No faith without believing

Gebruikersavatar
ndonselaar
Berichten: 3105
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 12:34
Contacteer:

Bericht door ndonselaar »

Cannabis,

Als de Schrift zegt dat 'de rechtvaardige door het geloof zal leven', wil jij dit in passieve zin opvatten?

Liever hou ik het bij Ursinus die stelt dat er geen schenking is zonder aanneming en geen aanneming zonder schenking, of .. zodra de mens door het geloof [believing] Christus in Zijn Woord omhelsd, is de zondaar gerechtvaardigd in de hemelhof.
cannabis

Bericht door cannabis »

Hi ndonselaar:

The just shall live by faith.
Faith does not make, or keep the regenerated alive. But when the Holy Spirit reveals truths and promises from time to time, the souls "sees" and "accepts" these promises by faith (by spiritual sight). And this maintains (nourishes) the spiritual life of the soul.

This way, too, there is no giving without receiving. I dont follow Ursinus on the last line, however. God considered all the elect just in Christ, already when they were chosen. What the Reformers didn't understand fully, and many after them today still don't, is that the faith God gives in regeneration does not make a person just, but gives assurance to the saint that s/he is just in Christ. God makes just. Not man's act of believing on Christ. There is spiritual life before conscious believing in Christ. There is faith before conscious believing in Christ. Else the regenerated could do no otherwise than sin (despite having a new nature that loves holiness) until they conciously believed on Christ. All that is not of faith is sin.

I look forward to your comments on this. Now it is time for me to log off and go home and find my bed...
Gebruikersavatar
ndonselaar
Berichten: 3105
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 12:34
Contacteer:

Bericht door ndonselaar »

The just shall live by faith.
Faith does not make, or keep the regenerated alive. But when the Holy Spirit reveals truths and promises from time to time, the souls "sees" and "accepts" these promises by faith (by spiritual sight). And this maintains (nourishes) the spiritual life of the soul.

This way, too, there is no giving without receiving. I dont follow Ursinus on the last line, however. God considered all the elect just in Christ, already when they were chosen. What the Reformers didn't understand fully, and many after them today still don't, is that the faith God gives in regeneration does not make a person just, but gives assurance to the saint that s/he is just in Christ. God makes just. Not man's act of believing on Christ. There is spiritual life before conscious believing in Christ. There is faith before conscious believing in Christ. Else the regenerated could do no otherwise than sin (despite having a new nature that loves holiness) until they conciously believed on Christ. All that is not of faith is sin.

I look forward to your comments on this. Now it is time for me to log off and go home and find my bed...
Met verbazing heb ik je posting gelezen. Aan de andere kant ben ik blij met je eerlijkheid. Er zijn er velen die zich beroepen op de Reformatoren of anderen die hetzelfde zeggen als jouw.

Dat God ons rechtvaardigt, geloof ik vast en dat het niet is op grond van een menselijke daad eveneens. Ik ga niet met je mee dat niet het geloof in Christus ons rechtvaardigt. Lees bijvoorbeeld Efeze 2 maar ‘Want uit genade zijt gij zalig geworden door het geloof; en dat niet uit u, het is Gods gave’. God kan een mens slechts rechtvaardigen als hij of zij gelooft. Natuurlijk ben ik ervan bewust dat het geloof slechts een instrument is. Het geloof is het instrument waardoor wij de verworven weldaden in Christus deelachtig worden. Maar dit betekent eveneens dat het zonder geloof onmogelijk is om God te behagen.

