Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is believing/faith a work ?

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

  • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Okay, rather than continue to respond and this escalate, I’m just going to suggest that we are mostly talking past each other based upon how I have expressed a number of things that is different from what you would say and how.

    I’ve seen from other posts that we are likely in agreement, regardless of the disparity of explications here on this topic. So I’m personally going to punch the trip meter and zero it all out between us on this matter. I speak from a specific perspective for a pedogogical reason, and that is at odds with how you receive it and how you personally express these things.

    My tact was to derail a Hyper-Calvinist making false claims that faith itself is a work while disannuling his own Monergism. That there are works OF faith would seem to be sufficient to counter that argument alone.

    The rest I’ll just let lie and endure your ire.
    Yeah, we are likely in agreement in many supremely important things, and I really dig that.
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by blackbirdking View Post
      Dear Beloved,

      Don't ever let your monergistic critics stop you from your posting; you do a wonderful job of exposing monergism for what it is. Many of your brotherly 'elect' will not dare to take it where it leads, because they know it will do to them what it has done to you, and they are ruled by fear rather than faith. They want the assurance of 'election'; however, they know that monergism, when complete, does not allow it.

      The ideas you express show how that God is simply playing and enjoying a chess game with Himself, and the chessmen are all real, live, humans; sadly, you never know if you're a winner or a loser. Happily though, we're all doing the 'Will of God', which hopefully gives us all the same eternal bliss, albeit, it may be in hell.

      One thing you have helped me to understand, is that He did not give me the ability to make choices independently, rather, I inadvertently live out His will for my life; hence, I am never able to love. Now that I realize that God doesn't really want my love, and that I'll be what He made me to be, I am content being what I am. Maybe that's the 'peace that passes understanding'.

      Another thing I've learned from you by this thread is that nobody is saved by works, and nobody is damned by works; it all hinges on the sovereign 'Will of God'. It's interesting to me how that God fooled Adam and Eve into feeling shame, even though they weren't the ones who chose to eat from the tree; it was God himself who chose them to eat. It reminds me of people, monergists, who are fooled into feeling secure in their salvation, while claiming that there are others, who just weren't chosen.

      Another idea I'm gleaning from your post has to do with prayer. I realize that praying is a work and really doesn't change anything; that which is to be will be, and prayer is ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary for sanctification, repentance, salvation, and life in general.

      I am fascinated that the Creator would create a "very good" creation, 'cause' the 'total depravity' of that creation, and then make atonement for part of it by cursing His own son, all for His own pleasure; it truly does reveal His character! It's enough to make one step back and fall down in trepidation and awe of Him.


      Be encouraged and keep up the good fight!
      BBK
      I like it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
        Yeah, we are likely in agreement in many supremely important things, and I really dig that.
        Might I add that I was representing faith as a “thing”; and, in particular, “the thing believed”. So all the bluster about things being nouns was laser-directed at the false representation of Beloved57 that faith was instead a verb.

        The rest, I’m convinced we were talking past each other with intense zeal of disparate trajectories and would likely agree if given the time over a nice fellowship meal.
        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
          Might I add that I was representing faith as a “thing”; and, in particular, “the thing believed”. So all the bluster about things being nouns was laser-directed at the false representation of Beloved57 that faith was instead a verb.

          The rest, I’m convinced we were talking past each other with intense zeal of disparate trajectories and would likely agree if given the time over a nice fellowship meal.
          That's what I think, too, even if I am merely an observer here.

          Comment


          • Here's another scripture that indicates faith has an element of action to it. Jesus says in Mk 11:22

            And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

            This is an imperative that requires action

            The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.

            People try to dismiss truth by worldly arguments, the wisdom of this world.

            Yes Faith here is a noun however an action is required, which is a work
            "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
            preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
            called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
            a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

            Charles Spurgeon !

            Comment


            • Ephesians 2:8-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
              8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

              By the very text of the verses Faith is not a work!
              He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

              Jim Elliot

              Comment


              • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                Here's another scripture that indicates faith has an element of action to it. Jesus says in Mk 11:22

                And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

                This is an imperative that requires action

                The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.

                People try to dismiss truth by worldly arguments, the wisdom of this world.

                Yes Faith here is a noun however an action is required, which is a work
                Right. And nobody said any different. The work is OF faith. It’s not something we can do apart from the faith that is given as a gift that then means we can do the works of faith. Faith is the source of the work/s.

