God cannot grant faith

[dogs4thewin]

No, but you did day God cannot grant faith. This is unscriptural.

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:

I could offer other texts, but this one is strait forward.

so does that mean you MUST accept it?

 

[Don Maurer]

No, but you did day God cannot grant faith. This is unscriptural.

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:

I could offer other texts, but this one is strait forward.

so does that mean you MUST accept it?

Do you get a choice in suffering with him? If you say "yes" then on what basis would you say that the granting of faith is due to our efforts? Certainly faith can be resisted like a child holds his breath, but it is an instinctual part of the nature of a child at some point to stop holding his breath and gasp for air. Even if the child passes out, he will still naturally begin to draw breath. When God draws, it is in our nature to believe.

I have other texts that I would love to go to here, but I hate jumping texts too fast. One at a time. Nevertheless, do you notice how you are changing your proposition. It went from "God cannot grant faith" and now it is "does this mean you MUST accept it." That is not the same proposition.

 

[BryanW92]

so does that mean you MUST accept it?

If you were dying of thirst in the desert, could you refuse a free gift of water?

I am diabetic and have the occasional low sugar attack. When I have one, I get ravenous and will eat just about anything and can't stop until the sugar levels gets high enough. On the other hand, my father can't seem to detect a low sugar condition and he slips into unconsciousness.

I see grace the same way. I have been granted the knowledge to know that I need grace so I grab it with both hands. Some do not recognize the need because that ability was not given to them, so they would just let it go past without even knowing it was there.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you were dying of thirst in the desert, could you refuse a free gift of water?

I am diabetic and have the occasional low sugar attack. When I have one, I get ravenous and will eat just about anything and can't stop until the sugar levels gets high enough. On the other hand, my father can't seem to detect a low sugar condition and he slips into unconsciousness.

I see grace the same way. I have been granted the knowledge to know that I need grace so I grab it with both hands. Some do not recognize the need because that ability was not given to them, so they would just let it go past without even knowing it was there.

Read one of my above post concerning my father. I addressed that question. If someone is dying particularly ACTIVELY they will sometimes refuse a drink and sometimes they actually CANNOT drink.

 

[BryanW92]

Read one of my above post concerning my father. I addressed that question. If someone is dying particularly ACTIVELY they will sometimes refuse a drink and sometimes they actually CANNOT drink.

You must have posted it in another thread.

But I'm not talking about a person who is dying of throat cancer or something where the water causes more pain than it solves. I'm just talking about the person who thirsts.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He cannot. The reason is that EVERYONE has faith. I do not care if you have been a Christian for YEARS or a hardcore Atheist.

Is everyone regenerate? If you answer no, as you should, then you have to make a distinction between the kind of "faith" the regenerate have and the kind the unregenerate have. I propose that regenerate faith is living, while unregenerate faith is dead. The unregenerate faith, is a kind that seeks to suppress the truth of God, a kind that seeks to hide from God, and never to give glory to God, and it is a kind that cannot please God. Regenerate faith is just the opposite. The difference is God the Holy Spirit at work in one and not the other, pure and simple.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You must have posted it in another thread.

But I'm not talking about a person who is dying of throat cancer or something where the water causes more pain than it solves. I'm just talking about the person who thirsts.

Well tou said could you resist a drink well yes if you are either dying ( as was the case with my father two weeks ago tomorrow or have a desire to die then yes you CAN resist a drink of water. Matter of a fact, you can literally put that in a living will EVEN BEFORE you get to that point where you have no choice.

 

[BryanW92]

Well tou said could you resist a drink well yes if you are either dying ( as was the case with my father two weeks ago tomorrow or have a desire to die then yes you CAN resist a drink of water. Matter of a fact, you can literally put that in a living will EVEN BEFORE you get to that point where you have no choice.

You're splitting hairs. I was talking about a person who is dying OF THIRST AND NOTHING ELSE and DOESN'T WANT TO DIE. Is that legalistic enough for you?

You are aware that the thirst metaphor is commonly used to represent the need for God's grace, aren't you?

 

[dogs4thewin]

You're splitting hairs. I was talking about a person who is dying OF THIRST AND NOTHING ELSE and DOESN'T WANT TO DIE. Is that legalistic enough for you?

You are aware that the thirst metaphor is commonly used to represent the need for God's grace, aren't you?

In that case no they could not resist bit ( although I am NOT sure how there would be anyone else out there with them to give the water. Note about me I am NOT very good with figures of speech. In real life either.

 

[Skala]

He cannot. The reason is that EVERYONE has faith. I do not care if you have been a Christian for YEARS or a hardcore Atheist.

That is interesting, because my Bible says not everyone has faith. (2 Thess 3:2)

 

[TaylorSexton]

That is called a category error.

This statement rightly sums up this entire thread. Faith that my car will start has nothing to do with saving faith; they are not even the same thing. This is even apparent that most (probably the vast majority) people who have faith (i.e., believe in the existence of) in God do not have faith (i.e., trust in a salvific sense) in God.

