JD wrote:
Me thinks a little lesson on 1 Co 2 is in order.1Co 2:14 .....Paul was telling how the thoughts of God were understood by men. He was not dealing with salvation and that is your error. He was dealing with the secret things of God, the mysteries. ....You men do not know how to understand this book!
MurrayA & Borill especially have been glorying in their world wisdom. They are worldly wise only, IMO

This merits a longer treatment than a single post.. so I shall try and address this at some length later. But for those who want to know, JD puts a massive disjoint between this verse and all the preceding verses from Chapter 1.17 et seq. Read in a connected fashion it should be very obvious to any impartial reader that the whole point is to show why some people accept what God says and other do not .. and guess what? It has nothing to do with free will.. cos there is no such thing!!

More later!

RK

Lurker wrote:
I agree and this verse bears out your statement precisely:...

What do you make of the following article? -

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/sandeman_Haykin.html]]]Sandemanianism[/URL]

R. K. Borill wrote:
ML,
I wasn't aware that I needing calming. Nevertheless, profound reasoning can be quite challenging to the mind. If in doctrinal discussions we are not aware of the logical implications of our arguments, perhaps it is best to take up our discussion with those who can think along those lines of thought.
.....

R. K. Borill wrote:
I get this all the time from those who have a problem with this definition. They veil the suggestion that I am only a "nominal" Christian or because I believe this that I do not have "any signs of grace in my life", as though they may come to this conclusion simply from my definition.
Again, a fallacious argument ad homenim: "Ticking yes" is not the same as "intellectual assent to the truth" or "belief of the truth". Also, who is the true judge of grace manifested in life, is it not the same who gives grace? Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?"
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

Will you please calm down.. I have made no accusations against you personally. All I am trying to do is discuss sensibly the definition of saving faith.

I know that being on SA can be a traumatic experience with accusations flying from every corner and it appears that you are therefore reading things into what I am writing. You have misread my previous posts and have taken them to be personal attacks when they have been nothing of the sort. I think the best thing is to end this here.

R. K. Borill wrote:
I never said that faith was only mental or intellectual assent. I said faith is intellectual assent TO THE TRUTH. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE!! Do you see it??
PS. For an understanding of the truth, please refer to John 14:6 and John 1:1, and most of John 6, e.g. "The WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit and life".
"Let this MIND be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, . . ." Phil. 2

JD wrote:
.....it turns into a mexican standoff with God on the one hand willing to save anyone who will believe, but promising no one that he will believe for them, and the sinners OTOH waiting for God to provide something as a gift which he will not provide. He provided the sacrifice and offered it to anyone who would simply take it by believing.
It has been the testimony of many on here that they have not freely taken it because they do not have faith. That does not mean they are not religious. They have their teachers and they tell them what to believe about the scriptures. They say, do not believe the gospel until God regenerates you....

I ask you again JD, how does the natural man exercise faith in spiritual truths when I Corinthians 2.14 tells us that he cannot receive them let alone understand them - they are foolishness to him, because these truths are spiritually discerned? You clearly do not believe the verse!

R. K. Borill wrote:
ML,
I suggest that you get your link straight, because Beeke's article was the one that came up when I clicked on the link you supplied.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Be that as it may, you used the term "mere" to change my definition of faith being intellectual assent to the truth.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Furthermore, your assertions about the Sandemanians is a fallacious argument. Simply because dogs have four legs and cats have four legs does not make a cat a dog.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Brian Schwertly was very effective in his presentation of "Auburn Avenue Theology." No one can take on the likes of the followers of N. T. Wright, and his New Perspectives On Paul without a good understanding of justification by faith alone. Perhaps you should study more.

JD wrote:
..ML said,
"....in this guy's book there is no difference between spiritual faith (which is a grace) and the every man's ability to hold a conviction about carnal matters."
.....I will give two weeks for anyone who will find such a thing in Scripture before I will expect an apology to God for such a twist of his magnificent word.

Jesus declares "no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) In the same passage Jesus declares: " all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me." (John 6:37) In both verses the phrase "come to Me" simply means "believe in Me" and so taken together Jesus is stating that no one can believe in Him unless God grants it, and all to whom God grants it will believe". According to this passage, then, God grants faith, a faith that will infallibly arise in the heart of those He has given His Son.