                The same is true of repentance as a noun. It’s the thing (noun) granted by God for us to be able to repent. Metanoia is the changed condition of the heart and mind, by which we are able to know Him and His will, and the repentING is the resulting action that a changed mind’s state of being can “do” because effected that change in a man.
                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
                  Ephesians 2:8-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
                  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

                  By the very text of the verses Faith is not a work!
                  Eph 2:8 doesnt say faith isnt a work.
                  "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
                  preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
                  called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
                  a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

                  Charles Spurgeon !

                  Comment


                  • See the word Love is a noun strongs g26 however that doesnt negate that its also an action done by someone Gal 5:14. So when men argue over such semantics its like Paul says 1 Tim 6:4

                    He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

                    So if a person says they are saved by God because of their act of believing, they are promoting salvation by works, which is condemned in scripture. See salvation is by grace alone apart from works.
                    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
                    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
                    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
                    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

                    Charles Spurgeon !

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                      Eph 2:8 doesnt say faith isnt a work.
                      What do you not understand about God's free gift?
                      He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

                      Jim Elliot

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                        See the word Love is a noun strongs g26 however that doesnt negate that its also an action done by someone Gal 5:14. So when men argue over such semantics its like Paul says 1 Tim 6:4

                        He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

                        So if a person says they are saved by God because of their act of believing, they are promoting salvation by works, which is condemned in scripture. See salvation is by grace alone apart from works.

                        Amen, well said !
                        My soul thirsts for God, the God Who Lives Forever;
                        when shall I be brought in to see His Face? - Psalm 42:2

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                          See the word Love is a noun strongs g26 however that doesnt negate that its also an action done by someone Gal 5:14. So when men argue over such semantics its like Paul says 1 Tim 6:4

                          He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
                          Exactly. THIS IS YOU.

                          So if a person says they are saved by God because of their act of believing,
                          Nobody is saying this. Faith is not believING. Faith is a noun. BelievING is a verb. So you can stop perpetually violating the scripture you just posted above and stop your strifes of words against scripture and grammar.

                          they are promoting salvation by works, which is condemned in scripture. See salvation is by grace alone apart from works.
                          We have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand. Romans 5:2

                          It is of faith that it might be by grace. Romans 4:16

                          Faith is a thing. Faith isn’t believING. Faith is a noun.
                          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
                            What do you not understand about God's free gift?
                            What i understand is that Eph 2:8-9 says nothing about faith not being a work.

                            Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
                            "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
                            preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
                            called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
                            a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

                            Charles Spurgeon !

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                              What i understand is that Eph 2:8-9 says nothing about faith not being a work.

                              Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
                              It doesn’t say faith isn’t a car or a cat or a barn door, either.

                              The fact remains that faith is a noun and not a verb. Faith cannot be a work. Nouns aren’t works. Verbs are works. Period.

                              Your theology is ultimately as bad as the stubborn and uncorrectable Unitarians.
                              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
                                1) During the period both leading into Nicea and between Nicea and Constantinople with the Cappadocian clarifications.
                                2) The Great Schism of 1024
                                3) The Reformation

                                These three stand as the primary schisms, reconciled (the first) or not (the second and third).
                                OK.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                And there is NO way there is Apostolicity attached to the Filioque debate. What emerged was the whims of first one Roman Bishop, and then an intermittent succession of Bishops. It had never been an issue until Rome made it an issue of conflict. There had been no Filioque until Rome belatedly added it.



                                And a simple overview of history indicates it’s quite impossible. I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant available in English to the general public. The Filioque was a late innovation.
                                Can you clarify then how it would be possible to detect an oral tradition through the examination of written historical records?
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                Yeah, and then Rome went rogue and demanded the Filioque be included and imposed it upon the East and all others over an oddly vascillating period of time. There is no characteristic of the Filioque addition being Apostolic.
                                What do you mean by, "an oddly vascillating period of time," and by, "characteristic of the Filioque?"
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                No. History and the Patristics are far from silent, and none of that is fiction.



