Actually, faith is a gift from God.
A Peculiar Kind of Gospel
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
The scripture calls us to love, volitionally. And in that love we submit to God, and by submitting we are caused to obey. Obedience is an effect of grace.
This verse is a warning to watch out for unbelievers who are hiding among the brethren.
See above.
Okay.
Do you live as if you believe this?
The day-to-day is in the hands fo God. You are not called to do certain things, thereby allowing Christ to live in you. Yuo are called to let Christ live in you, thereby living as a slave to righteousness.
I completely agree. Of course, the knowledge of the truth sets us free, and in some instances we will be immediately free of the desires for some things.
The question you must ask yourself is this: If you don't believe, at one point, did you truly beleive before? When you know Christ, you will not stop believing in Him? And, is disobedience evidence of unbelief in His Lordship? No. It is only disobedience. And why are you ashamed? You are not condemned. And it is normal to fail sometimes. We all do. There is nothing to be ashamed of. If you are in Christ, you are not condemned, so don't condemn yourself. You are approved of God, and approved workmen are not ashamed.
Faith is faith. You either have faith, or you don't. Yes, sometimes we can be weak, because we submit to the flesh. But that does not mean that our faith is weak. It only means that sometimes our faith in ourself comes into focus, and when that happens, we fail. And then we see our failures. It is not then that we should be ashamed, it is then that we should refocus on Christ.
That's not the Open Theist argument. That's the Acts 9 dispensationalist argument. Open Theism is the belief that God does not know the future, exhaustively. There are Calvinists who say Hebrews was not written to the Body, but to the Bride. And Calvinists are definitely not open theists.
We walk in Him, and live in Him, because He lives in us. Not the other way around.
This is a Calvinistic assumption that supports TULIP. They say regeneration precedes faith. Arminians usually say that repentant faith precedes regeneration. This is another unresolved controversy. Practically, they happen simultaneously.
Eph. 2:8-10 is grammatically difficult to exegete. It is likely that the antecedent issue would make salvation, not faith, a gift of God. Grace is the grounds for salvation. Faith is a condition for salvation. Salvation itself is a gift from God. Works are the fruit of the root of faith. In a sense, faith is a gift from God, but it is not apart from our will, intellect, and emotions (the Latin theologians defined faith as consisting of notitia/knowledge, assensus/mental assent, and fiducia/trust).
We are commanded to believe on Jesus Christ, to repent, etc. This involves our wills inspired by the Spirit's work and enablement. Faith is not a passive 'thing' done to us or given to us apart from an openness to His conviction and drawing. Faith has content and an object that is trustworthy and true.
I say neither. Repentance is an effect of grace. Regeneration is an effect of grace. And grace is recieved by faith. Faith is a gift from God. So these things are also effects of faith. And they are all gifts of God. And I include salvation in this, as well.
[qutoe]Eph. 2:8-10 is grammatically difficult to exegete. It is likely that the antecedent issue would make salvation, not faith, a gift of God. Grace is the grounds for salvation. Faith is a condition for salvation. Salvation itself is a gift from God. Works are the fruit of the root of faith. In a sense, faith is a gift from God, but it is not apart from our will, intellect, and emotions (the Latin theologians defined faith as consisting of notitia/knowledge, assensus/mental assent, and fiducia/trust).[/quote]
I agree with what the Latins said. And Christ is the one who keeps our faith alive. And the fruit of faith are the fruit of the Spirit. Those are not things we produce, only things we bear.
Faith is a gift from God, and trepentance is an effect of grace. We repent, because we are saved. Not the other way around.
And, if you agree with my other post, as you have said, take it to its conclusion.
When we initially repent and trust Christ we were not saved before that repentant faith. Subsequent to salvation, new repentance occurs while we are saved. God's love and grace does lead us to repentance, but a word study of repentance in the whole Bible also shows a volitional element (180 degree turn, change of mind/will).
Grace is not irresistible. Faith is not foisted on us. We repent in response to the conviction of the Spirit. In Acts, some repented as the Gospel was preached, others procrastinated, and some mocked. There is a divine-human interaction (which does not mean that salvation is of man or works related). Reconciliation/relationship involves 2 parties by definition.
Can you exegetically defend your assumptions without prooftexts?
