Another question on TULIP

[HumbleMan]

Happy New Year everyone!!

I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this, but I've got a question about TULIP doctrine. I'm not intending to start anything, but I really don't understand.

Please riddle me this.....

If God pre-elected certain people from the beginning of time, what was the purpose of Christ? If God pre-elected His people, there would be no need for a substitutionary atonement.

How does this work?

Thanks.............

[arunma]

Happy New Year everyone!!

I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this, but I've got a question about TULIP doctrine. I'm not intending to start anything, but I really don't understand.

Please riddle me this.....

If God pre-elected certain people from the beginning of time, what was the purpose of Christ? If God pre-elected His people, there would be no need for a substitutionary atonement.

How does this work?

Thanks.............

Although God ordains every event that occurs in history, this does not mean that those events do not occur by certain mechanisms. For example, Christ instructed us to pray, because our prayers are the means that God chooses to do his will. Regarding the sacrifice of Christ, it was necessary in order to fulfill divine justice, and without it, we would have no salvation. God predestines people to believe in Christ, because belief in the Son is the means by which God saves us. Yet the sovereignty of God is never negated.

[HumbleMan]

Although God ordains every event that occurs in history, this does not mean that those events do not occur by certain mechanisms. For example, Christ instructed us to pray, because our prayers are the means that God chooses to do his will. Regarding the sacrifice of Christ, it was necessary in order to fulfill divine justice, and without it, we would have no salvation. God predestines people to believe in Christ, because belief in the Son is the means by which God saves us. Yet the sovereignty of God is never negated.

I'm sorry, Arunma, but that doesn't make sense to me. Why would God need a mechanism to save us if He pre-ordained the salvation to begin with. And I don't understand what you meant by divine justice? Christ fulfilled the law, which was given to all God's people.

Thanks for your response. I truly am trying to understand this doctrine.

[mlqurgw]

I'm sorry, Arunma, but that doesn't make sense to me. Why would God need a mechanism to save us if He pre-ordained the salvation to begin with. And I don't understand what you meant by divine justice? Christ fulfilled the law, which was given to all God's people.

Thanks for your response. I truly am trying to understand this doctrine.God can't simply overlook sin and say it is alright I forgive you. We can do that because we are ourselves sinners but God is holy,righteous and just and must give sin it's due. The wages of sin is death. Sin brings guilt and incurs a penalty. For God to be just and the justifier of all who believe, the justice of God must be satisfied. The only one who could do that and do it in such a way as to actually save sinners is the God-Man Christ Jesus. He suffered, the just for the unjust and by His substitution in the place of guilty elect sinners put away their sin by the scrifice of Himself. He fulfilled the Law not for Himself but for us who believe because to be truly justified we not only must have the penalty paid but must be declared as having kept the Law. In the same way our sin became His, His righteousness became ours. 2Cor. 5:21 This is the essense of the Gospel. The difference in the 2 camps mainly lies in whether He actually accomplished redemption for somebody or only made it possible if they will believe. I hope that helps clear it up a bit but as you probably know there are many things involved that simply cannot be explained in a short time with few words.

BTW: I do appreciate the fact that you are trying to understand and do not see your responses and questions as an attack on the beliefs of others. I honestly commend it even though you may never agree with it.

[Flynmonkie]

If God pre-elected certain people from the beginning of time, what was the purpose of Christ? If God pre-elected His people, there would be no need for a substitutionary atonement. How does this work?
Thanks.............

Ok, I am going to try to explain this as best as I can. This "impression" on Calvin has nothing to do with the "Calvin'ists" I know. It is more of a hyper Calvin'istic statement.

To understand Calvin’s theory I believe should have a firm basis in understanding of salvation, and the sovereigness of God. It is a Theory, don't forget. It is not doctrine.

If we have faith, we become the elect - it is that simple.

