Is believing/faith a work ?

glorydaz

New member
I’m speaking broadly of the overall splintering, and in particular the extreme categories and sects that have emerged. So I’m speaking more of resulting spin-offs because of the lack of central integrity of doctrine once we have the Modernist-based autonomy of so many emerging groups. Even the LDS, JW, and SDA ultimately came from this paradigm.

So it’s not that I despise Protestants or Evangelicals or Neo-Charismatics, but the extreme scattering and the cultic sects that have arisen. My comments were in the context of the -isms, not the Brothers and Sisters in Christ that are among all these groups who believe the authentic Gospel of grace.

Ah, then I can agree with you, after all. :thumb:
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
I didn’t get that idea. That’s the way you framed your erroneous question and processed my answer, and that’s the problem.

You remain in state of confusion because you did say that God gives faith. Here is what you said again:

So “having” is an indication that God is giving the faith for the action as the speaker is speaking. This demonstrates that faith comes from God and not man, and that without God giving man this thing, man would not be able to do any action related to what the thing does.

According to your ideas faith comes from God and God gives faith.

Why do you think that God gives faith to some people and He withholds it from other people?
 

Idolater

Well-known member
All your points are well taken. It’s just seems a bit Semi-Universalistic as stated.
No, I just can't believe that. Believing that Jesus of Nazareth was dead, and then on the third day that He rose from the dead, is not a trivial thing to believe. It takes work, especially the more educated that we are. We must really grapple with this. I just cannot personally accept that God's grace cannot cover over whatever other errors a person might make, while really believing that His Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact.

We disagree, and I think that it's OK for us to do so. I just can't personally imagine that such a person, who believes in Christ's Resurrection but even in literally no other Christian thing, is not saved, and an authentic Christian, in one critical way.

I believe that believing in Christ's Resurrection is tantamount to believing in Christ, to believing the Gospel, to being an authentic Christian. That's just what I think.
The Christian faith has historically been more about specific things excluded as anathema than about what must be included. In that context, I agree with you. And I realize you’re not saying that the resurrection is the exclusive content of the Gospel; but it seems so to an extent if I’m projecting myself into the place of those who might hear such comments and perceive exactly that.
And that's why I talk about Christ's Resurrection as a 'seed' or 'kernel,' not unlike the 'Red Pill.' The latter is just a pill, but 'swallowing it' (believing in the Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact) will inevitably start a cascade of dominoes within our souls, I do believe.

It's entirely possible that someone might read my view here, think something facile like, "Oh, that's it? Then I believe in Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact," and then they're "done" with their Christian life, but I haven't yet encountered anybody who's stopped at that one thing. They always think further /deeper than just that.
I’m a Confessional Lutheran because Sacraments are the key foundation that inheres faith to practice
Sacraments are a unique confluence of the eternal with the temporal.
, but I have an overwhelming affinity for the Eastern Church. Orthodoxy is the original and authentic faith, and even pre-schism they were never in support of the Papacy (leading to the schism). So we have inverse affiliations in that regard, though Lutheranism is “Reformed Catholic” rather than Protestant.
We agree to disagree about Orthodoxy being the authentic Christian tradition, though of course I believe that Orthodoxy is very close to Catholicism, going so far as to believe that Orthodox bishops are still validly ordained and that the Orthodox preserve Apostolic succession for the purposes of validly celebrating the sacraments, most importantly the one Eucharist.
I, too, despise Protestantism, and particularly Evangelicalism and its illegitimate step-child of Neo-Charismaticism. I see much that has historically been anathematized in all these categories and groups. So it’s not so much that the resurrection must be included, but an issue of what MUST be excluded to be considered Christian. That’s the Ecumenical pattern for the Councils and all else regarding central Church authority (Pope or not). Individuals don’t have the autonomy and authority that Modernism artificially gives them in modernity.
Here's where I agree: Councils aren't about the faithful, they are about the bishops. When bishops convene a Church council, they compare notes on the particulars of the Apostolic oral tradition that each of them received from their elders (other bishops). For example, at Nicaea, while many see a sort of democratic process for the bishops arriving at the resultant Nicaean creed, I instead see it as a question of the Arian bishops failing to accept /realize that their received Apostolic oral tradition was just slightly deficient for some reason lost to history, and that those bishops instead of refusing to submit, ought to have instead done what I believe all Christians are called to do, which is to submit to our bishops.

As bishops, the general guidance must be tweaked a bit, and that's perhaps where the papacy's real supremacy (speaking as a theological Catholic of course) began to be revealed to the world with substantially more clarity. Though the Pope at the time didn't participate directly at Nicaea, plenty of western bishops did, and it was the western Apostolic oral tradition that did and ought to have 'prevailed' when the council convened, because it must have been the papacy's own Apostolic oral tradition. And the papacy's Apostolic oral tradition is the oral tradition of both Peter and Paul, these two Apostles both having lived, pastored, and died in Rome.