Sozo
New member
Absolutely true!
Repentance from what?
A person who is saved has changed both his mind and will. Are you asking him to change it back again? Are you endorsing double-mindedness?
Agreed!
No, but is has been dispensed. "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith."
That is true, but that can only happen once. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, because they do not believe in Jesus.
"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me"
The major sins for an unbeliever are unbelief, selfishness, rebellion, godlessness.
I am still having trouble understanding your view that Christians cannot sin. We all know godly leaders who are genuine believers who have had affairs. The moral law of God embodied in the 10 commandments calls adultery sin. God judges the sin of the unbeliever, but He also judged sin in the camp of His people Israel or the Church. A holy God does not call it sin if committed by an unbeliever and the same act not sin if committed by a believer. Many falllen believers have been restored after repentance and renewed obedience. I do not think this takes away from the fact we are in Christ, have His life/righteousness, etc. Repentance seems to be a concept applied initially when we turn from Self to the Savior and then in another sense if we lapse as a believer (sinful motive, act, thought, etc.). I John, Cor., Hebrews etc. seems to teach that believers do not have to sin, should not sin, but that IF they do sin, we have an advocate (I Jn. 1:9 If we confess...He is faithful...I would note the continuous present tenses that distinguish an ongoing lifestyle of sin as an unbeliever from an isolated sin as a believer). I understand that you feel that a believer cannot possibly sin or that it is automatically not counted against them, but I do not think this is explicit in Scripture and would leave a believer without genuine free moral agency. Yes, we have the mind of Christ and our wills should conform to His will, but numerous exhortations seem to indicate it is possible to quench and grieve the Spirit because we have self-determining wills pre and post conversion. We are even more free as a believer and are not in the bondage of sin. This still does not necessitate that we cannot possibly commit adultery, for example (which surely is a sin, no matter how you slice it).
I have never committed adultery, but if I did, I would expect the conviction of the Spirit, I would repent, ask forgiveness of God and man, and go and sin no more. I would be deceiving myself with lies if I thought God did not see my acts because of His blood and that I can persist in adultery with impunity. We do not lose our salvation, but surely we have to make things right and have our life in Christ reflected in reality and true righteousness. I know King David was not 'born again', but he was a believer who sinned. Ps. 32; 51 are still models for OT and NT believers of a broken heart, confession, repentance, and restoration. Against you O God we have sinned. There was sin in the Corinthian church among believers. Paul did not sweep it under the carpet, but called them to godly repentance and righteous living (cf. Eph.).
I trust my reflections on the holiness of God, sinfulness of man, and reality of the Christian life do not automatically make me a reprobate unbeliever. Even if my theology is a work in progress, this does not mean I cannot love God with my whole heart, mind, and soul. I have always had high academic marks. This does not count for much, but if I cannot fully articulate your view, what do we do with the unsophisticated, uneducated new believer? Have they no hope of salvation because they cannot understand how to live a godly life when they struggle with the flesh and temptation? Is trying to understand the work of Christ and victorious Christian living damnable? Is one better not to wrestle with these issues and simply trust Christ and hope for the best? Does more reflection risk the validity of one's initial simple faith?:help:
I am still having trouble understanding your view that Christians cannot sin. We all know godly leaders who are genuine believers who have had affairs. The moral law of God embodied in the 10 commandments calls adultery sin. God judges the sin of the unbeliever, but He also judged sin in the camp of His people Israel or the Church. A holy God does not call it sin if committed by an unbeliever and the same act not sin if committed by a believer. Many falllen believers have been restored after repentance and renewed obedience. I do not think this takes away from the fact we are in Christ, have His life/righteousness, etc. Repentance seems to be a concept applied initially when we turn from Self to the Savior and then in another sense if we lapse as a believer (sinful motive, act, thought, etc.). I John, Cor., Hebrews etc. seems to teach that believers do not have to sin, should not sin, but that IF they do sin, we have an advocate (I Jn. 1:9 If we confess...He is faithful...I would note the continuous present tenses that distinguish an ongoing lifestyle of sin as an unbeliever from an isolated sin as a believer). I understand that you feel that a believer cannot possibly sin or that it is automatically not counted against them, but I do not think this is explicit in Scripture and would leave a believer without genuine free moral agency. Yes, we have the mind of Christ and our wills should conform to His will, but numerous exhortations seem to indicate it is possible to quench and grieve the Spirit because we have self-determining wills pre and post conversion. We are even more free as a believer and are not in the bondage of sin. This still does not necessitate that we cannot possibly commit adultery, for example (which surely is a sin, no matter how you slice it).
