Again, you have not given scripture which points out there are totally different kinds of “faith” instead of one kind of faith controlled by the individual to direct it the way the individual sees fit to do. In fact because everyone is being asked to place (direct) their faith in God and Christ it appears they all have the power to do so or it would be misleading.
I'd like you to respond to my point about your reasoning being the same as Pelagius, whose idea was condemned at several councils, and he was excommunicated in 418. He purported that if God gave a command to man, then it follows that man has the ability to perform it. This is the false idea that was condemned, because it denies that man is a sinner at heart.
So the problem of sin is not pointing to an inherent inability in man's physical or mental makeup, but rather his spiritual makeup. Your reasoning focuses only upon man's natural capability, and leaves out the fact that he is a sinner at heart, and a hater of God by implication. It is not that anyone is mentally incapable of formulating some natural belief about Christ, but that unregenerate man doesn't want to believe. It is an attitude problem, which is a spiritual issue by nature. So, it takes God doing something to a person to get their heart right, since people cannot get their heart right.
What I am saying is that God gives the command to believe, but no one will, until God Himself enables some to believe by changing the disposition of their heart, which is regeneration.
Your demand for some verse of scripture as prooftext to prove my statement that there are 2 kinds of faith is a useless request. There is no verse that says so, yet it is inherent in the teachings of Paul, James, and John. It is found in the context of their writings. James says "You say you believe..." which is the kind of faith he is addressing at that point, which is merely a claim, and has no root in spirituality. It is a kind that has not gone through any testing and resulted in endurance of trust in Christ, nor is it the kind that leads to obedience. So that kind of faith is "dead" or "useless," it being limited to theory only.
The scripture is full of words that have double meanings, just like any language has. Jesus said "do not judge lest you be judged," yet said "judge with a righteous judgment." It doesn't take a Ph.D. in semantics to see there are 2 kinds of judgment talked about here. There's a big confusion in the English language about the word "love" because it has various meanings in different contexts, and there are different Greek words for each category in scripture. The term "evil" has different meanings in different contexts, and may mean moral wrongdoing, or may mean natural calamity. Words are defined according to the context in which they are used, in scripture as well as in any language.
So when this is understood, then it easily follows that the "dead faith" that James condemns is a faith of a different kind than the faith that Paul is talking about which justifies us before God. It can't be the same, because Paul says that the justifying faith "establishes the law." Each kind of faith, the dead kind and the living kind, is based on a set of ideas having to do with relationship with God. One is the right kind, one is the wrong kind. One is based on natural reasoning, the other on illumination by the Holy Spirit.
What? You cannot cease from sowing good or bad seeds in this life. If you quit sowing bad seed you automatically sow good seed and if you quit sowing good seed you are sowing bad seed. You are not the one who makes the seed grow.
Paul is addressing Christians (they would automatically be sowing good seed) and telling them not to quit, so is Paul preaching a works based religion?
And this is the rub, isn't it? Some people say Paul teaches antinomianism, and some say he is teaching legalism. Some say he teaches salvation by faith alone, some say he's teaching salvation by works.
But let me address your "what" question: the seeds you sow, whether good or bad, is your works. And if you say that salvation is based on your sowing of those seeds, then it's a works based salvation. This is the whole controversy between grace and works. It has to do with who is in control of our destiny, whether we are in the kingdom of God, or not.
If we are in control, then our future is precarious. We will fear for our future, because at any time we might abandon our commitment to Christ and be lost forever, because we are naturally inclined to sin. We choose to come to Christ on our own, and we could choose to walk away on our own. The basis of our faith is in our own ability to choose rightly. I get that this is what you believe.
But if God is in control, then God is the one who started our walk with Christ, and He will be the one to finish it. We could not make ourselves born again, could not believe rightly, and could not keep ourselves in the faith, if we were on our own. But since God is in control of our destiny, we acknowledge that He is the one who started us in the faith, and He is the one who keeps us there. Our faith then is completely in Him. Our works are an outcome of God's work in us. Everything we do has faith in God involved in it. We attribute no good thing, including choices, to ourselves. The basis of this faith is in God's work. This is what I believe.
So then, when individuals hear commands from Christ or advice from the apostles, guess who's going to listen to it. Not just anyone, but only those born of God.
So, is this where our paths diverge?