Calvin’s theory seems to delve deeper into scripture basis, I feel leaving out other very important balancing factors, seek, come, find, search, the world, all and other various words and phrases in the Bible that denote our ability (I believe infused in us at birth) to choose Him. There is a balance needed there. He first chose all of us, to say anything different would be questioning His basis for creation. But not all of us will choose Him. Anything else I believe is outside of His character.

We have to be careful though having this ability to choose God does not mean we are "saved" at birth. At some point in our lives we have a distinguishing time that we "know" the difference and what God wants for us. At this point we choose our path. TO believe or not to believe, to have faith, or not to have faith..

That being said, at this point God leaves those whom "know" and do not have faith or believe to sin. However, I believe Calvin’s theory believes that God actually hardens hearts (which I find highly suspicious given other scripture). So if Calvin believes that God hardens hearts then therefore what he is saying is that those people become the "non-elect". It is all based on the thought that we know not all will be saved; questioning another’s heart condition is a big NO-No. This is Gods responsibility, and strictly off limits for us in this realm. Gods decision on whom he "saves" is His business and His alone (to which I highly agree). God does have the ability of course to "harden" hearts towards Him, does He do this? I don't think so - but again - it is a possibility that is none of my business. I truly feel that scripture is there for us to know not to question Gods methods or motives, because He is God. So if you see a person with a life long record of sin - in heaven - saved at the last minute- it is none of your business - our role here is to encourage all, no matter where they are in their lives to seek Him.

I tell you I have studied this topic for a long time, each person I speak with has a different "take" on Calvin. It is very confusing and I really want to caution you – to not let this become too much of a spiritual roadblock. Again, it is not doctrine. As far as I am concerned you are thinking in the right direction.

God did not pre-elect just certain people - Salvation is open for anyone whom has sincere faith. Those that do not are not saved.

Bottom line is God can do what He wants, He is God after all, however there is nothing in scripture that proves to me that God A.) hardens hearts B.) Pre-Elects some and passes over others.

From my studies with only a short time to explan right now. This is the best I can do. Hope it helps. :)

[Imblessed]

You may want to head over to semper reformanda and go to the Ask a Calvinist subforum to ask this question.

You will get a lot more answers from some very knowledgeable calvinists over there.

There is no simple answer to this question. Other than that an atonement was needed to save the elect. That atonement was Jesus.

[Flynmonkie]

Other than that an atonement was needed to save the elect. That atonement was Jesus.
But how does this tie in with pre-election (or predestination?) or does it truly from a Calvin'ist standpoint?

[Dmckay]

The question you are asking stems from a bit of a limited understanding of G-d's attributes and a topic called the decrees of G-d. For G-d to be G-d He must have and maintain a perfect balance of His divine attributes. No one attribute can be emphasized at the cost of the perfect balance. Many today want to emphasize the G-d=Love, forget that G-d is also perfectly Just, Holy, Righteous and Immutable. Mankind's sinful nature requires a penalty, "the wages of sin are death." G-d's Holiness, Justice and righteousness require that sinner's be punished.

The decrees of G-d are often hotly debated in theological circles. The debate has to do with the order in which these decrees took place. Probably the best and most detailed handling on this topic is found in H.C. Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology. But I would only recommend the older version of this text. After his death this book was edited and changed by his family and the result is not as complete and helpful. This debate is where theologians come up with the terms of sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. You can do a search on google for the decrees of G-d and you should find a great deal of information to wade through.

But consider this, another important attribute of G-d which has a profound effect on this whole debate is G-d's Infinite nature. Sometimes explained as "one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." G-d is outside of time. From the Father's point of view Jesus is on His way to the cross, right now, but Jesus is also ruling and reigning in New Jerusalem, right now.

We are told in Scripture that our names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the Foundation of the world. But, there was still a payment that had to be paid for mankind's sin, and G-d provision for that was the Sacrificial and substitutional death of Christ on the Cross. Those whose names were written in that Book of Life, still have to make the decision to receive that provision for salvation that Jesus' death purchased.

