Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is believing/faith a work ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
    I have responded to that poster about his grammer comments and he didn't accept it so thats that. This thread isn't about grammer! Its about Faith/believing being a work and i explained why.

    Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
    EVERYTHING is about grammar in the inspired text. Faith is a noun. Belief is the same noun. Nouns aren’t verbs. And nouns do the action, so faith believes. Man doesn’t believe apart from faith believING.

    You did NOT explain why faith is a work, because it’s impossible. So your explanation is simply wrong. And you’ve come against Biblical Monergism as an alleged Calvinist. If you don’t understand faith as a noun, you can’t be an authentic Calvinist.

    This is beyond sad.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      Only the thread owner may request such.

      In this case, that would be Beloved57.
      Thank you for the clarification.
      Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
      “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sherman View Post
        The thread can be closed if it turns into an exercise in trolling members. I see the OP not giving substantive replies. "again your comment isnt sensible nor relevant !" ​is not a substantive reply that adds anything to the discussion. If you keep replying like that, your thread will be locked.
        Thank you for outlining the criteria. I truly did not know what the parameters are. Apologies if I was out of line.
        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          What's the difference?
          But His Resurrection requires /necessitates His death (and passion). Believing in His Resurrection is in one critical way, also believing in His passion and death on the cross.
          Yep, probably; maybe as "Nihilo." It's a unique view to be sure, but I find more support for it than one might think when first encountering it. E.g. Romans 10:9 KJV, 2nd Timothy 2:8 KJV.
          Ohhhhhhhhhhh. I didn’t know you were formerly Nihilo.
          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
            EVERYTHING is about grammar in the inspired text. Faith is a noun. Belief is the same noun. Nouns aren’t verbs. And nouns do the action, so faith believes. Man doesn’t believe apart from faith believING.

            You did NOT explain why faith is a work, because it’s impossible. So your explanation is simply wrong. And you’ve come against Biblical Monergism as an alleged Calvinist. If you don’t understand faith as a noun, you can’t be an authentic Calvinist.

            This is beyond sad.
            People get stuck with certain ideas no matter what particular stance they may have.

            Consistency can only exist if one is open to "rightly dividing", and I almost hate to use that term since it brings out the stiff lip on so many people.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
              Ohhhhhhhhhhh. I didn’t know you were formerly Nihilo.
              I think he's been doing some studying since we saw him last.

              Hopefully, we all have.

              2 Timothy 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                Believe and believing are verbs.
                'Believing' is also a verbal noun.
                • Joe is believing that x is y. (verb)
                • There's no good reason for Joe's believing that x is y. (verbal noun)
                What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                What fact do you have to support your claim that what you call "fact" is fact?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                  You do not understand the significance of the Filioque and its inclusion or exclusion; nor the reasons for its spurious existence in the creed/s. As long as there is a Papacy, there cannot and should not be reconciliation. The Papacy would simply absorb all else by its power-mongering. Papists and anti-Papists cannot co-exist in “unity”.
                  My goodness.

                  Do grown men really argue over this?

                  That's like arguing over which comes first...the chicken or the egg.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                    My goodness.

                    Do grown men really argue over this?

                    That's like arguing over which comes first...the chicken or the egg.
                    Well... It was historically one of the two or three greatest schisms in the Christian faith, and for good reason if one understands the implications.

                    The only way I can explicate the importance is to ask if someone would personally consider a Tritheist (similar to the Hindu “godhead” understanding) or a full-blown Arian (the Son as a created deity of a different and lower form of divinity than the Father) or Sabellian (a Modalist like TD Jakes or a UPC Oneness proponent) or a Unitarian (like oatmeal and others here who wholly deny the divinity of our Lord) to be authentically representing Christian doctrine?

                    The Filioque determines many things relative to the minutiae of Theology Proper doctrine. It would at least be important for those in spiritual authority and service roles to have sound doctrine in this regard, even if it matters less to those in the pew. And I’m speaking of this theological argument being at the Ecclesiological level, not necessary amongst the laity who have less accountability, etc.

                    Is that a fair apologetic for the limited scope of this argument? (I was speaking to Idolator in this context, not as a theological ball and chain for everyone in the congregations.)
                    Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; March 13, 2019, 12:06 AM.
                    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                      I think he's been doing some studying since we saw him last.

                      Hopefully, we all have.

                      2 Timothy 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
                      Agreed. Nicely said.
                      Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                      “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                        People get stuck with certain ideas no matter what particular stance they may have.

                        Consistency can only exist if one is open to "rightly dividing", and I almost hate to use that term since it brings out the stiff lip on so many people.
                        Very true. Thanks for posting here.
                        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          'Believing' is also a verbal noun.
                          • Joe is believing that x is y. (verb)
                          • There's no good reason for Joe's believing that x is y. (verbal noun)
                          Yes, of course it “can” be; but most often is not. And it would be designated in grammatical notations if it were. But even being a verbal noun, doesn’t mean it’s not a noun. It means the noun is the thing doing the action, which is exactly what I’ve stated.

                          The issue is whether man is doing a work when there’s a noun OR a verbal noun. Neither is a work. It’s either the thing or the thing’s internal activity as a noun (THAT’s the anarthrous construct in Greek THAT HAS NO ENGLISH EQUIVALENT). So the tendency is for English speakers to convert Greek nouns into English verbs, and then use the excuse that they occasionally appear as verbal nouns.

                          A verbal noun is the noun doing the action because the interal activity of the noun’s state of being comes forth externally. This is not and cannot be a work. This is merely the noun’s functional activity like a table holding up dishes and food/beverage items because it’s a table. The table is NOT “tabling”.