I have never committed adultery, but if I did, I would expect the conviction of the Spirit, I would repent, ask forgiveness of God and man, and go and sin no more. I would be deceiving myself with lies if I thought God did not see my acts because of His blood and that I can persist in adultery with impunity. We do not lose our salvation, but surely we have to make things right and have our life in Christ reflected in reality and true righteousness. I know King David was not 'born again', but he was a believer who sinned. Ps. 32; 51 are still models for OT and NT believers of a broken heart, confession, repentance, and restoration. Against you O God we have sinned. There was sin in the Corinthian church among believers. Paul did not sweep it under the carpet, but called them to godly repentance and righteous living (cf. Eph.).
I trust my reflections on the holiness of God, sinfulness of man, and reality of the Christian life do not automatically make me a reprobate unbeliever. Even if my theology is a work in progress, this does not mean I cannot love God with my whole heart, mind, and soul. I have always had high academic marks. This does not count for much, but if I cannot fully articulate your view, what do we do with the unsophisticated, uneducated new believer? Have they no hope of salvation because they cannot understand how to live a godly life when they struggle with the flesh and temptation? Is trying to understand the work of Christ and victorious Christian living damnable? Is one better not to wrestle with these issues and simply trust Christ and hope for the best? Does more reflection risk the validity of one's initial simple faith?:help:
Last edited:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Hold on a minute, sunshine.... I count four separate items there, not one.
I can understand why selfishness and rebellion might be considered sinful. They damage others and negatively impact society, as well as the individual. From my point of view "sin" is unecessarily causing injury to another. Causing unecessary injury to oneself is not sinful; just stupid.
Why is unbelief a sin? Isn't unbelief merely ignorance of the existence of your deity? Why would a "loving God" punish people for being ignorant?
Godlessness is a state, not an action or a choice. When one is without a deity, one is godless. Period. That makes no comment about the individual's morality, fitness to live in society, earning capacity, quality of parenting, etc.
BTW, doesn't godlessness go hand in hand with unbelief?
That makes at least two of us. :thumb:
Do you really think Jesus of Nazareth was spewing invective against the Pharisees? I think it was hypocrisy he was concerned with. And Matthew is putting words into Jesus' mouth so that the Pharisees in Matthew's own time would be put on notice that Matthew's Jesus would not approve of what they were doing to Matthew's community of believers.
Which, actually, is what Sozo and Crow are doing: they are hijacking their mistaken idea of Jesus to use against anyone and everyone they disagree with:
Do you vote Democratic? Then Jesus condemns you.
Are you open-hearted toward gay people? Then you are going to hell.
Do I declare you an un-Christian? Then Jesus agrees.
Learning how to be biblically literate is learning not to take the Bible at face value. It is a sacred text--and it is a complex blend of theology, oral tradition and history.
I'll let you in on a little secret: if this guy Jesus was recognized as the Messiah, the Son of God or the Prince of Peace as he was walking, preaching and healing on this earth, HE WOULD NOT BE LIKE MOST SECULAR HUMANS BITTERLY BADGERING OTHERS, KEEPING SCORE, BEING VINDICTIVE OR CONDEMNING OTHERS.
Jesus was far from ordinary. Do you really feel that the appropriate heart to bring before the Cross should be filled with rage? Revenge? Petty human thoughts or emotions?
Nope.
Which, actually, is what Sozo and Crow are doing: they are hijacking their mistaken idea of Jesus to use against anyone and everyone they disagree with:
Do you vote Democratic? Then Jesus condemns you.
Are you open-hearted toward gay people? Then you are going to hell.
Do I declare you an un-Christian? Then Jesus agrees.
Learning how to be biblically literate is learning not to take the Bible at face value. It is a sacred text--and it is a complex blend of theology, oral tradition and history.