[Imblessed]

But how does this tie in with pre-election (or predestination?) or does it truly from a Calvin'ist standpoint?

As I said, it's not an easy answer to the question he asked in the OP.
Whether one believes in predestination or not, an atonement was needed for our sins.

Predestination doesn't really change that fact.

Did I answer your question? I'm not sure if I understood it properly....

[Flynmonkie]

As I said, it's not an easy answer to the question he asked in the OP.
Whether one believes in predestination or not, an atonement was needed for our sins.

Predestination doesn't really change that fact.

Did I answer your question? I'm not sure if I understood it properly....
Thanks! No actually I guess I just reiterated HM's OP.
Does Calvin believe in Predestination combined with Foreknowledge in the individual grace of this atonement? Or is it just Predestined atonement for the elect.

[Imblessed]

Thanks! No actually I guess I just reiterated HM's OP.
Does Calvin believe in Predestination combined with Foreknowledge in the individual grace of this atonement? Or is it just Predestined atonement for the elect.
If I get your question properly, it would be the first one. The second sounds kind of like corporate presdestination, or predestination of the Church, not individuals.

From what I gather, and I'm hoping I represent it accurately, there are 2 different beliefs in Calvinism, representing the "order" of salvation. I'm "taking" this paste from another website...

The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.



basically, does God's election happen 2nd or 3rd in the order? I'd say hard-core calvinists believe the first view, and more moderate calvinist believe the second.

For the arminian, it would be different of course, since they don't believe in "election" the way a calvinist does.

Anyway, I hope I'm not hyjacking the thread--I believe it is pertinant to the OP though......

[Evee]

Although God ordains every event that occurs in history, this does not mean that those events do not occur by certain mechanisms. For example, Christ instructed us to pray, because our prayers are the means that God chooses to do his will. Regarding the sacrifice of Christ, it was necessary in order to fulfill divine justice, and without it, we would have no salvation. God predestines people to believe in Christ, because belief in the Son is the means by which God saves us. Yet the sovereignty of God is never negated.
I don't believe any of your post here, it is just not making any sense Sorry!

[Dmckay]

God can't simply overlook sin and say it is alright I forgive you. We can do that because we are ourselves sinners but God is holy,righteous and just and must give sin it's due. The wages of sin is death. Sin brings guilt and incurs a penalty. For God to be just and the justifier of all who believe, the justice of God must be satisfied. The only one who could do that and do it in such a way as to actually save sinners is the God-Man Christ Jesus. He suffered, the just for the unjust and by His substitution in the place of guilty elect sinners put away their sin by the scrifice of Himself. He fulfilled the Law not for Himself but for us who believe because to be truly justified we not only must have the penalty paid but must be declared as having kept the Law. In the same way our sin became His, His righteousness became ours. 2Cor. 5:21 This is the essense of the Gospel. The difference in the 2 camps mainly lies in whether He actually accomplished redemption for somebody or only made it possible if they will believe. I hope that helps clear it up a bit but as you probably know there are many things involved that simply cannot be explained in a short time with few words.

BTW: I do appreciate the fact that you are trying to understand and do not see your responses and questions as an attack on the beliefs of others. I honestly commend it even though you may never agree with it.
I am sorry, I saw this question posted, and took my time in answering before I submitted my response. I didn't look to see if anyone had given a good, or in your case a great answer before I posted. Good job!!!!!

[BBAS 64]

Happy New Year everyone!!

I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this, but I've got a question about TULIP doctrine. I'm not intending to start anything, but I really don't understand.

Please riddle me this.....

If God pre-elected certain people from the beginning of time, what was the purpose of Christ? If God pre-elected His people, there would be no need for a substitutionary atonement.

How does this work?

Thanks.............

Good day, HumbleMan

You presuppose that the elect have no need of atonement. Jesus came to save sinners.