Again! I fully agree with: “I don't think the Bible teaches that haters of God will submit to Him” and that is not the choice of the rebellious disobedient sinner! They do not have to be “brought to life” in order humbly accept pure charity as charity. They can do this from the same “dead” state the prodigal son was in.
Even if a spiritually dead person could accept "pure charity" as you call it, that doesn't mean they're saved. A skid row bum will accept charity from someone, but misuses it. Only those who have the wisdom that comes from above will use God's charity properly.
As Christians we are eternal but like we find in Gal. 8:6… whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Paul does not say: “did reap eternal life” but will, which seems to refer to eternal life in heaven. The eternal life in heaven is what the Christian can give up.
I don't agree with the way you interpret this. Paul is talking to people who may or may not be born again. He was aware, as it is today, that many in the churches are not born again, as Jesus told in the parables of the sower and the wheat/tares. Like I said before, the scripture has warnings of real spiritual danger, but those born of God will always heed them, because they have the Holy Spirit in them.
Besides, it doesn't say "to please the Spirit," it says "to the Spirit." This means sowing the faith that the Spirit is our guide and helper in life, and so are we led by the Spirit.
You say Heb. 12:16 is: a warning to "keep the faith." So would that not mean they have faith and could lose their faith?
It was the same back then as today. There are people who erroneously think they have control of themselves and their choices, in contrast with those who know they have a sinful nature, and want God in control. The difference is in how one thinks of himself and his relationship with God. The resulting difference is that one will live according to his feelings, and the other will live according to God's word. "The righteous shall live by faith" - so if a person is inclined to lose it, then their regeneration is suspect.
So the warning in Heb. 12:16 is not really about keeping the faith, but rather about who they belong to. The warning says "see to it..." which implies that Christians are to look out for each other, and "so fulfill the law of Christ." So, it's not about losing faith, but rather about "the deceitfulness of sin." Keep in mind this is directly after ch. 11 the faith chapter, so he is exhorting the people to believe in God in the same way as is exampled, in order for them to be assured that their faith is genuine. It's not about establishing faith, but about examining oneself to see what is the condition of their faith and their spiritual well being. It's an exhortation to be assured of their calling and election, as 2 Peter exhorts. It's part of entering the sabbath rest he talks about earlier in the epistle.
What support do you have for: “some of the audience (if not most of them) might not be born again”. They have already had to hold up to persecution which hypocrites have no reason to do. These letters were not published to be read by nonbelievers and why would a nonbeliever even want to read it?
The parables of Jesus concerning the sower and the wheat/tares.
We do not interpret scripture by a percent of scripture that supports one doctrine, but have to make all scripture consistent. I differ on your interpretation of the scripture you feel supports your doctrine. I like to challenge each verse individually to consider the most likely interpretation given the context.
I agree that scripture is consistent, and conforms to the law of non-contradiction. I agree with the hermeneutical rule "let scripture interpret scripture." I do not agree with the common ways that people interpret it wrongly, which may be:
1. imagining different ways it might mean, and coming up with the one most reasonable to them
2. taking conclusions they make about certain experiences, and imposing that on the text
3. imposing traditional ideas on the text
IOW, making the scripture mean what they reason it to mean (or what they want it to say).
The way I interpret scripture is to consider all of it as the wider context, in addition to the immediate context of what is written. I consider that contextual meaning is the important aspect of the scripture. Although correct meanings of individual words are important, it is not as important as contextual meaning, because meanings of individual words will be adjusted according to how the writer is using those words. I look for the original meaning of the text according to how the author meant it.
One of the rules of interpretation is to interpret obscure passages according to what clear passages say about the subject. Example in point is Rev. 5:9 which is clear that the blood of Christ does not apply to every person. Therefore, when John wrote 1 Jn. 2:2, he could not have meant every person included in "the whole world," since that would contradict Rev. 5:9. Christ redeemed only the believing subset of the whole world, not every person.
So when I said "the majority of scripture," I meant scripture as a whole. I was not meaning that some scripture contradicted it. The only scriptures that "contradict" the permanence of eternal life to believers are those who choose to interpret them that way. It only shows that interpretation of scripture is easily influenced by an agenda.
No. You do not “lose your salvation”, you cannot, but you can give it up to go back to pursuing the perceived pleasures of sin for a season. Sin can draw you back.
So you're saying that you can give it up, but you still have eternal life?
You can give it up to go back to pursuing the perceived pleasures of sin for a season. Sin can draw you back and if you quench the Spirit long enough unselfish Godly type Love loses its appeal.
