When a presentation of the Gospel turns into a discussion of Calvinism

[Davidius]

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I just don't understand how a person would come to the point in a conversation about the Gospel where an unbeliever would complain that God hasn't zapped him. The Gospel requires them to believe and gives them no excuse not to. Whether they have the capacity to is irrelevant to the issue of their wanton rebellion.

 

[MW]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

 

[Davidius]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?

 

[MW]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

So one should ask the unbeliever whether he wants faith?

Not necessarily. The willingness to pray in order to find grace shows that the problem of their inability is genuine and not merely an excuse. But I suppose you could be confrontational if you want to press the point; maybe you could ask them if they would believe if it were in their power to do so.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

 

[MW]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

"Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.

 

[Davidius]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discovery of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

"Inability" is a part of the sinful condition which the man must be saved from. It therefore necessarily precedes the call to belief. We dare not call upon a natural man to believe and leave him with the impression that he is not really as bad as the law makes him out to be.

We're talking past each other perhaps. I'm certainly not arguing that a man consider himself capable of pleasing God. I think men need to understand they are dead in sin and trespasses and that nothing in them is acceptable before God and that the Gospel is a call to trust in the righteousness of Christ and not their own.

I'm not trying to distill the Gospel per se but, concerning a very first basic presentation, the discussion of Jacob and Esau is not a prerequisite.

By the time Paul reaches the middle of Romans Chapter 3, the unbeliever possesses sufficient information to understand that no good lies within him and he has a need for a Savior. The presentation that a righteousness exists apart from the Law is sufficient at that point without then explaining why some do not continue in belief.

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

When it comes to the point that the person understands his own inability and that faith is the gift of God which he does not have, the next step is to refer to prayer as a means of grace. "Seek the Lord while He may be found." As the indomitable Puritans would say, the desire to believe is in fact a mustard seed of faith.

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.

Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.

 

[Davidius]

If I read you correctly, however, this understanding of inability does not necessarily precede the call to belief. By that I mean that the Gospel call does not qualify itself and get into long explanations about who can/cannot believe. The discussion of inability and the explanation of such things in detail is meant for disciples. When handled by the unbeliever, it becomes an excuse or an opportunity to answer back to God blasphemously.

This is what I was thinking as well. But the fact is, it happens. People often ask me what those who are supposed to do who never hear the Gospel preached and I can't turn to some feel-good universalist Arminian explanation. In that situation I'm forced to talk about election (God's children are reached) or total depravity (they're judged based on their sin, not on having heard th Gospel, and hearing the message is only effectual anyway with the Spirit's blessing).

I'm not afraid of talking about God's election but it's rather like casting pearls before swine when such objections come up. These are simply excuses for not believing, they're not real responses. The Gospel has come to them, not the guy down the street. Lofty discussions about God creating vessels for honor or dishonor are not out of bounds but sort of a waste of time. The man who wants nothing to do with God need not be instructed in deeper things if He won't even obey the command to believe. It is sufficient for Him to know that he is under judgment for refusing to believe.

Jesus didn't entertain questions about why God permitted the tower of Siloam to collapse. He simply reminded them that they too were wicked and needed to repent for they might likewise perish.

Thanks, I think that's exactly what I needed to hear (read).

 

[MW]

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgment." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgment, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.

 

[MW]

Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Inherent in that presentation is the idea that men are unable to come apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit but that concern would be quite odd for a man who is really starting to feel the weight of his sin. If the Word has penetrated and he is being convicted of sin then an objection at that point "...what if God didn't give me the ability to believe..." would be evidence of obstinacy at that point rather than a real fear and trembling and a hunger for a remedy to impending judgment.

There is a problem with trying to make a belief "inherent" in a presentation when it is really the issue, and it appears to me that it can only remain "inherent" because the salvation envisaged is merely from "impending judgment." The question of ability goes to the heart of total depravity. If the sinner isn't conscious of his inability then he's not conscious of the sinfulness of his condition. What exactly is he seeking to be delivered from? The gospel provides a remedy for impending judgment, not by overlooking sin, but by effectively and radically dealing with it. It's not merely death, but death as the wages of sin, that biblical salvation remedies; and the deliverance from sin and death is clearly proclaimed by the gospel to be the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6:23.

I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

It is my experience, limited as it is, that many people understand that God has given them faith without having the ability to articulate it. Most recently, the wife of one of the deacons started asking about why God gives her faith while He doesn't give others the same even though I had never directly dealt with God's particular election directly except to note that our salvation is based on the unmerited favor of God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Turretin: "Predestination Should Be Taught ... Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness."