This thread accomplishes nothing because the "sides" are not even talking about the same thing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This thread accomplishes nothing because they "sides" are not even talking about the same thing.

Isn't that almost always the case here?

 

[hedrick]

Faith in the Biblical sense is trusting and relying on God. We can have faith in something other than God in the some way. E.g. most children have faith in their parents.

I claim that it has little to do with proof. You could prove that something is completely reliable, but that might still not make me trust it. Logically it should, be people don't work that way. I suspect the point is that we often have faith in someone or something even though we can’t prove that they are worthy of the faith. Hence now and then people don’t live up to others’ faith. But faith is not defined as believing something you can't prove. Faith in the Christian sense isn't belief, but relying on someone. A different meaning of the word "faith," but one that's not confined to Christianity. We also speak about having faith in people.

I’m not sure what the OP was trying to say, however. Of course everyone has faith. Actually I can’t prove that, but I’d be willing to believe that most people have faith in something. But Calvinism has never said that having faith in other people, in science, or whatever, is a gift from God, except in th sense that everything is a gift from God. The claim has been that we can’t have faith specifically in God without his converting us first.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The claim has been that we can’t have faith specifically in God without his converting us first.

Exactly. The OP is assuming that (saving) faith in God is the same faith that we use when we sit in a chair, assuming that it will not collapse under our weight. They are not the same thing—at all. That is why this conversation is useless until the same object is being discussed. Of course, we can have faith that God exists, but, again, this must be distinguished from saving faith.

 

[beekaye]

I'm going to be contrary here for a second and not really add much to the conversation, but I am sure that He could grant faith if he really wanted but what would be the point? We could easily have been created as automatons with no ability to choose for ourselves who or what we believe in, but that would change the whole Human experience. Besides, who knows what we have in store for us in the next life? Personally I like to think we're being groomed, tempered, for something much much greater than any Human has ever had the ability to comprehend.

 

[Don Maurer]

I'm going to be contrary here for a second and not really add much to the conversation, but I am sure that He could grant faith if he really wanted but what would be the point? We could easily have been created as automatons with no ability to choose for ourselves who or what we believe in, but that would change the whole Human experience. Besides, who knows what we have in store for us in the next life? Personally I like to think we're being groomed, tempered, for something much much greater than any Human has ever had the ability to comprehend.

beekaye, your right in one thing, it is hard not to consider you as being "contrary." It's not like that is an original argument. It's an argument that generally comes from those who know very little of Reformed theology. Normally anyone making such an argument has yet to read their first book in which Reformed theology is explained by a Reformed scholar. Also, the basis Reformed people have for what they believe is the bible. It is noticeable that you completely ignore any biblical argument, do not address any text, and then complain that the doctrine makes us "automatons." The obvious question I feel is wondering if you take the bible seriously. Do you believe the bible is true?

I also write because you misrepresent Reformed theology in your accusation when you write "with no ability to choose for ourselves who or what we believe in." Reformed people believe that we have complete ability to choose. We have no loss of ability, only a sin nature which makes us love our rebellion so much that no one will seek after God (Rom 3:11). Let me talk about this misrepresentation. As I just said, we have the ability to choose, but all men use that ability to choose rebellion, because that is our nature. That is called Original sin. I will speak more of that later.

In Reformed theology, God grants faith not by giving a person some magical gift, but by changing the nature of a person. This is called "Regeneration." The term "regeneration" is used only once in the NT in reference to this ministry of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). John uses a different term "begotten " (1 John 5:1). So when Paul says speaks of the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29) he is actually referring not to the work of man that we do for God to get salvation, he is speaking of a work of God in man. Regeneration is a divine undertaking, not a human action of human ability or works. John rules out faith in Christ as a human ability (John 6:44). Men cannot come to Christ unless God regenerates man or "draws" man. We cannot come because of something called "original sin." In the doctrine of "original sin," man becomes a part of a rebellion against God. This started with Adam (see Romans 5:12-21) and is inherited at conception. David, speaking of his conception says "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5).

Well.... I do hope you make an attempt to learn more about the conversations you try to take part in, but if things go like they normally do, you will not even look up the references that I posted above.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

He cannot. The reason is that EVERYONE has faith. I do not care if you have been a Christian for YEARS or a hardcore Atheist.

Huh.
~Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
~Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
~Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
~Luk_7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. "Thy GOD hath saved thee"

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

That is interesting, because my Bible says not everyone has faith. (2 Thess 3:2)

Great Post!!!

 

[dogs4thewin]

Huh.
~Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
~Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
~Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
~Luk_7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. "Thy GOD hath saved thee"

EVERYONE has faith of some kind. If I get in a car; I MUST have a certain amount of faith in the driver (I cannot drive). For that matter I must have a CERTAIN amount of faith in every OTHER driver on the road.

 

[sdowney717]

so does that mean you MUST accept it?

It means you will want to accept it.
Since Christ is imparting into the souls the words of Life to those He has granted that they believe, they are transformed- changed on the inside to desire spiritual truths.