Jesus did come to save His people... They really do need to be saved from thier sin , and Jesus came to do just that by the nature of the substitutionary atonement.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill

[DeaconDean]

HumbleMan, b4 you start asking questions in here, like when I was seminary, I suggest you take the time for yourself to investigate "predestination" on your own, take notes, summarize, then if you have questions, come and ask for further instruction. Here is a link with about 200 different articles on both sides of the arguement from some of the geatest theologians of all time. Give it a look and please investigate.

http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/predestination.html

[mlqurgw]

But how does this tie in with pre-election (or predestination?) or does it truly from a Calvin'ist standpoint?The tie-in is in the fact that Jesus actually accomplished redemption for somebody. He came to do a specific job and didn't leave this world until it was finished. Now as to how this applies to the doctrines of predestination and election is very simple. Those whom were given grace in Christ Jesus before the world began( 2Tim. 1:9-10) and were chosen in Him(Eph. 1:4) and given to Him by the Father( John 6:37-39) have had their sin purged, been justified and shall be glorified by the death, burial and ressurection of Christ. He came into this world to save His people from their sin( Matt. 1:21) and that is exactly what He did. He obtained redemption for us( Heb. 9:11-12) and sits right now on the throne in Heaven ruling all things for our good. (Rom. 8:28) In Jesus Christ salvation is accomplished.

[HumbleMan]

Thank you for all your responses. DeaconDean, I have done some independent study as well before I posted this. I got an excellent paper on TULIP from DMckay, and studied other sources as well.

I don't have any dogs in this race (to paraphrase another poster). I don't think the end result of Calvinism (or TULIP, whichever is more correct terminology) contradicts Arminian beliefs, because people still believe in Christ, profess Him, and are saved. It's just how you look at the salvation process.

One thing I do want to ask is this: It seems to me (and I'm probably not investigating this enough) that proponents of Calvinism base alot of their doctrine on specific verses, rather than thematically approaching the individual epistles and gospels. Is this true?

Also, in that vein, what about verses like Titus 2:11 (for the Grace of God has appeared, bringing salvaation to all men. NASB)?

[Imblessed]

One thing I do want to ask is this: It seems to me (and I'm probably not investigating this enough) that proponents of Calvinism base alot of their doctrine on specific verses, rather than thematically approaching the individual epistles and gospels. Is this true?


I can only speak for myself on this one. Before I came to understand the Doctrines of Grace(which TULIP embodies), there were many verses in the bible that seemed to flatly contradict what I understood about salvation. I literally had to ignore them to keep my views straight. It wasn't until I understood Grace for real that I could read those verses and have ALL the peices of the puzzle fall into place.

So in my opinion, while we only bring out a few verses when we are defending our views, I think that the Doctrines of Grace do the best justice to the whole of scripture
Also, in that vein, what about verses like Titus 2:11 (for the Grace of God has appeared, bringing salvaation to all men. NASB)? my NIV says "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men". being interpreted as all(types of) men.

again, you cannot take that one verse and say AH HA! all the other things that imply predestination cannot possibly be true. It's taking one verse, and applying whole theology to it that is dangerous.

Unfortunately, in the medium of forums, we are not at liberty to post every single verse and supporting verse that shows the Doctrines of Grace---we are limited to showing only the verses we feel are the strongest; and the arminians do the same thing, pulling out verses such as the one you posted above, to prove their point.

[Dmckay]

Thank you for all your responses. DeaconDean, I have done some independent study as well before I posted this. I got an excellent paper on TULIP from DMckay, and studied other sources as well.

I don't have any dogs in this race (to paraphrase another poster). I don't think the end result of Calvinism (or TULIP, whichever is more correct terminology) contradicts Arminian beliefs, because people still believe in Christ, profess Him, and are saved. It's just how you look at the salvation process.