How does the natural man exercise faith in spiritual truths when I Corinthians 2.14 tells us that he cannot receive them let alone understand them - they are foolishness to him, because these truths are spiritually discerned? You clearly do not believe these verses!

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
If you guys do not believe that justification is by faith, then why does the survey have 94% of the votes as yes.
Have SA been taken over by the "arminian papist" or is it the Calvinist trying to play both sides of the aisle again?

R. K. Borill wrote:
ML & Scratch,
ML,I read the article that you mentioned. ...

The article I referred you to was actually one written by Brian Schwertley.. the earlier link to Beeke's article was for those like JD and Yamil who misunderstanding the phrase "by faith" major on "faith" as the grounds of justification and not on "grace".

The "heart" in biblical terminology, as you know, is the essential person and would therefore include all the faculties of man. To believe obviously means that there must be a correct understanding of the content of faith, but as you said in a previous post, it has to be more than mere intellect.. otherwise the Sandemanians would have been considered to be "Christian"!

R. K. Borill wrote:
ML,
I don't think you have a lot to worry about here. . . . Maybe the judgment, but that is where you must seek the Lord for assurance. But, certainly not this one's judgment.

The Lord saved me by grace, he has made himself known to me when I would never have sought him.. I know whose I am!

I know not why God's wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

Refrain:
But I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I've committed
Unto Him against that day.

I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus thro' the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

I know not what of good or ill
May be reserved for me—
Of weary ways or golden days
Before His face I see.

JD wrote:
....ML, I have read your comments and I do not think you know God. ....

JD wrote:
"Faith" is a principle that every person who has intellect and reason must have in the absence of perfect knowledge.
....This is our condition NOW.
10 But when that which is perfect (the eternal state) is come, then that which is in part (knowledge and prophecy) shall be done away.
.....Faith will no longer be a principle in experience - Why? Because then we will have perfect knowledge....

As for faith being possessed by all who have intellect and reason.. what utter twaddle .. in this guy's book there is no difference between spiritual faith (which is a grace) and the every man's ability to hold a conviction about carnal matters. Talk about the blind trying to teach..

R. K. Borill wrote:
......Faith is intellectual assent to the truth of God's Word revealed through his Son Jesus Christ....

I have to say that I agree with SMH on this .. your definition is seriously inadequate.

May I refer you to the following for a fuller definition:

Michael Hranek wrote:
....It is not that our believing God has earned merit with God, after all it is God Himself who has given us faith by the conviction of the Holy Ghost and His Holy Written Word, the conviction that His Only Begotten Son has taken the punishment, the death penalty that our sins deserved, dying for us, buried for us and raised again for us,
the object of our faith is what is important and that object is the Lord Jesus Christ, the only name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved.
We might argue free will and election till we are all blue in the face but if Jesus Christ had not willingly given Himself none would be saved.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate what you say and on the whole agree with it. But the thread is about a theological issue and that is what I am trying to address .. I am glad that you have moved the emphasis away from any act of man to the act of God in Christ because justification is precisely about that .. Christ was made sin for us that he may be made the righteouness of God to us who are sinners. This exchange is the basis or grounds of our justification, not any act of ours.

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
.... Not even the Reformers in all of their Calvinistic glory would make such a scandalous statement....

JD wrote:
Why do we always need links. We are trying to interact with people on a forum who we would hope would have some degree of free thought and reason. It would be one thing if the writers of the articles were around to defend their statements and answer questions and another thing if those who posted the articles would answer for them, but these aritcles are posted as the final authority and those who do not believe them are considered heretics. It is much like these theologians on here making some sort of ridiculous statement and then launching 3 or 4 verses without any explanation of how they confirm the point. They want us to read their links and respond and never respond to us.
They have been assimilated into the collective.
It is totally frusttrating.
Borill, You will face your words again also.

Anyways, since the previous link was too lengthy an article for the self professed Dr. who would not read it because even the title ran contrary to his presupposition - Ugh! - I shall provide another link .. a much shorter article .. where "by" faith is explained and shown clearly not to be the grounds of our justification but the instrument of it. And for those that do not know the difference between these terms we would suggest staying off theological forums until you have a theological education.

The link is as follows:

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
...........
I know of at least one person... He goes by ML.