Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.Human faith isn't saving faith. It's the kind of faith you gamble on when buying a used car...etc.
As I have explained earlier, I have the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide. I have no need to want to know what Calvin taught.Google it. That’s the simplest way to do anything nowadays.
The only reason you need not write about Calvinism is if you’re ignorant of the subject. If you haven’t heard of or don’t know about compatiblism then yes you’re missing out on a lot of valuable insight into the belief system.
Compatibilism asserts that determinism and free will are compatible. I understand that. However I don't see how that approach addresses the psycholinguistics involved behind the terms 'free vs. slave' in front of 'will', which are ultimately defined by one's imagery of God/false god. In psycholinguistics and in scripture, only one will is truly free while another is a slave, and the one that is truly free and not a slave is qualified as being governed by the knowledge of God.As I’ve shared earlier there’s no logically valid form of Calvinism but compatiblism. If you don’t understand compatiblism than you don’t understand Calvinism, you would have simply learnt a lot of catchphrases that don’t really mesh together. That’s not your fault, they’ll never mesh together without the compatibilist redefining free will.
The reason I mentioned that I study linguistics was to provide some insight into how I approach the subject matter. This intent is qualified by the sentence that followed my mentioning it, "As such I see words as vehicles of sentiment".We call that being a blagger in the UK.
Two kinds of everything good (Faith, Jesus, trust, love, obedience, repentance, etc.) is a big and repeating theme among Calvanists just looking at few threads here. I find it two much.Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.
Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.
I don't like that line.I have no need to want to know what Calvin taught.
And I've yet to see any actual biblical evidence that supports their views.Two kinds of everything good (Faith, Jesus, trust, love, obedience, repentance, etc.) is a big and repeating theme among Calvanists just looking at few threads here. I find it two much.
Its always one of each type is associated with salvation and the other is not.
No argument from me on this! I would be really surprised if you get an answer - especially one that doesn't raise more questions.And I've yet to see any actual biblical evidence that supports their views.
It simply means I have the Holy Spirit and I am not inclined to study Calvin's teachings. I'm just being forthright. Please consider that it's not reasonable to me that the Holy Spirit is instructing you to convince me that I should study Calvinism so I can be learned in what not to believe.I don't like that line.
Okay, that's a valid point in regards to Jezebel, the Nicolaitans or Balaam. Those are issues I have looked into. But that doesn't change the fact that the Holy Spirit is not moving me to need to know what Calvin taught. I'm not aware of any questions I have ignored. But if there are, they're probably loaded questions which can't be answered as posed. In my view we're not discussing Calvinism, we're discussing whether to accept a definition of free will that obscures what a real free will is. The op doesn't even mention Calvinism.When Jesus addressed the churches in Revelations he was conversant in identifying groups in error that need to be corrected (or repudiated) using their group name (Nicolaitians and Jezebel) everyone at that time understood. Not intending to make a negative statement here in this example about Calvanism - but it is a major influence in the church today - so we should be conversant. That doesn't mean your saying no comment or ignoring questions is a problem. If nothing else studying Calvanism will exercise psycholinguistics.
There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.
Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.
This is talking about 2 kinds of trust in Jesus. I am not authoring this.There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.
Yes, that's the usual pattern.No argument from me on this! I would be really surprised if you get an answer - especially one that doesn't raise more questions.
When Scripture mentions "faith" or "believing", it always means saving faith by believing in Christ for salvation.There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.
The conscience and the Holy Spirit are not the same. A defiled conscience finds fault where there is none. It operates in a negative prejudice projecting one's own lack of faith in God's Spirit onto others. It is said that to the pure of heart all things are pure but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed their minds and their consciences are defiled.That is not what is being implied by the 2 kinds of trust.
With Calvanism, you may think you are trusting in Christ and in the atonement, but your action (false repentance?) could be operating out of your own mind (conscience) instead of be led by the Holy Spirit.
I always thought that the conscience (if it is not seared) was the voice of the Holy Spirit.
You say Holy Spirit and conscience are not the same - never said they were. You proceeded to cite a defiled conscience and argue from there. I had already restricted my criteria for the Holy Spirit using the conscience is that it is not seared. I said that the Holy Spirit uses the non-seared conscience specifically as a voice.The conscience and the Holy Spirit are not the same. A defiled conscience finds fault where there is none. It operates in a negative prejudice projecting one's own lack of faith in God's Spirit onto others. It is said that to the pure of heart all things are pure but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed their minds and their consciences are defiled.
It reminds me of a story I once heard about Richard Nixon's Father. Richard Nixon said that when he was a boy, there was to be a family gathering at their house, complete with many Aunts, Uncles, and cousins of all ages. He then went on to say that in anticipation, his Father went about the house leaving coins of differing value laying about, that could be found by the children. At this point in the story, I pictured what a nice man Richard Nixon's Father was in seeking to bring joy to some little kid who would find a coin. But then Richard Nixon continued by saying that when he asked his Father why he was leaving coins laying about, the Father replied, "I want to see whose children are thieves".
By faith Abel gave a better offering. By faith Abraham believed God. By faith the woman told Jesus that even the dogs have to eat from the scraps that fall from the Master's table. The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the power that created all things. The term 'faith' means that God is deemed as trustworthy and therefore good. Wherefore there is only one true God and only one true faith. To rephrase, whoever has no faith displays a distrust in the source of the power that created all things.When Scripture mentions "faith" or "believing", it always means saving faith by believing in Christ for salvation.
Subjective faith is not real. The bible does not mention subjective faiths because there is only one God. You might hear people say something like, "of what faith are you?"... Or, "we must respect each other's different faiths". These are examples of the misuse of the term 'faith' because they are subjective and actually means religions.The Bible does not differentiate between objective and subjective kinds of faith. I'm not sure there even is a difference, or that the idea of "subjective faith" is real.
Can you provide an example of this?
The conscience is different than the voice of the Holy Spirt. A seared conscience is one that is most likely dead. I used the defiled conscience to show why the voice of the Holy Spirit and the conscience are not the same.You said they were not the same and then proceeded to cite a defiled conscience and argue from there. I had already restricted my criteria to a non seared conscience - so you are veering off the starting point I stated. And then I said that the Holy Spirit uses the non-seared conscience (specifically as a voice). I am not saying they are the same. And a seared conscience is not going to entertain accepting Christ.
My position has been clear. Faith is always trust. All of your 3 examples involve trust in what God or Jesus said. That's why Abel gave a better offering. He paid attention to the rules. Unlike his brother. Abraham is called the father of faith; Rom 4. And the woman trusted that Jesus could heal her daughter. She trusted in Jesus.By faith Abel gave a better offering. By faith Abraham believed God. By faith the woman told Jesus that even the dogs have to eat from the scraps that fall from the Master's table.
OK.The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the power that created all things. The term 'faith' means that God is deemed as trustworthy and therefore good. Wherefore there is only one true God and only one true faith. To rephrase, whoever has no faith displays a distrust in the source of the power that created all things.
That was my point.Subjective faith is not real. The bible does not mention subjective faiths because there is only one God.
Truth is authoritative not subjective. In scripture, a persons faith is towards God denoting only a positive perception of Him. I view a measure as depicting degrees between two absolutes of all faith and no faith.@childeye 2, could we say a measure of faith is a faith subjectively understood, believed, and lived?
Romans 12:1-3?
Respectfully, the bible doesn't say there were rules. If Abel was following rules, it seems to me that would negate the entire point of faith being the reason Abel gave a better offering.That's why Abel gave a better offering. He paid attention to the rules. Unlike his brother.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?