One thing I do want to ask is this: It seems to me (and I'm probably not investigating this enough) that proponents of Calvinism base alot of their doctrine on specific verses, rather than thematically approaching the individual epistles and gospels. Is this true?

Also, in that vein, what about verses like Titus 2:11 (for the Grace of God has appeared, bringing salvaation to all men. NASB)?
Everything in the paper that I sent to you came as a result of the study over years of the entirety of Scripture. Originally, I accepted a challenge from one of my Bible College Professors, he challenged every student to search the Scriptures and show him even one place where Jesus EVER called anyone to salvation. His point being that Jesus nevere caleed anyone to salvation. He called on them to accept Him as Lord (Greek–kurios) which while if was used at the time of Christ much as we use the honorific Mister, The meaning of the word has aspects of Owner, ruler or even tyrant. The life that was surrendered to Jesus' control, "Take My yoke upon you, for My burden is light." receives salvation as a benefit of the relationship.

When I studied the Scriptures I found that his thesis was correct. I also sought to answer all the usual questions that are posed to adherents of T.U.L.I.P. because there appeared to be a contradiction between some passages. In the paper I sent you, the questions I addressed were actually the questions that I had in considering his thesis.

Consider this: your quote from Titus, if taken on face value, would be saying that everyone is going to be saved.Does that mean that everyone should be a Universalist? No, because the exact meaning of of the passage must be in agreement with with the rest of Scripture. You are correct in your observance that many Calvinists come across like they stick to just a few verses and ignore the rest. But this is true of many, if not most Christians, there are just some passages that they feel more comfortable using when witnessing to someone else. Calvinists have a tendancy to sick to the passages dealing with election, predestination, etc. the reason being they are easier to understand and expalin.

If you have read through all the information that I sent you, you know that I dealt with almost all of the usual Scriptures used to "refute" the teaching of T.U.L.I.P. But, I am a teacher of Scripture and hermeneutics so it is much easier for me to answer the "difficult" passages which appear to contradict those passages which support the T.U.L.I.P. position.

[Flynmonkie]

I am still going over this.. But one question - where is the SPiritual Discernment in this?

Was it not one of the points of Christ’s presence here to "call". God’s hand extended through the Blood of Christ? He might not have said it in certain terms (I am still reviewing this) however; I feel strongly this is the "reason" behind His presence here. Again, I still have much to research and understand in your paper - which is very well written I might add. But that was the very first thought "Where is the Spiritual Discernment in all of this?". Or is this just a pure dissecting of literal scripture?

I wanted to add to this, earlier you mentioned the terms -Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism etc.. I wanted to add a link I found on the subject for further understandng.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublapsarianism

[Dmckay]

I am still going over this.. But one question - where is the SPiritual Discernment in this?

Was it not one of the points of Christ’s presence here to "call". God’s hand extended through the Blood of Christ? He might not have said it in certain terms (I am still reviewing this) however; I feel strongly this is the "reason" behind His presence here. Again, I still have much to research and understand in your paper - which is very well written I might add. But that was the very first thought "Where is the Spiritual Discernment in all of this?". Or is this just a pure dissecting of literal scripture?
I'm not sure that you are addressing this to me or not, but I'm not sure what you mean by Spiritual discernment in this case. I have heard the term used in several ways, such as the Spiritual gift of the discerning of spirits. If I am understanding what you are meaning by your question, spiritual discernment as understanding of Spiritual things, is handled in the negative under the point of Total depravity. Total depravity is NOT saying, as many believe today, that man is as bad as he can possible be. Rather it is the consequence of original sin, man (natural man according to Paul) is spiritually dead to the things of G-d. Dead not sick! there is no spiritual discernment or understanding of the things of G-d unless God intervenes and grants that spiritual discernment.