I'll let you in on a little secret: if this guy Jesus was recognized as the Messiah, the Son of God or the Prince of Peace as he was walking, preaching and healing on this earth, HE WOULD NOT BE LIKE MOST SECULAR HUMANS BITTERLY BADGERING OTHERS, KEEPING SCORE, BEING VINDICTIVE OR CONDEMNING OTHERS.
Jesus was far from ordinary. Do you really feel that the appropriate heart to bring before the Cross should be filled with rage? Revenge? Petty human thoughts or emotions?
Nope.
Zak, I edited the grammar of sin/sins. I originally kept it singular because I feel unbelief/rebellion/selfishness/godlessness are essentially the same root and related sins. If the Greatest Commandment is to love God and others with our whole hearts, then the greatest sin is to not love God and others with our whole being. Rejection of Christ to death is the only unforgiveable sin.
Sin is primarily against a Holy God, not just hurting others: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight..." Ps. 51:4
Sin is primarily against a Holy God, not just hurting others: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight..." Ps. 51:4
And who changes our minds and our wills?
If you know it, it is. Can you turn away? I didn't think so. So shut up.
All are reconciled, due to Christ's death on the cross. But those who do not confess Jesus as Lord [have no relationship with Him] are not saved.
What? Firstly, I make no assumptions. And I could not defend assumptions, even with scripture, for assumptions are lies. But I can defend scripture. However, I cannot defend scripture without scripture? What is wrong with you, that you would ask such a thing? How can you assume that my beliefs could be defended apart from scripture when what I believe is scripture?:kookoo:
I am now fully convinced you don't know the truth. And I am also convinced that you do not truly know Christ.
I will not attempt to defend scripture without using scripture, so I present you with:
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
-Hebrews 12:2
lighthouse:
How rude. ('so shut up').
When did you start speaking ex cathedra? Since when is every one of your subjective interpretations infallible? Virtually no Bible teacher or believer claims to have infallible understanding of every verse (especially since you have not mastered Hebrew and Greek). Even the pope does not claim to speak infallibly every minute of his life.
When did you become the God/Judge of the universe pronouncing me as a hell bound sinner because I dare to question a few of your ideas?
You seem to lean to Open Theism as I do. Most evangelicals would consider this heretical. Would you appreciate your fellow believers condemning you to hell for limiting God (according to their understanding of our view)?
Your zeal is a thinly veiled arrogance/egoism. You have not been right on everything, so unless you develop some humility, you have no credibility to teach or rebuke.
I have said that sin is transgression of the law and lawlessness. There are other verses that would expand on that and flesh out other aspects of what sin is. Sin is rebellion, selfishness, etc. When I say that it is a wrong moral choice, you fail to recognize that that is synonymous with transgression of the law. Its not the phrase you are familiar with so you assume it must be wrong.
Could you clarify what you mean by Christians can fornicate, murder, etc. and in the next breath you say they are not Christians or are dead to sin?
How rude. ('so shut up').
When did you start speaking ex cathedra? Since when is every one of your subjective interpretations infallible? Virtually no Bible teacher or believer claims to have infallible understanding of every verse (especially since you have not mastered Hebrew and Greek). Even the pope does not claim to speak infallibly every minute of his life.
When did you become the God/Judge of the universe pronouncing me as a hell bound sinner because I dare to question a few of your ideas?
You seem to lean to Open Theism as I do. Most evangelicals would consider this heretical. Would you appreciate your fellow believers condemning you to hell for limiting God (according to their understanding of our view)?
Your zeal is a thinly veiled arrogance/egoism. You have not been right on everything, so unless you develop some humility, you have no credibility to teach or rebuke.
I have said that sin is transgression of the law and lawlessness. There are other verses that would expand on that and flesh out other aspects of what sin is. Sin is rebellion, selfishness, etc. When I say that it is a wrong moral choice, you fail to recognize that that is synonymous with transgression of the law. Its not the phrase you are familiar with so you assume it must be wrong.
Could you clarify what you mean by Christians can fornicate, murder, etc. and in the next breath you say they are not Christians or are dead to sin?
Apparently you weren't listening.
I never said I was infallible, either. But God is.
I never pronounced you as such. the future is open, ya know.
And besides, it is not my "ideas" you have questioned, it is scripture. Yet, I do not mind this. It is good to question that which is presented, and make sure what scripture says. I do not believe you have done that. You have flat out denied it.