Er is géén geestelijk leven voor het geloof in Christus. Dat zegt ditzelfde hoofdstuk uit Efeze 2:

Ook toen wij dood waren door de misdaden, heeft ons levend gemaakt met Christus; (uit genade zijt gij zalig geworden) En heeft ons mede opgewekt, en heeft ons mede gezet in den hemel in Christus Jezus; Opdat Hij zou betonen in de toekomende eeuwen den uitnemenden rijkdom Zijner genade, door de goedertierenheid over ons in Christus Jezus. Want uit genade zijt gij zalig geworden door het geloof; en dat niet uit u, het is Gods gave;

Paulus betuigt hier dat wij in ons eertijd, ook hij als gelovige dood zijn door de misdaden. Dood als de beenderen uit Ezechiël. Dood als Lazarus in het graf. Dat is de omschrijving van onze staat als wij geboren worden. Paulus zegt daarna tot de gemeente van Efeze: God heeft ons levendgemaakt met Christus. Hier begint dus het geestelijk leven. Alsof hij het wil verduidelijk hoe dit gebeurt schrijft hij ‘uit genade zijt gij zalig geworden’. Hoe dat gebeurt schrijft hij in het achtste vers: ‘door het geloof’. Zodra de Heere ons het geloof schenkt, gelooft de mens en ontvangt hij door het geloof als instrument Christus en al Zijn weldaden.

Tot slot het onderscheid ‘faith’ en ‘believing’ maak ik niet mee Cannabis. Er is sprake van een dode zondaar of een levende zondaar. Het is de vernieuwde mens die God iedere keer weer de kracht geeft om de geloofshand op te heffen en te leggen op de beloften Gods in het Woord.

De onderscheiding faith en believing kan misschien best zijn goede pastorale kanten hebben, maar we kunnen niet teveel benadrukken dat het onmogelijk is om God te behagen zonder geloof. Nee, niet het ingestort geloof, maar het levende geloof in beoefening.
cannabis

Bericht door cannabis »

Ndonselaar:

I admire the old writers. But ultimately we must go to Scripture. I dont think I know better than any particular writer. But I do believe certain old writers had a better understanding of doctrine than others. Doctrine has been refined by controversy. That is why Calvin had a clearer view than Augustine, and Edwards than Calvin, etc.

Eph 2: We are "saved by faith." Yes, faith tells us we are saved. Faith does not make us saved. Christ's atonement alone can do so. Can God only save when we believe? That puts the emphasis on man to believe.

In that system, God gives faith to the dead sinner, the dead sinner believes, the dead sinner becomes alive and is justified. Or do you think the sinner is alive but not just in the eyes of God? That is yet another inconsistency.

Rather, God chooses a person in Christ from eternity, imputes Christ's righteousness to him and sees him as just in Christ, in time the sinner is made alive by the Holy Spirit, he is given faith to enable him to believe all that the Holy Spirit reveals, in due time Christ is revealed to his soul, he believes and therefore knows he is saved. He knows because he believes. Believing makes things true to us (Hebrews 11:1). Also regarding natural things. Objects have their existence independent of our observation of them, but only when we see (perceive) them, do they become real to us. Yet they were always real. Salvation, justification, adoption, etc. were real from eternity, but only become real to the sinner when he "sees" them.

If you follow your own argument from Ephesians 2 regarding salvation being when Christ is revealed, then note that it adds the resurrection too as happening at the same time. I think your interpretation is flawed, and that we should understand that sinners are made alive through/with the merits of Christ.

I do not understand this passage as Paul pinpointing when spiritual life begins. Some sinners are regenerated and shown Christ right away. Others must wait for a long time. But all the regenerated have some faith and love, even if but in the bud (as Philpot describes in Winter Afore Harvest). I do not mean, ever, to judge when a person is regenerated. I only argue that there can be spiritual life well before a revelation of Christ. However, there can be no rest before He is revealed to the soul. I think this is the real issue that concerns you regarding my denomination. It is also an issue that deeply concerns me.

A person may have faith, but the Holy Spirit must still reveal things in order for the soul to use that faith (that ability) to believe (act).

Without faith it is impossible to please God. We should understand this as without believing. Because if you dont believe, you doubt. You agree with this, no doubt.
Gebruikersavatar
Afgewezen
Berichten: 17323
Lid geworden op: 12 mei 2005, 21:50

Bericht door Afgewezen »

imputes Christ's righteousness to him
Hoe? Buiten het geloof om?
and therefore knows he is saved
Een soort ‘bewustwordingstheologie’dus? Geen rechtvaardiging door het geloof, nee, een ‘weten’ dat je gerechtvaardigd bent door het geloof?
Yet they were always real. Salvation, justification, adoption, etc. were real from eternity, but only become real to the sinner when he "sees" them.
Wij worden niet gerechtvaardigd doordat we geloven wat er van eeuwigheid over ons is besloten, wij worden gerechtvaardigd wanneer wij Gods gerechtigheid, geopenbaard in het Evangelie, aannemen met toepassing voor onszelf.