Remember all the passages which speak of this from different points of view. Paul in Romans quoting from the Psalms,"No man seeks after God." "All have turned aside, Together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not one." or the teaching of Jesus in John 6:44
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Have you ever spent time witnessing to someone whom you desparately wanted to see come to salvation? You think that the Holy Spirit is speaking through and is granting you just the right words, illustrations and Scripture that will break down the hardness of their heart and they will surely see the advantage to coming to Christ. Only to see the wall of Satan in their eyes and you realize that no matter what you say or do, you aren't going to get through to them. The Lord, through the Holy Spirit has not prepared the ground of their heart to receive the seed you are trying so desparately to sow.

The real answer to your question is Point I in T.U.L.I.P. which unfortunately, has been called irresistible grace. That term in and of itself has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Christians. Rather, it should be called efficacious grace, because it has the power to accomplish what G-d wants to do. It quickens the individual's spirit in order that they might perceive their need for salvation. Non-T.U.L.I.P. believers really champ at the bit at this point because they see it as turning them into some sort of puppet with G-d pulling the strings. I would much rather be a puppet with g-d pulling the strings then being that same puppet cast into the burning Lake of Fire.

[Flynmonkie]

Dmckay :) Thank you, yes you addressed the question - I have alot to chew on so I will get back to you on this. My mind is jello at this point. :sigh:

[Flynmonkie]

there is no spiritual discernment or understanding of the things of G-d unless God intervenes and grants that spiritual discernment.



Why is it that I keep running into the opinion that somehow the act of faith is intertwined with elect and non elect other than the obvious that when the act of faith is incorporated in our life, God takes over we become elect.

Somehow I keep getting the impression that the "act" of faith is only given to a certain "few". Can you explain this to me? Or am I making your mind jello too with this question?

I understand we cannot understand "spiritual" things without that act of faith Hebrews 11:1. But why is it that people do not believe all are given this capability. Is there a scripture I am missing?

But actually in regard to my earlier question, while reading the thesis or report I feel the balancing scripture is missing, but again I am still reviewing it and have a long way to go. This is why I asked is this specifically just to prove the TULIP without regard to "additional" scripture. Or is it going to balance other scripture, you answered this question by stating you delve deeper into questions later in the paper.

[Dmckay]

Why is it that I keep running into the opinion that somehow the act of faith is intertwined with elect and non elect other than the obvious that when the act of faith is incorporated in our life, God takes over we become elect.

Somehow I keep getting the impression that the "act" of faith is only given to a certain "few". Can you explain this to me? Or am I making your mind jello too with this question?

I understand we cannot understand "spiritual" things without that act of faith Hebrews 11:1. But why is it that people do not believe all are given this capability. Is there a scripture I am missing?

But actually in regard to my earlier question, while reading the thesis or report I feel the balancing scripture is missing, but again I am still reviewing it and have a long way to go. This is why I asked is this specifically just to prove the TULIP without regard to "additional" scripture. Or is it going to balance other scripture, you answered this question by stating you delve deeper into questions later in the paper.
Actually, I get that question or a variation of it, a lot. I think that part of the reason is that most people, Christian and non-Christian alike have a nebulous concept of what "Biblical or saving faith" actually is. So often you hear someone describe conversion as "a blind step of faith." As if you can't really know in this lifetime if you really are saved, you're just kind of hoping that all the Sunday School stories are more than myths and fairy tales. I have had this conversation with many Pastor's and Professors and hvae been surprised to discover that oft times many of them don't have much better of a grasp on what the Bible means by faith.

When the writer to the Hebrews stared the Faith chapter, listing the Faith Hall of Fame, he started it with the definition of faith. Heb 11:1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. As a young Christian I had memorized that verse as have most of us. It always seemed a bit hazy in its description of faith, to me, for many years. Then, while studying Biblical Faith for a seminary I was asked to do, I began to realize something about what Scripture is really describing as being faith. The more I studied faith with this new perception the more it opened up to me. By the time I had things together for the seminar I was so excited I could hardly contain my enthusiasm. The seminar started during a Sunday morning service with about 100 people in attendance. By Sunday evening session that number had easily doubled. By Thursday night we had to move to a different facility because we didn't have enough room to hold all the people who were showing up.

