that man could choose to reject the gift - in which case, God replaces the blindfold and turns him over to his blindness. So, simply having this initial offer of the "faith" object doesn't constitute setting a man free - it is this man's receiving/retaining/having it that constitutes setting him free. Besides, no man can ever tear his blindfold by himself.

Have I got your beliefs right?

Very, very close. The faith object is in itself the lifting of the blindfold. Other than that I think you understand my POV very well. That's 3/4 of the battle in these forums, lol.

Good job!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hmmm, I had not picked up on Jethro making a difference between faith and believing. Your also right in that I was using the terms in an interchangeably. I have not been following the thread quite as closely lately [edited by Staff]

Also, as you say, the verb "believing" (pisteuo)
is the verbal form for the noun "faith" (pistos).
The Greeks just took the verbal ending off and attached the noun ending on the same root. It would be grammatically very illogical to make a difference between the two terms. If there is a difference in meaning what would you do with a participle?

Can you see the difference between simply knowing something is true by faith (that is, being enabled, supernaturally, to know what you can't see is true), and then retaining that faith and placing your trust in what has been shown to you to be true about the gospel you can't see and as a result, being saved? I can.

It's the difference between 'faith' (the God given ability to know something is true you can't see), and 'having faith'. There is a definite semantic difference the two. Nobody is saved by simply knowing something is true through God's enablement of faith. A person is saved by placing their trust in what God has shown them to be true through the gift of faith. This is hard for the church to grasp because they can only think of faith in terms of 'having faith' as in being saved, and not in terms of faith being that which God has to give a person to even know what he's asking them to believe and trust in is even true in the first place.

That's all I can say for now. It's the work week again. The brain surgeries are backing up....

 

[ivdavid]

Per the Terms of Service comments are to address the issue and not the man.

~Moderator

I understand that completely. But how are we to refer to an issue that is raised specifically by one man alone without identifying the issue with that man? Note, we are not making out the man to be the issue - we just needed a reference key. Anyway, I'll restate myself accordingly.

 

[Chopper]

I have decided that I don't want the reputation of one who bails out of a thread. I have read and re-read our posts and if nothing else clarify a few points of my position.
1. I am a 4 point Calvinist, not a 5 point. Jethro, I see by your posts that you feel that I believe that God predestin's some to be saved and those He does not choose, He predestin's them to destruction. THAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE! The 5th point of TULIP that I reject is the L, Limited atonement. Here is what Calvin teaches on the limited atonement; "Christ's atonement is adequate to save all people but it is efficient for God's elect only". Jethro, I REJECT THAT!

2. I have plainly stated that the elect, once chosen by God, is responsible to take the Gospel to the ones God did not chose to be the elect. Therefore God desires all men to be saved. That is what I have called in past posts is "the general call of the Gospel.

3. I cannot believe that you actually believe that man has some responsibility in his Salvation. I think you call "believing" a work. Is that right? If that is true then, how do you call a "free gift" works?

 

[ivdavid]

I read the link. Now you'll have to show how it answers my question of where the Bible says Jesus' 'work of believing' is itself included in Paul's works that can't justify.

My conclusion as per that link is - "it isn't isolated works or deeds that can be categorized as sinful or not - rather such determination is made by seeing whether it is done in the flesh(self-nature) or in the spirit(God-nature)."

And now for me to show you what you're asking, you need to first clarify whether the "work of believing" that you refer to, is worked out of the flesh or out of the spirit. I didn't get a direct response from these following lines of yours -

"It's the ministry of the Spirit working in the heart of a person to persuade them to choose the gospel."
"He's making a choice after being faced with the revelation of the truth of the gospel given by the Holy Spirit."

..and I don't want to presume here - so a simple one word "flesh/spirit" answer would suffice and I'll show you the Biblical text supporting/opposing that.

Lol, that's my argument...

I know. That's why I qualified the entire point with - "From within your own belief system" .

Perhaps the parable of the soil demonstrates how the soil of men's hearts vary. Not by God's pre-programmed design, but by some inherent quality of the spirit of a man that exists outside of that which God purposely creates, and which is exposed for what it is through the ministry of the Spirit in the world.

The only things "that exist outside of that which God purposely creates" are the anti-thesis of God - namely, sin,evil, darkness etc. John 1:3 and Col 1:16 seem pretty exhaustive on this. So if you attribute this variance to the varying corrupting influence of any of these anti-theses, such as sin - then the system seems consistent.

Very, very close. The faith object is in itself the lifting of the blindfold.

You've lost me there again. God lifts the blindfold temporarily once and offers the "faith" object - what does that translate to, according to this above quote? Is it God lifting the blindfold temporarily and offering as the gift - the permanent removal of the blindfold itself? According to this analogy, blindfolded man is man in sinful flesh - and man without the blindfold is man in the spirit. So, is God offering as the "faith" object, the offer of regeneration itself - that of recreating man's very nature, from that of being in the flesh(having blindfolds) to that of being in the spirit(no blindfolds)? Need some clarification there.

Also tell me, would you have any theological reservations if I told you that Adam was one of these people blindfolded now - but God never walked up to him alone, with this "faith" object offer?