I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one must understand predestination to begin discipleship.

 

[MW]

I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them.

Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe?

The "weight" ascribed is simply to present two exceptions to a rule you seem to be making. If, as you seem to argue,the Gospel *must* include an explicit reference to the inability of men to respond to the Gospel then these simply represent examples of Gospel presentations that did not contain explicit reference to those details in all instances.

It was never my intent to argue that the Gospel must *not* include references to men's inability. I am trying to avoid the notion that *all* Gospel preaching is of the same kind to all audiences. Certainly the preacher must preach whatever is in God's Word and the regular preaching of the Gospel during worship will include this data. I do not wish to preclude that.

Thus, my examples were not to state that Peter and Paul's examples were the only *type* of Gospel presentation but were *a* type of Gospel presentation. I frankly don't understand your objection to these examples and citing that Peter and Paul didn't precisely call men to believe. It's rather obvious that when Peter states that Jesus is Lord and Christ that this is something that demands some sort of response. I would argue that "...oh and you need to believe what I just said..." is superfluous given everything that preceded and cut men to the heart to the point that they were cognizant of their great sin.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to drive at and I wish you'd be more explicit. I'd rather like to stick with Peter if you don't mind so I can make sure I understand where you're coming from. Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?

 

[MW]

I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one must understand predestination to begin discipleship.

Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.

 

[MW]

Thus, my examples were not to state that Peter and Paul's examples were the only *type* of Gospel presentation but were *a* type of Gospel presentation. I frankly don't understand your objection to these examples and citing that Peter and Paul didn't precisely call me to believe. It's rather obvious that when Peter states that Jesus is Lord and Christ that this is something that demands some sort of response. I would argue that "...oh and you need to believe what I just said..." is superfluous given everything that preceded and cut men to the heart to the point that they were cognizant of their great sin.

You acknowledge there is no *explicit* call to believe, and yet you require an *explicit* acknowledgment of faith as a gift of God. Did you go for your run today?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.

 

[Davidius]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one must understand predestination to begin discipleship.

Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.

Incidentally, I don't want to miss out on agreeing with this point. I think a person that is objecting to the Gospel might need this means of grace and ought to be told that you will pray that God will open up his/her eyes to the Gospel and that they pray the same if they don't believe but wonder if they really could. I reviewed the scenario again and realized that it might be the particular scenario that caused the divergent opinion here. I've been more broadly focused on the issue of whether every presentation of the Gospel is going to include the issue of predestination.

I still maintain, however, that getting into Romans 9 type discussions with a person who is objecting is simply not the tact I would take. The "why did God choose some and not others" question is most always a smokescreen. The objector doesn't really care why others don't believe, he just wants to get off the subject of his own unbelief and divert the discussion to putting God on trial.

 

[Davidius]

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

I would never deny this nor shy away from its centrality. My concern is more specific to what constitutes a general Gospel call to unbelievers and whether one must understand predestination to begin discipleship.

Then let's put it this way. Where a church teaches predestination, as it ought, it will be impossible to ignore the ramifications of the doctrine on the question of what a man must do to be saved. The faithful preacher will therefore need to know how to deal with the question which was raised by David. At which pont he ought to direct the inquirer to prayer as a means of grace.

Incidentally, I don't want to miss out on agreeing with this point. I think a person that is objecting to the Gospel might need this means of grace and ought to be told that you will pray that God will open up his/her eyes to the Gospel and that they pray the same if they don't believe but wonder if they really could. I reviewed the scenario again and realized that it might be the particular scenario that caused the divergent opinion here. I've been more broadly focused on the issue of whether every presentation of the Gospel is going to include the issue of predestination.

I still maintain, however, that getting into Romans 9 type discussions with a person who is objecting is simply not the tact I would take. The "why did God choose some and not others" question is most always a smokescreen. The objector doesn't really care why others don't believe, he just wants to get off the subject of his own unbelief and divert the discussion to putting God on trial.

Yes, I was thinking that even if the examples of sermons you gave do not create a normative idea of what a Gospel presentation must look like, they should at least be proof that a Gospel presentation does not necessarily have to include a discussion of Romans 9.

 

[MW]

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.

What is there to answer? I believe I have spoken perspicuously. This is what you said: "There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them." This is the reason you have provided as to why the gospel need not provide reference to faith as God's gift. My reply was, that there is no explicit command to believe, so how can you require an explicit mention that faith is God's gift. At which point I received an impatient response urging me to answer a question I was never asked.

 

[Iconoclast]

simple but direct

Has anyone ever been sharing the gospel with a friend and been brought to a point by the friend's questioning that requires explanation of one or more of the doctrines of grace?