When I first started in Bible College one of the first vocab word I had to learn was "Faith" from the Greek word pistis. When I started working on an indepth etymological study of the word I was really troubled. The reason was because the literal meaning of pistis is "to tie" or "to bind." Really clears things up, doesn't it? :confused: So I had to do a lot more study to figure out how a word that meant to tie or bind came to be used for faith. It turned out that the explanation was that for faith, as opposed to belief, the the object of your faith became so much a part of your life that it was as if your life was bound to the object of your faith so tightly that the two couldn't be separated. You became the object of your faith.

There is an old illustration I heard as a young Christian which I really like. It seems that a dare devil was putting on a tightrope walking performance at Niagara Falls. He walked back and forth across the cable several times, once even blindfolded. Then he took a large wheelbarrow and crossed from one side to the other pushing this awkward wheelbarrow in front of him in the high winds. When he got to the other side he noticed a small boy standing in the crowd watching the performance wide-eyed. The dare devil walked up to the boy and asked, "Do you believe that I can walk across this wire pushing the wheelbarrow in this wind without falling?" The little boy replied, "Yes, I believe, I just watched you do it." The man then asked, "Are you really sure that I can do it with falling?" Again the little boy responded, "I watched you do it several times, I absolutely believe that you can do it." The dare devil then said, "If you really believe it, get in the wheelbarrow."

All this "ranting" was leading up to this definition of Biblical Faith that I would challenge all readers to study for yourself. Biblical or saving faith is simply: Biblical content in action. Think about it. Every one of those heros of the faith in Hebrews chapter 11 were commended for acting on what G-d told them to do. We are never commanded to act or believe something which G-d has not given us in His Word. We don't have to understand it, we just have to do it, knowing that our loving Father in heaven is not going to leave us hanging.

I think it is the Gaithers who used to have a song in which the words said, "G-d said it, I believe it and that settles it for me…" Biblical faith is simply believing that G-d says what He means and means what He says. Because of this we can act upon what ever the Lord requires of us, knowing that G-d has never, and will never go back on His word. There is a song by Steve Green which I was so happy to hear on his Faithful CD. It is entitled The Plan, and the words are I don't need to have the plan in hand, I don't need to have the end in sight. All I need to do is follow You, wherever you lead, And do what You ask me to.

Trusting You Lord with all my heart, Following You all my days. Whether I can or can't understand, I'll acknowledge You in all my ways.

The Natural man receives not the things of the Spirit for they are Spiritually discerned. G-d has to intervene in our lives for us to even have the faith that is necessary for us to believe in Him, and our need to come to Him for our salvation.

[Flynmonkie]

I Corinthians 2:5
5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

I Corinthians 2:14 States the “natural” man with in my translation study deems “sensual”. Paul is speaking here about the spiritual things as Christians we discern. I believe it has a lot to do with v5 listed above. The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach those that do not even believe/faith.

I take this statement to mean that what is being discussed is the “un-faithful” do not experience spiritual side of faith. Or understand a sanctification process. I am not sure where this would denote that we are not all graced with the ability to have the initial type of faith it takes to get started in the onset of our lives. Graced from the beginning with Salvation and the ability to choose this.

IOW I am not translating this passage into “natural” meaning “hardened” to God when born. I believe the natural man still is given the ability to choose to believe/ have faith or not. But I am not disputing the thought this ability obviously comes from God. Nor am I disputing the thought of the type of faith it takes. Can you validate this thought for me or not?


(PS I remember the Gather song! But that issue brings up a whole string of questions for me! Namely where our will, and Gods will meet and shake hands at times. I sort of still figure this out as I go along)

[JPPT1974]

Thanks for your all's description about tulips.
Makes it very clear.
Thanks also for the verses!