Wat Philpot betreft in zijn door jouw genoemde preek: hij ontvouwt zijn theorie over het geloof
1. aan de hand van een duidelijk onjuiste exegese van de tekst (tekst totaal uit zijn verband gerukt);
2. zijn eigen ervaringen;
3. zijn eigen gevolgtrekkingen.
Bijbelteksten dienen alleen maar om zijn eigen reeds gemaakte gevolgtrekkingen te ondersteunen.

Geloof in de knop? Misschien kun je dat zeggen. Maar, als dat geloof mag zien Wie Christus is en ervaren dat de schuld vergeven wordt, is dat dan een ‘schijnverlossing’ (want het was eigenlijk al in orde) of ‘gebeurt’ er ook wezenlijk iets (de zondaar wordt gerechtvaardigd, zoals de tollenaar in de tempel)?
Arrow

Bericht door Arrow »

cannabis schreef:But ultimately we must go to Scripture.
Wrong! Ultimately = At last; in the end; eventually. We should begin, continue and finish with Scripture. No writer, how old he (she?) may be, will take precedence over Scripture.
Gebruikersavatar
ndonselaar
Berichten: 3105
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 12:34
Contacteer:

Bericht door ndonselaar »

Beste Cannabis,

Ik sluit me bij de reactie van Afgewezen aan. De verwondering van Afgewezen begrijp ik, toch sluipt deze gedachtegang van Cannabis en Philpot ook langzaam bepaalde gemeenten binnen. Rechtvaardiging van eeuwigheid is een belangrijk item voor deze leer. Zo wordt de 'rechtvaardiging' en de 'wedergeboorte' niet meer een opstanding uit de doden [vgl. DL], maar een aanrading. Hiervoor hebben onze vaderen ernstig gewaarschuwd.

Tot slot, ook een predikant als Ds. du Marchie waarschuwde in zijn boek 'in stilheid tot U' al voor de onbewuste rechtvaardiging.
Gebruikersavatar
Afgewezen
Berichten: 17323
Lid geworden op: 12 mei 2005, 21:50

Bericht door Afgewezen »

ndonselaar schreef:Beste Cannabis,

Ik sluit me bij de reactie van Afgewezen aan. De verwondering van Afgewezen begrijp ik, toch sluipt deze gedachtegang van Cannabis en Philpot ook langzaam bepaalde gemeenten binnen. Rechtvaardiging van eeuwigheid is een belangrijk item voor deze leer. Zo wordt de 'rechtvaardiging' en de 'wedergeboorte' niet meer een opstanding uit de doden [vgl. DL], maar een aanrading. Hiervoor hebben onze vaderen ernstig gewaarschuwd.

Tot slot, ook een predikant als Ds. du Marchie waarschuwde in zijn boek 'in stilheid tot U' al voor de onbewuste rechtvaardiging.
Moet je in plaats van 'aanrading' niet 'bewustwording' zeggen, ndonselaar?
cannabis

Bericht door cannabis »

I'll have more time for replying tomorrow, I hope.

Justification from eternity does not reduce the importance of experiencing forgiveness of sin in time. As long as it remains clear that the elect were always seen as just in Christ from eternity, but that they must experience the forgiveness of their sins in time. I.e. when Christ is revealed to them they first believe that their sins are forgiven. From his/her point of view, that is when they are saved. In reality, the sins were forgiven from eternity.

Ndonselaar is correct to state that this doctrine is fundamental to hypercalvinism. I believe Dr. Steenblok took a step towards hypercalvinsim, and applaud him for it. It is hard to break from a rich historical past, as it implies you think these people were wrong on some points. You will have no shortage of arguments for justification in time from the old fathers and the reformers, as this doctrine was central to their systems. Incidentally, it was also critical to the arminian system. Let's remember that no two theologians agree in every doctrine, and that we can always find support for any view in some great writer.