I do more than lean to Open Theism. And they can consign me to hell all they want. And I'll greet them, when we meet in heaven. As I hope to greet you. I even believe that I will greet you. But I got your attention, didn't I? I still wonder why you have not brought the view presented to Christ, though. Because it is He who showed me its truth. Don't forget, not too long ago I agreed with you, completely. Well, I wasn't an open theist. Stupid me.
I have nothing to be arrogant about. Have I been right on everything? No. And I know this. I'm certain there are things I beleive that are not true, even now. But I am learning, and God will lead me into all truth. As I beleive He can with you. The reason I fear that I may be wrong about your salvation, the reason I fear you may not be, is solely because you have been presented with the truth, and you deny it. I only denied what Sozo said, when I did not know what he was basing it on. Then he presented the scriptures he was referring to, and it all became clear, because I was [as I am now] in Christ. I sincerely hope that you are too, and that you will one day [hopefully soon] see the truth in scripture.
If it is synonymous with "transgression of the law" then what do you make of us having no law, and "where there is no law, there is no transgression"? Sin is not immorality, it is unrighteousness. Think about it.
I said that those who "live in sin" are not Christians. But those who are dead to sin can commit such acts. Christians who do these things will regret their deeds, and repent. But they suffer no condemnation for their acts, and they will not suffer death for them. Just because we have no law, doesn't mean that nothing is wrong. It just means that we are not condemned for failings. Even volitional ones. Why? Because we are in Christ, and He will bring us back around. And He will never leave us.
Last edited:
Hey, bro. I think you have circular reasoning/begging the question/assuming what you are trying to prove in relation to the law, sin, and OSAS.
The original autorgraphs of Scripture are objective, infallible truth.
MSS are very accurate, but may have isolated variations or errors (minor).
Our interpretations are subjective at times, but we can know the truth. We are prone to having preconceived ideas and reading them back into Scripture vs exegesis.
Even before the law was given (Exodus), we had murder (Genesis). Just because there was no written law, does not mean there was not an eternal moral law of God based on His character and being. Just because believers are not under ceremonial laws, does not mean that sin is not sin, or that the unchanging law of God has no relevance to us. We do not keep the law to be saved (grace through face), but we live consistent with His moral law because we are in Christ and saved. Whether believer or unbeliever, we agreed that we can fornicate, adulterate, murder. This is sin against a Holy God. I think the rest of your argument that if there is no law for us (wrong assumption...Jesus summarized the Law as loving God and others which still includes the relational and moral details of the Decalogue), then somehow there is no sin. Objectively there is sin whether the law is there or not. The law is that which condemns us and makes us aware of sin and its sanctions for breaking the Law. So, I think you get into circular reasoning and pull ideas together like there is no condemnation in Christ (true), we are not under law, etc. (there is something missing in your understanding of the verse in Romans that you are taking too literally out of context with general teaching elsewhere...follow Paul's argument closer with the eyes of the early Christian/Jewish background).
The original autorgraphs of Scripture are objective, infallible truth.
MSS are very accurate, but may have isolated variations or errors (minor).
Our interpretations are subjective at times, but we can know the truth. We are prone to having preconceived ideas and reading them back into Scripture vs exegesis.
Even before the law was given (Exodus), we had murder (Genesis). Just because there was no written law, does not mean there was not an eternal moral law of God based on His character and being. Just because believers are not under ceremonial laws, does not mean that sin is not sin, or that the unchanging law of God has no relevance to us. We do not keep the law to be saved (grace through face), but we live consistent with His moral law because we are in Christ and saved. Whether believer or unbeliever, we agreed that we can fornicate, adulterate, murder. This is sin against a Holy God. I think the rest of your argument that if there is no law for us (wrong assumption...Jesus summarized the Law as loving God and others which still includes the relational and moral details of the Decalogue), then somehow there is no sin. Objectively there is sin whether the law is there or not. The law is that which condemns us and makes us aware of sin and its sanctions for breaking the Law. So, I think you get into circular reasoning and pull ideas together like there is no condemnation in Christ (true), we are not under law, etc. (there is something missing in your understanding of the verse in Romans that you are taking too literally out of context with general teaching elsewhere...follow Paul's argument closer with the eyes of the early Christian/Jewish background).
- Status