                                And I do not.
                                Then I find that odd. Your position on the office of Bishop is the same as all Protestants then, that all bishops are all together corrupt and that the office is irreparably invalid. Note that my hypothetical /conditional includes the possibility of all the bishops coming around in some way to each others's way of thinking, and not exclusively the possibility that simply the eastern bishops 'et al.' would 'return' to Catholicism and to the subordination to the papacy (wrt the papacy being 'first among equals' only), nor just the possibility that 'Rome' recants. It could be some arrangement or agreement that none of us has ever even imagined, let alone heard of before. So I find your position odd. Why wouldn't you instead long for the Church's valid bishops all reuniting together again as it was for so many centuries, starting right from Jerusalem in AD 33 on Pentecost? To me, that's the legendary 'New Testament Church' that so many Bible thumping Protestants try to duplicate in their own lives and practices (a very good goal in concept imo, if not in aim); all the bishops together with each other, in communion, teaching uniformly, just as the Apostles designed.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                Ecumenism is not unity
                                I never used that word, and that's not what I'm talking about. True and valid unity must be founded upon authentic Christian /Apostolic teaching, not through compromise or 'dumbing down' this or that teaching, just that everybody can agree to something.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                , and that’s all Rome is capable of at this point.
                                'Rome' cannot reunite all the bishops unilaterally, and I never suggested that 'Rome' could. This will require free cooperation on the part of all the valid bishops.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                It’s what is pervading the current landscape. The Pope has more unity with Islam than with the East, and it’s deteriorating.
                                Islam denies both Christ's Resurrection and that He is God /the Trinity. At least all the bishops agree on these two things, along with many other things, but to compare this with Islam pushes that envelope too far imo.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                And the issue is that I CAN affirm from years of exegetical and lexical perusal in fasting and prayer according to Patristic example and doctrine that I can confirm the authenticity of the Eastern teaching over the innovations of Rome in this regard, and it’s unequivocal.
                                You're clearly convinced in your own mind.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                So I too defer to Apostolicity, but to the Apostolic claims and traditions that actually agree with scripture rather than usurping it.
                                Me too.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                So it’s not my doctrinal predispositions that determine my affiliation (as you insisted earlier), but that my doctrinal predispositions are determined by Holy Tradition as is ALSO explicated in the divinely inspired text.
                                But the bishops are in that same text.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                And the Vatican is one of three city-state entities from which the onslaught of the elitist global agenda is issuing forth. The Vatican is wholly complicit in ALL the history of the secret societies and all else that is building toward One-World everything with Ecumenistic Religion as the third leg of the Communitarian stool.
                                Beyond the scope of this thread, but the only way I see anything like "One-World everything" happening is for the US to resume annexations (which is something I support). And the First Amendment does and will continue to prevent government /police from ever establishing any religion.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                The corrupt fractional reserve world banking systems are related to the corruption of Rome, so Apostolicity isn’t even present in the Ecclesiological ranks of the Romanized Church.
                                The office of bishop was never specified as having any expertise in any other practice beyond the valid celebration of the sacraments, and of teaching the entire Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. So that would exclude banking, government, etc.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                I have 20+ years of irrefutable volumes of research that indicate the Vatican is the seat of nothing but Antichrist with a mask provided by institutionalized corruption with a fascade. So you’re not going to get any traction with me by insisting Rome is anything else, much less Apostolic.
                                The papacy is Apostolic, Peter's Roman pastorate is Apostolic. He held that office, and the office itself didn't die with him. You can disagree that the office is valid at the moment, but you can't reasonably disagree that it is Peter's own Roman pastorate that he vacated when he died, that the Pope today holds, and that in this sense the office is Apostolic. At least, not imo.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                If it’s above your paygrade, then it might be better to remain competely silent and resign it all to those whose paygrade it is.

                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                I cannot and will not agree or concede. I know far too much of the bowels of Papal and Roman corruption. The East remains the last standing bastion of authentic orthodoxy and catholicism.
                                You say this, and yet you make no plans to be received into their communion. Just for comparison, I work with a Catholic priest who is in communion with his bishop (my bishop), and I am on the way to full communion.
                                Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                And I am able to connect the Lutheran Confessions to the East and reconcile all the apparent diversions presumed between them. This is why I can either recite the Creed with or without the Filioque, because I know the exegetical and lexical foundations for why there was a distinction.

                                There IS an aspect of all of this that is NOT beyond ANY Believer’s alleged “paygrade”. Not the decisions for the Body, but about which “side” to yield to as authority. I can’t and won’t yield to Rome and her antichrist corruptions. The Vatican is anathema.
                                OK, but you also don't yield to any bishops. You make yourself into a bishop instead, and you teach and yield to yourself. That idea is not scriptural.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X