“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

[janxharris]

Luke 8:43-48
And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped. And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched Me?” And while they were all denying it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing in on You.”But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.”When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed. And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Jesus said YOUR faith.
Monergists don't seriously suggest that this woman's faith wasn't really her's after all but that it was predetermined and placed in her? Doesn't such an understanding turn Scripture on its head? Don't Scriptural statements that are all inspired by the Holy Spirit lose their integrity? Doesn't life lose any semblance of reality?

 

[Hammster]

If I gave you a car, whose car would it be? It would be yours.

 

[janxharris]

If I gave you a car, whose car would it be? It would be yours.

How would it make sense for Jesus to bless this woman with healing if she had been given faith without some degree of trust and faith on her part? Remember faith is not a work.

How does this little vignette make any sense if what appeared to happen wasn't actually the reality?

 

[Hammster]

How would it make sense for Jesus to bless this woman with healing if she had been given faith without some degree of trust and faith on her part? Remember faith is not a work.

Huh? Faith and faith are the same thing. And trust is part of faith. So I don't understand your question.

How does this little vignette make any sense if what appeared to happen wasn't actually the reality?

What appeared to happen did happen. If her faith came from a work of the Spirit (which I'm guessing you don't believe), then it's her faith. Jesus didn't believe for her.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Monergists don't seriously suggest that this woman's faith wasn't really her's after all but that it was predetermined and placed in her?

This isn't what monergism says, but rather, is what synergists believe monergism has to say because of synergist presuppositions which monergists don't have. We can't be called on to defend a hybrid position that's half yours and half ours as if it were what we believe. Underlying philosophical presuppositions have to be addressed first.

 

[janxharris]

This isn't what monergism says, but rather, is what synergists believe monergism has to say because of synergist presuppositions which monergists don't have. We can't be called on to defend a hybrid position that's half yours and half ours as if it were what we believe. Underlying philosophical presuppositions have to be addressed first.

If it was predetermined, as J. Calvin said, then it would seem she had no say in the matter.

 

[Epiphoskei]

If it was predetermined, as J. Calvin said, then it would seem she had no say in the matter.

She had no autonomous say in the matter, but because no humans ever have autonomy, yet we do recognize that there exists a real thing called having a say in the matter, the very definition of that real thing does not necessitate autonomy and she could yet have it without affecting the fact that it was also predestined.

Edwards and Aquinas both wrote at length on what we now call proximate and ultimate causation. The crux of the argument is that God's causation and man's causation of his deeds are categorically different forms of causation. This allows God to work monergistically without in any way stepping upon the legitimacy or authenticity of acts of the will.

God is not a mere creature like us; his transcendence allows room for causation without manipulation or puppetry or the like.

 

[Jack Terrence]

How would it make sense for Jesus to bless this woman with healing if she had been given faith without some degree of trust and faith on her part?

God blessed Abraham though his faith was not from himself.

Paul said that Abraham wavered not in faith BECAUSE he was "strengthened in faith." The verb is passive meaning that an outside agent acted upon Abraham so that he would believe. That outside agent was God,

"But was strengthened in faith (passive) giving the glory to God and being fully convinced." Romans 4:20-21

Paul then goes on to say that we must walk after the faith of Abraham. How are those who think that they muster up faith from themselves walking "after the faith of Abraham" when Abraham gave the glory to God?

 

[jdbrown]

God is not a mere creature like us; his transcendence allows room for causation without manipulation or puppetry or the like.

This is really an outstanding point. We often don't think enough about the majesty of God's creative power and His absolute control over the most intricate details of our existence. Any thinking that would place a limitation on God concerning His creation is a form of idolatry.

 

[janxharris]

She had no autonomous say in the matter, but because no humans ever have autonomy, yet we do recognize that there exists a real thing called having a say in the matter, the very definition of that real thing does not necessitate autonomy and she could yet have it without affecting the fact that it was also predestined.

Edwards and Aquinas both wrote at length on what we now call proximate and ultimate causation. The crux of the argument is that God's causation and man's causation of his deeds are categorically different forms of causation. This allows God to work monergistically without in any way stepping upon the legitimacy or authenticity of acts of the will.

God is not a mere creature like us; his transcendence allows room for causation without manipulation or puppetry or the like.

This seems to bridge the gap between Arminians and Calvinists.

I'm not sure you position is necessarily held by other Calvinists, though I might be wrong.

 

[janxharris]

God blessed Abraham though his faith was not from himself.

Would be interested to see your proof.

Romans 4 is pretty clear in what it says.

 

[janxharris]

Paul said that Abraham wavered not in faith BECAUSE he was "strengthened in faith." The verb is passive meaning that an outside agent acted upon Abraham so that he would believe. That outside agent was God,

No translation in any way suggests what you have asserted.

"But was strengthened in faith (passive) giving the glory to God and being fully convinced." Romans 4:20-21

Paul then goes on to say that we must walk after the faith of Abraham. How are those who think that they muster up faith from themselves walking "after the faith of Abraham" when Abraham gave the glory to God?

I'm not sure one could build a doctrine on this. It is equally possible to read it that Abraham gave Glory to God for the promise or just in general.

 

[Epiphoskei]

This seems to bridge the gap between Arminians and Calvinists.

I'm not sure you position is necessarily held by other Calvinists, though I might be wrong.

Well, I got it from Edwards, and I've never had a Calvinist take issue with it.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Would be interested to see your proof.

Romans 4 is pretty clear in what it says.

I have already provided the proof. Paul said that Abraham wavered not in unbelief but "was strengthened in faith giving the glory to God." The verb "was srengthened" is passive which indicates that an outside agent acted upon Abraham to make his faith firm. That outside agent was God.

Paul said that Abraham's and Sarah's bodies were "dead." People do not just "choose" to believe that they will have children if their reproductive organs are dead UNLESS they receive a special revelation from God.

Abraham and Sarah both mocked God when He first spoke the promise. They did not just "choose" to believe. So how did they come to believe?

 

[Jack Terrence]

No translation in any way suggests what you have asserted.

You are in denial sir. The NKJV says that Abraham's faith "was strengthened" (passive). The verb ἐνεδυναμώθη is passive. This indicates that an outside agent strengthened his faith. Furthermore, both Abraham and Sarah mocked God at the beginning.

I'm not sure one could build a doctrine on this. It is equally possible to read it that Abraham gave Glory to God for the promise or just in general.

They did not initially give God glory for the promise. Abraham questioned God and Sarah laughed at Him because their reproductive organs were "dead" (Paul's term). God's promise to give them seed was ridiculous to them at first.

So how did they just suddenly "choose" to believe without God acting upon them in some way?

You are in denial. Plain and simple!

 

[Clare73]

This is really an outstanding point. We often don't think enough about the majesty of God's creative power and His absolute control over the most intricate details of our existence. Any thinking that would place a limitation on God concerning His creation is a form of idolatry.

Not much of what she posts isn't outstanding (sorry about the double negative, but I like it).

 

[Clare73]

How does this little vignette make any sense

John calls Jesus' miracles "signs" (Jn 2:11, 23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 12:37, 20:30);

that is, signs which show the nature of gospel grace or salvation.

This miracle was a sign showing that healing of sin in the gospel comes through faith.