Arrow is right, Scripture comes first. Still, I like to see how theologians interpret it. I would rather embrace the interpretation an old father gave a text than come up with our own. Their understanding of doctrine and their spiritual light were greater than that of anyone I hear, know, read of today. That being said, we should read various interpretations and counterarguments.

Afgewezen. Question 1: Yes. Question 2: Yes, the Heidelberg Catechism calls faith a certain knowledge. Question 3: We do not become righteous because of our faith. Faith does not make righteous, but assures us that we are. Regarding your assessment of Philpot's sermon: You are wrong on point 1, right on part 2 (though he had more experience with true conversions than anyone today and took these into account, as is clear when you read his letters, meditations, etc), and we all do point 3. When a person sees Christ by faith, it is real to him. But that does not mean it was not already real from eternity, though he was not aware of it. Did God start loving him then, when he believed, or from eternity? The Bible says the latter. But when does he realize God loved him? In time. Yet He always loved him. So with justification.

I think the doctrine we should really focus on is nature of true spiritual light and its effects on the soul: true selfless love, humility, self-abhorance, etc. Focusing on this would make clarify discussions about the nature of true conversion, the time of regeneration, etc. I started dicussing this previously (January 2004, when I registered). What do you think, friends?
ego flos

Bericht door ego flos »

In reality, the sins were forgiven from eternity.
No, that's wrong!

If this would be so, Christ has died for already forgiven sins or for justified sinners. Scripture doesn't speak so. He died for us when we were sinners. (Romans 5)
Gebruikersavatar
Afgewezen
Berichten: 17323
Lid geworden op: 12 mei 2005, 21:50

Bericht door Afgewezen »

Ndonselaar is correct to state that this doctrine is fundamental to hypercalvinism. I believe Dr. Steenblok took a step towards hypercalvinsim, and applaud him for it. It is hard to break from a rich historical past, as it implies you think these people were wrong on some points.
Dr. Steenblok wilde niets liever dan staan in de lijn van de oudvaders en beriep zich dan ook veelvuldig op hen. Wanneer je hem verteld zou hebben dat hij gebroken had met een ‘rich historical past’, zou hij niet blij geweest zijn, denk ik.
You are wrong on point 1.
Lees het hoofdstuk, lees de teksten in hun verband en verbaas je over het feit, dat Philpot in de beeldende beschrijving van de ondergang van een heidens volk de ontwikkeling van het geestelijk leven in Gods volk kan zien. Ook de vogelen des hemels en de dieren der aarde krijgen de hun door Philpot aangewezen betekenis. Nee, Cannabis, met alle respect voor Philpot, maar zó ga je niet met de Bijbel om. Dan kun je iedere tekst laten zeggen wat je wilt.
(though he had more experience with true conversions than anyone today and took these into account, as is clear when you read his letters, meditations, etc),
Dat zou best kunnen, maar niet de bevinding dient over het Woord te heersen, maar het Woord over de bevinding.
When a person sees Christ by faith, it is real to him. But that does not mean it was not already real from eternity, though he was not aware of it. Did God start loving him then, when he believed, or from eternity? The Bible says the latter. But when does he realize God loved him? In time. Yet He always loved him. So with justification.
Er gebeurt dus niet echt iets, alleen maar in de beleving van de zondaar (?). Toen Jezus de blinden, stommen etc. genas, genazen ze niet echt, maar ze werden zich er alleen maar van bewust dat ze al genezen waren (?).
I think the doctrine we should really focus on is nature of true spiritual light and its effects on the soul: true selfless love, humility, self-abhorance, etc. Focusing on this would make clarify discussions about the nature of true conversion, the time of regeneration, etc. I started dicussing this previously (January 2004, when I registered). What do you think, friends?
Ook tussen ware gelovigen bestaat hierover niet altijd eenstemmigheid. In ieder geval: redeneren vanuit de eeuwigheid getuigt niet van een groter vroomheid of rechtzinnigheid dan redeneren vanuit het spanningsvolle spreken van de Schrift (geloof als plicht én geloof als gave, aanbod van genade aan alle hoorders van het evangelie én genade alleen verheerlijkt in het hart van de uitverkorenen, etc.).
Laatst gewijzigd door Afgewezen op 11 okt 2005, 12:24, 1 keer totaal gewijzigd.
Gebruikersavatar
memento
Berichten: 11339
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 11:42

