Does repentance remit sins?

[FreeGrace2]

So your distinction between "saving faith" and "day to day" faith is silly.

Your claim here is what is silly. Why don't you understand the differences? Do you understand that "faith" always has an object (what is being believed or believed in) and always has a goal or purpose? Or do you not understand that?

God has made a lot of promises in Scripture. Believing most of them doesn't result (goal or purpose) in getting saved. Comprendo? But believing that Christ died for your sins and gives eternal life to those who believe that DOES result in getting saved. Comprendo?

The bible does NOT speak this way about faith at all.

You seem to have no clue as to what the Bible teaches about faith.

Back to regeneration. Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it wills." Then He said, "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." It means that God is sovereign in the matter of regeneration.

Yes, I know that. No man chooses to be regenerated. Why do so many Calvinists bring up this silly charge? Do Arminians think that they choose to be regenerated, as if there is even a choice in the matter? That's beyond weird.

You need to get yourself in a Calvinist church and shed off this "decisional regeneration" nonsense.

Since I don't have it, I don't need to shed it. And I certainly don't need to get myself into a Calvinist church. I don't need the confusion.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Your claim here is what is silly. Why don't you understand the differences?

There are no differences. You concocted the differences.

Do you understand that "faith" always has an object (what is being believed or believed in) and always has a goal or purpose? Or do you not understand that?

Abraham believed that God (the object of his faith) would bring life from his and Sarah's dead bodies and give him an offspring through which all the families of the earth would be blessed. Then God tested Abraham's faith to see if it was genuine. He told Abraham to offer up his son Isaac. Abraham believed God again when he offered up Isaac. He believed that God would bring Isaac's dead body back to life so he could bless all the families of the earth through him.

In each situation the object of Abraham's faith was the same. In both instances Abraham believed that God would carry out his promise to bless all the families of the earth through him. If Abraham had not obeyed and offered up Isaac, then the scripture would not have been fulfilled.

Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

This is very clear! Abraham's "saving faith" as you call it was "made perfect" when he offered up Isaac. This disproves your artificial disctinction between "saving faith" and "day to day" faith. Abraham's so called "day to day" faith was his "saving faith" made perfect. The scripture was fulfilled by the perfection of Abraham's faith.

You said that Hebrews 11:6 is not about "saving faith." Yet Abraham's offering up of Isaac is listed in that chapter and James said that that act made Abraham's "saving faith" perfect. Hebrew 11:1 clearly says that "faith is the substance of things hope for." Abraham "hoped for" God's promise to bless all the families of the earth through him when he first believed. And he "hoped for" that same promise when he offered up Isaac believing that God would bring him back to life.

Can you see now why you need to get yourself in a Calvinist church?

God has made a lot of promises in Scripture. Believing most of them doesn't result (goal or purpose) in getting saved. Comprendo?

But believing that Christ died for your sins and gives eternal life to those who believe that DOES result in getting saved. Comprendo?

Continuing to believe that Christ died for your sins keeps you saved. Comprendo. This is the Calvinist and biblical doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Paul said, "If we deny Him, He will deny us." However, persevering in faith is all God's doing too.

Yes, I know that. No man chooses to be regenerated.

Why am I not surprised that you missed the point? The point is: God chooses to regenerate whom He wills at any time He wills.

 

[hedrick]

God has made a lot of promises in Scripture. Believing most of them doesn't result (goal or purpose) in getting saved. Comprendo? But believing that Christ died for your sins and gives eternal life to those who believe that DOES result in getting saved. Comprendo?

I see what the problem is. Typical Protestant theology (including Reformed) doesn't see faith as simply believing that something is true, not even the fact that Jesus died for us. I can see that if you thought that's what it meant, there would only be certain facts where believing them would lead to salvation.

However in adopting the concept of "justification by faith," the Reformers used a larger definition of faith than the traditional Catholic one. They considered faith to be trust in God, as a real life commitment, not just in specific propositions.

In fact the Greek word /pistis/ is used in the NT in a variety of ways, from believing a specific thing to overall faithfulness. Certainly not every one of those meanings is justifying faith. I do see that in the course of Christian life, we believe specific promises. Those beliefs taken in themselves aren't justifying faith, though it's hard to believe that someone would believe an individual promise if they didn't have the broader kind of faith. It's just odd to hear the term "faith" used for that kind of specific belief.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I see what the problem is. Typical Protestant theology (including Reformed) doesn't see faith as simply believing that something is true, not even the fact that Jesus died for us. I can see that if you thought that's what it meant, there would only be certain facts where believing them would lead to salvation.

Actually, I DO see faith as simply believing that something is true.

However in adopting the concept of "justification by faith," the Reformers used a larger definition of faith than the traditional Catholic one. They considered faith to be trust in God, as a real life commitment, not just in specific propositions.

I think reformed theology misunderstands the issue of what it means to 'commit'. As you note here, they take it to mean that man "commits" himself to a life dedicated to God. Not that that is a bad thing, but that's not what is meant by committing in the meaning of trust.

To place one's faith in Christ for salvation is to "commit" one's soul to Christ for saving. Many people, esp those of the "Lordship salvation camp" twist it into being committed to Christ, as in lifestyle, for salvation. It's really a works type salvation, but they deny it.

In salvation, we aren't committing ourselves to Christ by way of lifestyle, but rather, we are committing our very souls to Him for salvation. A very different concept.

In fact the Greek word /pistis/ is used in the NT in a variety of ways, from believing a specific thing to overall faithfulness. Certainly not every one of those meanings is justifying faith. I do see that in the course of Christian life, we believe specific promises. Those beliefs taken in themselves aren't justifying faith, though it's hard to believe that someone would believe an individual promise if they didn't have the broader kind of faith.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get across.

It's just odd to hear the term "faith" used for that kind of specific belief.

How so? I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks.