Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is believing/faith a work ?

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

  • Originally posted by Aimiel View Post
    You're attempting to make The Bible into a lie. Scripture says that NO ONE has entered into Heaven on works. I believe Scripture. Yes, we have faith in God. Yes, believing is a work. That work being done in us by God is His Grace. We don't have the faith to believe. We don't have the courage to stand up and say, "I want to be saved." God does it for us, in us and through us. He is Sovereign. We can do NOTHING good, except God do it through us. That's a fact. There is NONE good. None seeks after God. Fact.
    More false accusations.
    "... 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 oatmeal View Post
      Salvation is not a work of the flesh as you may have pointed out.

      Salvation is a completed work of God in Christ which we receive by doing Romans 10:9.

      Does it take effort on our part to meet the prerequisites of Romans 10:9? Yes.

      But did we earn our salvation?

      No it is a gift bought and paid for by God in Christ.

      Thus it is free to us if we are willing to hold out our mouth and heart to receive it.

      Salvation is a gift which costs us nothing
      You are way off base, I dont see the relevance of all this as it pertains to the OP
      "... 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 oatmeal View Post
        Salvation is a completed work of God in Christ which we receive by doing Romans 10:9.
        "we receive by doing"
        That is legalism. You get if you do. Here's the manual.

        In Romans 10:9, the confession of the mouth cannot happen until God makes the person alive with Christ (see Ephesians 2:1-10).
        It is extremely important to refrain from creating a doctrine from one verse composed of one or two sentences. All of Romans 1-9 lead into Romans 10. The whole of scripture interprets Romans 10:9.
        It is a dangerous doctrine that declares a person is saved if they invoke the incantation known as "the sinners prayer."
        We confess our salvation precisely because God already made us alive with Christ and gave us the gift of faith so that we would believe and fulfill the good works God has ordained for us to do.
        Your claim that "we receive by doing" removes grace from the equation. God repeatedly tells us we are saved by grace through faith, which is not of ourselves.
        We receive because God chose to give. We respond by confessing in faith.
        We do not receive by doing. Our efforts are filthy and wretched. There is nothing we do that will persuade God that we are worthy of his salvation.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          This is all regarding the general topic of Greek anarthrous nouns; a grammatical construct that is absolutely missing from English and most other languages. I’m convinced it’s one of the premiere reasons God inspired the use of Greek for the New Testament through its human authorship.

          In English, nouns are referred to by either the definite article (the, this, that) or indefinite article (a, an). These are very simple distinctions for basic specificity of items. The definite article particularizes in a way that highlights a specific object over many/all such objects.

          Greek nouns are all innately anarthrous, which most overarchingly means “unsegmented”; and the anarthrous form of the noun refers to the qualities, characteristics, and functional activities of the noun. This generally designates the state of being for the noun, referring to all its many aspects and facets.

          An example would be “table”. In Greek, the default noun construct refers to “table-ness”, and broadly always refers to every possible attribute that could be ascribed to any table of any kind for any use.

          Tables are generally utilized to hold certain things up. A dining table, for instance, is utilized to support various place settings of dishes and utensils and beverage containers, along with any number of prepared food dishes. A dining table would then be performing certain passive forms of action, but a table is never referred to as “tabling” when holding up things it was designed to support for usage.

          This is a table’s functional activity, which is an aspect or facet of its “table-ness”. The table isn’t actively “doing” anything. It’s static, not dynamic. There is no economy of action being overtly accomplished by a table when it is exhibiting its functional activity as a table. There is no verb here. Only the noun and all its qualitative considerations.

          The same is true for faith. It’s an anarthrous noun like all other Greek nouns. It’s the thing that comes out of the message/report in Romans 10:17 that is also a noun (but is almost universally misunderstood as a verb by English speakers).

          “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN in both instances in this verse. It is NOT a verb indicating actING or resulting actION/S. It’s rendered as “report” (in the KJV and others) in the previous verse, but “hearing” in v17. More explicitly it is “the thing heard”, just as faith is “the thing believed”.

          Faith is the confident assurance and persuasion that comes out of the thing heard as the thing believed. And faith is the anarthrous noun that has all internal functional activity for believING. Faith is the thing given by God so that when we “have” it we can then believe because faith has the functional activity we need to accomplish the act of believING.

          We cannot believe without the faith itself. Faith has all believING within it, for belief (faith) is that which comes out of the thing heard as the thing believed. By man “having” faith, he then can function according to the funcional activity of the thing he has.

          An example would be a person and a cell phone. A person cannot make a call on a cellular network without “having” a cell phone. The cell phone has all the internal functional hardware and software to make calls, so if someone “has” a cell phone they can make a call. But without the thing that does the calling, man cannot make any cell phone calls. It’s impossible.

          The same is true of an axe and a tree. Man cannot chop down a tree unless he has an axe (or other implement). So it IS man chopping down a tree, but it’s the axe that is the thing man has to chop down the tree. There must be an axe or man cannot accomplish the action.

          Without faith as the confident assurance and persuasion as the thing believed, man cannot believe. So the internal functional activity of faith is that which does the believING, but it is man who HAS the faith that believes. So man indeed believes, but only because he has faith.

          Make no mistake, faith has all the latent internal functional activity for believING, and man does not. Man must be given faith by God for man to believe. Man only believes because he has faith. And faith in all these instances is articular. It is THE faith, not just “a” faith.

          Anyone who has been confidently assured and persuaded by a message/report that came by any word/s has “a” faith. But THE faith is the thing that comes out of THE message/report which came by means of THE very Rhema of God.

          The quality of the rhema is the means of the message/report as the thing heard. And out of that will come a commensurate quality of faith that will either be THE faith (by God’s Rhema) or “another” faith (by whatever other rhema).

          Of course man believes. But man only believes because THE faith has the internal functional activity of believING within it, and that man can then thus believe.
          I see from this that we are saying the same thing, albeit that you are able to dissect it for us intelligently. Thanks for taking the time.

          In the case of the cell phone, you are not suggesting that the cell phone makes the call on its own without the knowledge, intent or involvement of the owner. God's purpose is to give His creatures the ability, which sin has taken away, to reconnect with Him; and the gift of faith is the central apparatus of that new birth. It is that which is implanted by God, responding to Himself by involving us in the process.

          I also see that, within this explanation is the idea that, it is impossible for one who has been spoken to by the true Rheema of God not to respond to it and utilize the new gifts to act according to the 'new man'. In this sense it is understood that it is all the work of God by the process of involving dead men in the process of their own salvation/redemption. Even the involvement has order; God first, creature second.

          I have struggled trying to find the right words to explain the purpose of prayer according to this concept. It is God's delight to invite dead men, in history, to participate in His purposes for good towards all. Even petition, when viewed this way is involvement by means of invitation.
          Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

          Comment


          • Receiving the faith “of Christ” from God, is more relevant and akin to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness than it has to do with good works of obedience.
            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
            Gordon H. Clark

            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
            Charles Spurgeon

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MennoSota View Post
              "we receive by doing"
              That is legalism. You get if you do. Here's the manual.

              In Romans 10:9, the confession of the mouth cannot happen until God makes the person alive with Christ (see Ephesians 2:1-10).
              It is extremely important to refrain from creating a doctrine from one verse composed of one or two sentences. All of Romans 1-9 lead into Romans 10. The whole of scripture interprets Romans 10:9.
              It is a dangerous doctrine that declares a person is saved if they invoke the incantation known as "the sinners prayer."
              We confess our salvation precisely because God already made us alive with Christ and gave us the gift of faith so that we would believe and fulfill the good works God has ordained for us to do.
              Your claim that "we receive by doing" removes grace from the equation. God repeatedly tells us we are saved by grace through faith, which is not of ourselves.
              We receive because God chose to give. We respond by confessing in faith.
              We do not receive by doing. Our efforts are filthy and wretched. There is nothing we do that will persuade God that we are worthy of his salvation.
              For anyone to confess anything you must knowledge of it.

              Romans 10 9 is not the sinners prayer.

              God does not require us to confess that we are sinners in order to receive salvation but the savior from sin.

              You receiving a gift with earning a wage.

              Salvation is a gift not a wage.

              If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.

              Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages

              Sadly you have conflated earning wages with receiving a gift
              "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

              "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

              Pro scripture = Protestant

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oatmeal View Post
                For anyone to confess anything you must knowledge of it.

                Romans 10 9 is not the sinners prayer.

                God does not require us to confess that we are sinners in order to receive salvation but the savior from sin.

                You receiving a gift with earning a wage.
                Receiving a wage is not receiving a gift. You sell your time and resources via contract and the buyer pays you for your effort. No gift involved.

                Salvation is a gift not a wage.
                Of course it is. It's an act of grace. God giving to you what you don't deserve.

                If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.
                Wrong. Whether you respond in acceptance or rejection is irrelevant. It's a gift regardless if what you do with it.

                Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages
                Nope. God's gracious gift is given. God gifts us faith so that we can actually believe the gift is ours. God chooses who He will give His gift. Not one rebel will accept God's gift as an offer. God must overrun us, completely defeat us and shove the gift down our throats like medicine that a child fights to exhaustion.

                Sadly you have conflated earning wages with receiving a gift
                Nope, I haven't.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oatmeal View Post
                  If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.


                  You're quite the genius.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oatmeal View Post

                    Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages
                    You received the gift of life.

                    What effort did you put into it?
                    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                    It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                      OK.
                      Can you clarify then how it would be possible to detect an oral tradition through the examination of written historical records?
                      What do you mean by, "an oddly vascillating period of time," and by, "characteristic of the Filioque?"
                      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.
                      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.
                      '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.
                      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.
                      You're clearly convinced in your own mind.
                      Me too.
                      But the bishops are in that same text.
                      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.
                      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.
                      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.

                      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.
                      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.
                      Bump for [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]
                      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                      @Nee_Nihilo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                        More false accusations.
                        What, specifically do you find fault with. I don't see fault there.
                        "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

                        If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aimiel View Post
                          What, specifically do you find fault with. I don't see fault there.
                          That what you accused me of.
                          "... 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


                          • Whatever.
                            "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

                            If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MennoSota View Post
                              Receiving a wage is not receiving a gift. You sell your time and resources via contract and the buyer pays you for your effort. No gift involved.

                              Of course it is. It's an act of grace. God giving to you what you don't deserve.

                              Wrong. Whether you respond in acceptance or rejection is irrelevant. It's a gift regardless if what you do with it.


                              Nope. God's gracious gift is given. God gifts us faith so that we can actually believe the gift is ours. God chooses who He will give His gift. Not one rebel will accept God's gift as an offer. God must overrun us, completely defeat us and shove the gift down our throats like medicine that a child fights to exhaustion.

                              Nope, I haven't.
                              Did you read what you wrote?

                              You cannot have it both ways

                              Either you receive it or refuse it.

                              If you refuse it you do not have it

                              If you do what it takes to receive it then you do have it.

                              Salvation is a gift that takes effort, though very little effort in comparison to the price of the gift, to receive.
                              "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

                              "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

                              Pro scripture = Protestant

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oatmeal View Post
                                Did you read what you wrote?

                                You cannot have it both ways

                                Either you receive it or refuse it.

                                If you refuse it you do not have it

                                If you do what it takes to receive it then you do have it.

                                Salvation is a gift that takes effort, though very little effort in comparison to the price of the gift, to receive.
                                God's gift is like medicine. He chooses to give it to whom he wills. He forces it down the throat of the person who fights him tooth and nail. When it goes down, the person repents of his/her fighting and praises God for the healing gift he has given.
                                You cannot reject God's gift when he chooses to give it to you. Please stop thinking you have any power to defeat the will of God or to thwart it. You don't. You can't. You will not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X