I see you describing a hypothetical experience, but not sure your point. I was trying to point out the difference between someone led by the Spirit vs. someone not.
I see Hebrews as teaching very seriously about believing in Christ, and 12:16 is part of that context. It seems to me that he is talking about faith in Christ transcending feelings, such that a person becomes willing to lay down desires and fears for the sake of spiritual inheritance.
I never said they weren’t “Sons of God are born from God, not from a natural human choice.” The human choice is in accepting what was done for them.
"What was done for them" - exactly, that they are born of God, that God gifted them with grace, that their faith is based on the work of God in them. That's my point. A person's choice to follow Christ is the result of God's work in them.
All rebellious disobedient nonbelieving sinners are hell bound and all mature adult have been there. Only God can give them a birthright to heaven. The “question” is: What keeps some from getting the birthright? I would say God has the desire, the power and the Love to give that birthright to everyone, but it has to be humbly accepted as pure charity by the hell bound person. Christ teaches us in Luke 7 “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…”, so the only way I see to obtain this Godly type Love (which cannot be made instinctive to humans [robotic] nor can it be forced on the person [like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun]) is through the person humbly accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt to get an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).
The "shotgun wedding" idea is a straw man, because when God freely gives saving grace to someone, they become willing to follow Christ, because God has made them willing. It's not by shotgun.
The only people who humble themselves as you describe are those predestined by God to receive His grace and have their sinful nature defeated in them. I think Paul is pretty clear about this in Rom. 9 and Eph. 1 and 2.
So please define "mature adult." I don't know who you're talking about.
If the person does not want to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity, they would not be happy in heaven where it is one huge Love feast of only unselfish type Love.
People will do almost anything to get around having to make the choice to humbly accept pure charity to the point of saying “you can’t do it”. If you are saying: “Man does not have the ability of their own autonomous free will to humble themselves to the point of taking charity, you have taken yourself out of having to accept pure charity? You are saying: “the charity came to me in the form of being chosen” and then the Spirit moved me to do righteous stuff, but you did not accept that charity as charity?
I am saying God is not forcing you to accept His charity as charity if you do not want it. If you want to be Loved in spite of the way you are and you want to Love others the way God Loves you, then great.
You are presenting this "pure charity" idea as if God lays a gift on a table and it is up to you to take that gift. Is this what you're saying?
I agree lots of details are left out and we cannot extrapolate. It is parallel to some Spiritual truth.
yes.
The “nature” Adam and Eve had caused them to sin, so our nature does not have to be different. The “knowledge” of evil provides tons of ways to sin so we will sin.
Sin actually has purpose in that it helps the willing nonbelieving sinner in fulfill his/her objective.
I disagree with you here. Paul wrote "there is nothing good in me, that is in my flesh." So I think your idea that sin has a purpose to help is not Biblical. There is nothing good in it.
I also think you might be confused between the physical and spiritual natures.
God does command all people to obey, but they soon realize they need more than their own power to obey (forgiveness, Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
There are many fools in this world who neither realize they need more power, nor are willing to acknowledge God's command. That's the sinful nature.
So God telling them to “obey” does mean they can, but they will have to accept help.
Here is where our paths diverge. Your idea is what the Roman church teaches, and is rooted in the teachings of Pelagius. It's a denial that all people (initially) are as steeped in sin as Paul describes in Rom. 3:10-18 and Eph. 2:1-4. In Rom. 8 he says "the mind set on the flesh cannot please God." This is a statement of inability. One might argue that they can't please God (that is, with faith, which is the law of God he is talking about), because they don't want to please God. They can't obey because they don't want to obey.
So, it is God's grace freely given to individuals without merit, that cause people to want to obey. Those are the ones who realize they need help from God.
There is no “righteousness” in being selfish. Jesus was not selfish and He is our example. The individual making the choice is not doing this out of a compelling “Love” for God so it is worthless (1 Cor. 13:1-7).
What's your point here? Are you trying to say that a person can choose to believe in Christ for a selfish reason, and that makes it an "unrighteous choice"? If so, I think your idea is not Biblical. Paul clearly states that faith in Christ makes a person righteous. Therefore, it is a righteous choice, and the unregenerate can't make that choice, because a person in their natural state with a sinful nature can't make themselves righteous. Faith is the law of God a person must obey to be justified, and that takes an act of God in that person.
TD