Bericht door memento »

In reality, the sins were forgiven from eternity.
Well, if the sins are forgiven from eternity, why should we repent? Why should we have 'ellendekennis' if we are not 'ellendig'?

Well, tell me what's the diffence with Kuyper? If the sins are forgiven, you can tell your congregation that they have to figure out if they are elect, and if they are, they don't have to worry, because their sins are forgiven....
cannabis

Bericht door cannabis »

Probably my last posting for a while.

Memento:

I did not write that sin was forgiven in eternity, but that the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ and His righteousness to them. Christ still had to merit this righteousness and atone for sin for man by coming on earth, keeping the law blameless, and dying on the cross. Man still had to be born, still had to sin. Does this constrain man to sin? God forsaw sin, permitted it, does not force man to do it, is not the Author, etc.

God elected His people before they had existence, before they sinned. We should focus on election, implanting into Christ by adoption, and justification from eternity. In time, however, the sinner learns to know how evil his heart is and must repent of this. True repentance is a fruit of new life, requires divine love in the soul, is not primarily a repentance because of the punishment due to sin.
The knowledge of misery is required to teach man what a corrupt nature he has, how he intends himself and hates God in all he does.
Kuyper was a bit more involved than you characterize his teaching. But you know this. How do the elect figure out that they are so? When the Holy Spirit speaks comfort to their souls. It is not an exercise in deductive reasoning, though I encounter some who do this in some churches.

Ndonselaar:
You appear to forget something. Bible passages have more than one meaning. Often there is a literal/historical interpretation, an prophetical interpretation, and an experiential interpretation--at all once: the one does not preclude the other, or contradict the other. If you cant see this, that does not mean it is not there. The greatness of many experiential preachers is that they can see the deeper meaning. Philpot understood far better than any of us that the passage he took that text from had an historical interpretation. But he wanted to show that it also had an experiential meaning. Don't accuse that great divine of ignorance when you cannot understand something yourself. And, he did give primacy to Scripture.

Your example of Jesus healing the blind, etc, does not carry. Of course, they were healed when Jesus healed them and not before. So for a sinner's point of view, his sins are forgiven when the Holy Spirit reveals this to him. But it does not mean that God only then considers a person just and engrafts him into Christ.

I am not going to have time to post here, or on refoweb, as I am running into time constraints. However, I appreciate your feedback given so far and will reflect on it. I've tried to identify that there are indeed places where there is "spanning" in modern calvinistic doctrine, and that these tensions (or actually, logical inconsistencies) imply contradiction and error. It is absolutely essential to remember that each gospel promise, OT or NT, is adressed to God's children alone, not to all hearers. Hence the command to believe that Christ is their Saviour comes to those who have spiritual life, not to those who do not have this revealed to them. When a person says: "you must believe" one should ask "what must I believe? that Christ is the Saviour, or that He is my Saviour". To do the second we must have Him revealed to our souls, through the preaching of the word. It is not our duty. It cannot be our duty to believe something that is not revealed or that we did not used to know before the Fall. The first is our duty. But then, even the devils recognized Christ as the Son of God...
cannabis

Bericht door cannabis »

Hi all, is there any way to change your username? I'm dont like this one. They grow a lot of it around here, but not for me.
Gebruikersavatar
Margriet
Berichten: 1517
Lid geworden op: 17 dec 2003, 04:15
Locatie: Michigan
Contacteer:

Bericht door Margriet »

I think the best you can do is a PB to a moderator. They can tell you.
Christian faith has to do less with what you know and more with whom you know, namely God and God in Christ. Rev. Martin E Marty
Plaats reactie