How do you handle the friend when

he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

David, this is a good question and easier to answer in a live conversation rather than a keyboard.
In particular if the unbeliever raises the question which you know deals with election you can answer it directly and simply. Assuming you have had time to lay the groundwork about the fall, the law of God, and judgment to come.
When the discussion gets to

he starts to complain that God just hasn't "zapped" him and could make him believe if He wanted?

, I would just use his statement to press home his responsibility. ie, God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. The world is condemned already. God has purposed to save a multitude IN Christ.
All that the Father has given to Christ willcome. If he has not yet come to Christ he has cause for concern if he cares about his soul.
You then might have to be careful to indicate it is not a physical work that he can perform.
show him from scripture it involves an earnest seeking of Jesus in and through the word of God.
The scripture becomes the main focus, not his objection or carnal reasoning.

 

[Thomas2007]

Hello Davidus,

I would like to share with you my personal opinion, that I have developed through experience. First, however, when I refer to things that are old, and I appreciate a lot of old things and see them as essentials, like our Confession of Faith, I am often told we need to change them to make them relevant. I generally disagree. I personally don't like to utilize the TULIP a lot, because it is in a context that presumes the people you face today have the presuppositions of the Dutch Arminians. Without contradiction, I usually update this whole approach, with folks that aren't true Arminians.

Every man has faith in something, so many people simply cannot grasp the idea of an inability to believe because they have no frame of reference to understand it. A lot of time can be wasted trying to convince a man of a principle when his presuppositions axiomatically deny it. We have to start understanding where people are at, and why, and speak so they have a frame of reference they can understand. Ultimately, you have to challenge their axioms, but you have to be able to have a meaningful conversation to even get them to consider that.

The TULIP presumes you have a frame of reference in relationship to Scripture's teaching. The Dutch Arminians didn't develop their system in ignorance of Calvinism, but as a system of counter Reformation. I've found that to presume that the average American is epistemically self-justified as an "Arminian in ignorance," is simply to set myself up for needless conversation and generally abuse. I haven't been able to be profitable that way, I know others are, but I haven't.

I have expressed my approach to this here. You might find it edifying.

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate it by picking me apart without giving me enough information to understand what you are trying to state? If the latter then we can agree to disagree here, assuming we disagree because I'm doing all the work in this conversation and it is quite exhausting. I never stated that I require an explicit acknowledgment that faith is the gift of God.

What is there to answer? I believe I have spoken perspicuously. This is what you said: "There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them." This is the reason you have provided as to why the gospel need not provide reference to faith as God's gift. My reply was, that there is no explicit command to believe, so how can you require an explicit mention that faith is God's gift. At which point I received an impatient response urging me to answer a question I was never asked.

I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.

I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.

 

[MW]

I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.

I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.

If that was a genuine question, I apologise; it looked rhetorical to me. If it's not rhetorical then my response should have made clear that I regard it as irrelevant. And the remark about running wasn't intended to needle you, but simply to lighten the atmosphere to my challenge. Again, I apologise if I gave occasion for you to take this the wrong way.

Warranted impatience; that's new.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess we're finished then. You're convinced you are perspicuous, I'm convinced you have not answered a very obvious question that appears with a question mark at the end of it.

I believe my impatience is warranted in light of your needling me about physical exercise as well as not too subtle disdain for some arguments I was presenting trying to draw out what you were trying to say because I simply do not understand where you're coming from.

If that was a genuine question, I apologise; it looked rhetorical to me. If it's not rhetorical then my response should have made clear that I regard it as irrelevant. And the remark about running wasn't intended to needle you, but simply to lighten the atmosphere to my challenge. Again, I apologise if I gave occasion for you to take this the wrong way.

Warranted impatience; that's new.

Then call it having more important things to do than trying to resolve this puzzle right now. I don't quite understand how you believe the question is irrelevant but you don't seem to want to explain yourself either so we'll cordially leave it at that.

 

[MW]

Then call it having more important things to do than trying to resolve this puzzle right now. I don't quite understand how you believe the question is irrelevant but you don't seem to want to explain yourself either so we'll cordially leave it at that.

Here's the question: "Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?" I ignored this question thinking it was rhetorical, because the suggestion itself is absurd. My response was to cast doubt on the very premise of your question, that faith isn't explicitly mentioned in the passages you cited. Since its not explicitly mentioned you can hardly require an explicit mention of faith as the gift of God; and if that's the case your question is irrelevant. Please don't insinuate that I have been anything less than candid in this discussion simply because you don't have the time to reply patiently.