The Power of the Gospel

[christundivided]

From man himself. Did you pay attention to the "faith to faith" part? Are you saying that God Himself is passing "HIS" faith to another?

Hence... our theological disconnect.

Faith is not man induced. If it was, then faith is a work. Paul defines this clearly in Ephesians 2.8 - "and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

The phrase "faith to faith" is clumsy. Because it is a difficult phrase with many interpretations. As the NET Bible puts it well... "It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν)."

No matter the interpretation, faith is ALWAYS a gift from God and not man-induced.

I am not a Calvinist...but I agree with this.  I don't believe faith is something man can come up within himself...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.  I must say the nuances of this whole matter is deeper than our finite thinking, so we must keep sharing and trust that God will keep saving.  Other than that I am not really going to be in this conversation. 

Carry on my wayward sons!

I ask that others that they provide biblical evidence for their beliefs.

T-Bone... I know you're a rational man...

Heb 4:2  For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Do you see the word "mixed" in Hebrews 4:2. How the this idea of a "mixing" of the Gospel and "faith" line up with a Calvinist idea of regeneration?

 

[T-Bone]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

How do you know that faith has never been offered to an unsaved man?

Could it have been offered and he has rejected the offer?

Ephesians 2.8 says that faith is a grace-thing. Do unsaved people receive this grace?

Does it? Or does it actually say that grace is a faith thing? "By grace through faith..."

 

[christundivided]

From man himself. Did you pay attention to the "faith to faith" part? Are you saying that God Himself is passing "HIS" faith to another?

Hence... our theological disconnect.

Faith is not man induced. If it was, then faith is a work. Paul defines this clearly in Ephesians 2.8 - "and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

The phrase "faith to faith" is clumsy. Because it is a difficult phrase with many interpretations. As the NET Bible puts it well... "It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν)."

No matter the interpretation, faith is ALWAYS a gift from God and not man-induced.

The NET bible was produced by Calvinists. You know it was. Wallace is one of the prominent Calvinist of our day.  I generally agree with many of their translations but this is nonsense.

Faith is not a work because a it comes from man.

Do a unregenerate man have faith in anything? Simple question.

Jesus told the Pharisee of his day....

Joh 5:45  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Now explain to me just how you can say that faith is a "work" of man. Men trusts things all the time. All the time. Day in. Day out. I has nothing to do with a "righteous work" of anyone.

 

[Mathew Ward]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

How do you know that faith has never been offered to an unsaved man?

Could it have been offered and he has rejected the offer?

Ephesians 2.8 says that faith is a grace-thing. Do unsaved people receive this grace?

Is that received or offered?

Your original claim was offered...

 

[Mathew Ward]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

Maybe you can show where the items I called into question are not contextually important to the two verses in question?

Here is YOUR claim..."See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too."

I asked you what context was left out?

Let me phase it another way for you.  Because he left off verse 18 does that change the meaning of these verses? Because he didn't include verses 8-15 does that change the meaning of these verses?

Because he ignored the context (for example,  all those things I listed), he's come up with this theory that "the gospel", (in other words, "news that is good")  has some intrinsic ability to cause regeneration instead of what it actually is: the revelation of what God has done for us through the Christ.

As we acknowledge and accept that revelation (by the enabling power of the Spirit), we grow to trust (i.e. have faith) God more and more (i.e. Salvation).

The revelation is just that: revelatory, not transformative just as news that smoking causes cancer doesn't prevent anything. It is only by responding to that news that change is affected.

This other idea... it's pagan and tantamount to witchcraft.  "Just say this spell and gain power."

In other words no he didn't rip this out of context.

You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I never said such a thing. Why are lying? I never said that the Gospel "regenerates". Never. Not one place. You blathering liar.[/quote]

Aren't you a big ball of sunshine?

 

[christundivided]

I know what "through" means. Scripture never speaks of unsaved man as having grace that brings a saving faith. If man has a grace-induced faith, he is a believer.

You're missing the point entirely. You saying that "grace" is a gift and "faith" is a gift from God in the same manner......When the verse clearly draws a distinction between the two. They are not identical nor are they both a "gift" of God. I suppose you could say they are gift because they even exists, but we are talking about a particular "gifting". 