                          (And your example in Greek would be representative of an infinitive or a participle, which are in their own grammatical category. So even your example is not really applicable.)
                          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                          Comment


                          • Any way it’s addressed, faith cannot be considered a work by man. Faith is a noun as the thing that is given by God that is the thing that does the actING of believING, according to the thing heard (the message) by means of the very Word of God.

                            If someone has no cellphone that does the actual calling, they cannot CALL (verb) anyone. If someone is not given faith out of the message by the Word of God, they cannot believe (verb).

                            Faith itself believes. Man only believes because he has the thing that believes.
                            Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                            “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                            Comment


                            • Directly to the point of the verse that Beloved57 horrifically proof-texted.

                              2Thessalonians 2:13
                              “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief (anarthrous NOUN) of the truth.”

                              There are several grammatically important things here, and I’ll try to be brief and concise.

                              First, “through sanctificaton”. Through is en, which is “in”, not kata “according to” or dia “via”. Sanctification is in the dative case. ENGLISH DOESN’T HAVE NOUN CASES, JUST LIKE IT DOESN’T HAVE AN ANARTHROUS NOUN FORM. This is crucial, but English speakers have no idea it is so.

                              What follows is “faith” as an ANARTHROUS NOUN, also in the dative case. The dative (in this instance) indicates the condition in which something operates. The thing operatING is soteria (salvation). Soteria has its activity IN hagiasmos (sanctification, the noun as condition) and pistis (faith, the noun as condition). These are adverbial as the “how” of soteria (salvation), and soteria is the object unto which God has chosen us from the beginning. God is ultimately the agent distributing the salvation, and doing so by means of the nouns that are sanctification and faith (the “how”).

                              God is thus granting the salvation, and must also be granting the “hows” of that salvation in sanctification and faith. And in fact, we can see the Trinitarian formulation represented in that God the Father is granting salvation; the Spirit is the source of sanctification; and truth (who is the Son as the eternal and uncreated Logos) is the source of faith.

                              NONE of this verse points to “belief” being a verb or a verbal noun. Not even an infinitive or participle could be remotely inferred.

                              Truth is the source of faith (the NOUN), and the Spirit is the source of sanctification (the NOUN). Each of these nouns do indeed have internal activity. All nouns do, though these are indicating the condition in which salvation is operating. That condition is all the qualities of sanctification and faith as every aspect of those nouns. But English speakers don’t understand the qualitative aspects of nouns as being internal activity that is state of being and condition.

                              This verse CANNOT be appropriately understood to be faith as believING. That would negate the very meaning of the words and their grammatical forms, and the verse’s actual meaning. This verse is explaining “how” God has chosen us unto salvation; and those two “hows” are the things that are given by the Spirit and truth, respectively.

                              Beloved57 couldn’t more wrong if he willfully tried to contort scripture, but he’s done the same damage in ignorance of Greek grammar to replace the authentic message of the text with conflated nouns as verbs. There is nothing more heinous than this lack AND accompanying replacement (except to perpetually double down on the horrific error repeatedly as he has done).
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                Well... It was historically one of the two or three greatest schisms in the Christian faith, and for good reason if one understands the implications.
                                Which ones are you thinking of? The one in AD 1054 is obviously one, and the Reformation another, which is your potential third? 'Just comparing notes is all.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                The only way I can explicate the importance is to ask if someone would personally consider a Tritheist (similar to the Hindu “godhead” understanding) or a full-blown Arian (the Son as a created deity of a different and lower form of divinity than the Father) or Sabellian (a Modalist like TD Jakes or a UPC Oneness proponent) or a Unitarian (like oatmeal and others here who wholly deny the divinity of our Lord) to be authentically representing Christian doctrine?

                                The Filioque determines many things relative to the minutiae of Theology Proper doctrine. It would at least be important for those in spiritual authority and service roles to have sound doctrine in this regard, even if it matters less to those in the pew. And I’m speaking of this theological argument being at the Ecclesiological level, not necessary amongst the laity who have less accountability, etc.

                                Is that a fair apologetic for the limited scope of this argument? (I was speaking to Idolator in this context, not as a theological ball and chain for everyone in the congregations.)
                                For me the argument is around Apostolicity. I have no way of confirming or denying that an alleged Apostolic oral teaching is authentically Apostolic or not (if it's not also in the Scripture), so I have to refer to a source outside of myself.

                                The Protestant way is to try to mimick the Bereans, mentioned in Acts, and only receive as Apostolic that which was (I'd argue, "somewhat arbitrarily") recorded in the New Testament, but this all by itself was never the way the Church authenticated teachings, in part due to reading Peter's own epistle warning against the wanton private interpretation of Scripture, but mainly because Christians were taught to submit to their bishops in all matters of faith and morals, and this practice is confirmed throughout the early and middle history of the Church. In fact the practice was so clear, that certain clusters of Christians and their false teachings were trivially dispatched as inauthentic and non-Apostolic, through just noting that they didn't have any bishop pastoring them. They were just sheep outside the fold. At least if there was a bishop involved, it's worth considering that he was teaching authentically Apostolic things, such as the Arian dispute, when the Arian bishops' Apostolic oral tradition was authoritatively ruled incomplete by the magisterium at Nicaea.

                                As I've repeated numerous times, we non-bishops are left trying our best to sort out fact from fiction, while we all wait for the bishops to get their collective act together and reunite, as it was in the beginning. Until then we come to our own conclusions, but I commit right now to submit to them when they do reunite, whether it's to retroactively inauthenticate /falsify 'filioque' as Apostolic, or to confirm its Apostolicity.

                                I've set out why I think that it's Apostolic, because of the Apostolic heritage in and around Rome. I don't have any trouble believing that if two distinct Apostolic oral traditions ever differ, that Rome's tradition should be favored, and is the more complete and authentic one. Others can and do differ, but this is all because the bishops can't get their act together imo. It's above my paygrade!
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X