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I never said such a thing. Why are lying? I never said that the Gospel "regenerates". Never. Not one place. You blathering liar.

Aren't you a big ball of sunshine?
[/quote]

I don't enjoy it when someone lies about me. I generally call them a liar. You lied about what I said. You didn't ask me what I meant by it. You ASSUMED what I meant.... and then proceeded to bash me for it.

Grow up little man.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.
[/quote]

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

 

[rsc2a]

For those reading along:

You're ignoring the innate Power of the Gospel. - CU

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.
[/quote]

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.

 

[christundivided]

For those reading along:

You're ignoring the innate Power of the Gospel. - CU

I never said this was the power to regenerate.... You assumed this. Liar.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I never said such a thing. Why are lying? I never said that the Gospel "regenerates". Never. Not one place. You blathering liar.

Aren't you a big ball of sunshine?

I don't enjoy it when someone lies about me. I generally call them a liar. You lied about what I said. You didn't ask me what I meant by it. You ASSUMED what I meant.... and then proceeded to bash me for it.

Grow up little man.
[/quote]

I figured you were just being caustic and abrasive like normal. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=christundivided]I never said such a thing. Why are lying? I never said that the Gospel "regenerates". Never. Not one place. You blathering liar.

Aren't you a big ball of sunshine?

I don't enjoy it when someone lies about me. I generally call them a liar. You lied about what I said. You didn't ask me what I meant by it. You ASSUMED what I meant.... and then proceeded to bash me for it.

Grow up little man.

I assumed you were just being caustic and abrasive like normal. 
[/quote]

Fixed it for ya 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.
[/quote]

No,  I readily acknowledge that I made that claim. And, defining words differently than the author (e.g. "gospel) categorically changes the meaning.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.

No,  I readily acknowledge that I made that claim. And, defining words differently than the author (e.g. "gospel) categorically changes the meaning.
[/quote]

Defining the words doesn't change with the context. They change in the interpretation.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.

No,  I readily acknowledge that I made that claim. And, defining words differently than the author (e.g. "gospel) categorically changes the meaning.
[/quote]

No I didn't. I thought you would assume what power I was speaking of. I wasn't talking about the power to regenerate.... but rather the power to reveal. There has been a many a person that come to the threshold of saving grace and walked away. People that know the Gospel. People that have seen and tasted of the Good Things of God. I have a good friends that puts this way...

The Kingdom of God isn't for "tasters". Its for "drinkers".

 

[rsc2a]

For those reading along:

You're ignoring the innate Power of the Gospel. - CU

I never said this was the power to regenerate.... You assumed this. Liar.

Oh...it has the power to grant faith which then regenerates...

...and so you have turned the revelation into the savior. It's nothing more than KJVo-ism, just in a different hat.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.

No,  I readily acknowledge that I made that claim. And, defining words differently than the author (e.g. "gospel) categorically changes the meaning.

Defining the words doesn't change with the context. They change in the interpretation.
[/quote]

You might like this blog post...

http://unorthodoxfaith.com/2010/04/06/a-new-word-didactic-retrodiction/


Here is an excerpt...

In the same sense, it is very easy for interpreters and/or interpretive schools of thought to come to the text of the Bible and see what they believe they should see, based on their context. So, Martin Luther reads the Revelation and sees the papacy as the Antichrist. Tim Lahaye looks at Eastern Europe and sees the potential for the coming of an Antichrist. In both cases, their contextual matrix yields an interpretation that fits with the matrix. And those who adhere to their interpretational school of thought will be taught the same retrodiction. They see the taught interpretation in the text.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]You disagree with his interpretation not the context of the verses he posted.

You keep saying this as if these two things are independent.

And you keep acting as if you didn't say he took the verses out of context, but offer no proof that he did.

I appealed to the immediate context that it would change the meaning of the verses listed, you balked at it knowing they did not and thus disproving your claim.

No,  I readily acknowledge that I made that claim. And, defining words differently than the author (e.g. "gospel) categorically changes the meaning.

Defining the words doesn't change with the context. They change in the interpretation.
[/quote]

Words are defined by context...

Cant ewe sea howe?