If bishops must also submit to their bishops, then who is the bishops' own bishop? The Pope. All of the bishops are to do just as we are all called to do, and submit to our bishops, and for the bishops themselves, that means submission to the papacy, at least in all matters of faith and morals, if not in Church administrative matters also. Catholicism also believes in the Pope's charism of infallibility, which he exercises when teaching authoritatively in matters of faith and morals, and that this special and unique gift to the Church ensures that the authentic expression of the one Christian faith is always preserved, and that it provides for at least in potential, that all authentic bishops all teach the same thing.
We have “Christian Ouija Boards, Tarot Cards, and Psychics” fergoonness sakes. There’s more Theurgy, Theosophy, Hermeticism, and Kabbalah in Charismaticism than there is authentic Christian doctrine. And there are plenty who can do lip-service to the resurrection without it truly being an issue of actual faith for them.
There are, and nobody can do anything about that. But it's got to be just as true that there are plenty of people who pay lip-service to more than just the Resurrection; to even the entire authentic expression of the faith, but who nonetheless don't believe a word of what they say they believe. We're stuck receiving such people into full communion in body, even though their souls are far from us. It's an unfortunate reality, one that probably was far less popular way back before Constantine, back when Christians, and especially bishops, were in some ways hunted and tortured most cruelly, for sport. Very few people would falsely claim to believe the Gospel in such an environment, and today there's so much more safety in being a Christian than then, so it is true that some people who self-identify as Christian, and who go to Mass, do not really believe what they are confessing to believe.

imo, the teaching of the Church concerning mortal sin, is directed at such, and not primarily at authentic Christians. The Church even refers to the sacrament of penance /confession /reconciliation sometimes as re-conversion. Each time such a previously falsely confessing quote-unquote Christian confesses their serious /grave sins, there is the fresh opportunity for them to come to true, genuine, saving Christian faith all over again, if they'll heed the Church wrt their serious /grave sins.

I have not experienced or observed anyone who claims to believe that the Resurrection is nonfiction fact of history, and who is not in some way fairly Christian in their lives. Obviously my experience might be overly limited. But especially given how safe it is today to Not be a Christian (compared with the era from Constantine to the Reformation), I don't really think there's much reason for someone who doesn't really believe in Christ, to go to Mass, especially weekly /regularly. Easter and Christmas? Maybe. But a person who goes to Mass weekly has very little reason to do so, apart from authentic Christian faith.
I can’t draw the line so inclusively as you, but I understand what you’re saying. There are more non-essentials than essentials. I agree. But it’s not primarily a matter of what one must INclude, but an issue of what one MUST EXclude. Incantation and sorcery cannot be within the scope of Christianity, even if someone affirms the resurrection by oral confession. Those are grossly mutually exclusive.
There is one authentic expression of the one Christian faith, and every belief and practice that is not authentically Christian is outside the scope of Christianity in this sense, including those things you've mentioned, and every other thing that isn't what the bishops teach uniformly.

We are not authorized to disagree with the bishops in matters of faith and morals. The bishops are not authorized to disagree with the papacy in the same matters. The idea that we are authorized to do so, is not Christian. Yet today, Protestants all believe that we are.

The still existing Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox bishops is really above either of ours paygrade. Neither of us are bishops, and so we're really incidental to reunification between all of them. They need to work things out among themselves. I have my view, and you yours, but it's up to the bishops---it's their job---to find the way to reunite themselves together back into one college.

I pray that they do soon.

:e4e:
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
You remain in state of confusion because you did say that God gives faith. Here is what you said again:

According to your ideas faith comes from God and God gives faith.

These are not merely my “ideas”, but the clear declarations of scripture.

Why do you think that God gives faith to some people and He withholds it from other people?

I’ve not said that. You’ve said that. God gives everyone singular anarthrous pistis (faith). But God also gives singular articular pistis (faith) unto salvation. You don’t know the difference, so you continue to ask the same false question in ignorance.

Plus, you don’t understand the basic fact that faith is a noun rather than a verb. Faith is believING. And all nouns must come from God. He is the only Creator of things.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
No, I just can't believe that. Believing that Jesus of Nazareth was dead, and then on the third day that He rose from the dead, is not a trivial thing to believe. It takes work, especially the more educated that we are. We must really grapple with this. I just cannot personally accept that God's grace cannot cover over whatever other errors a person might make, while really believing that His Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact.

We disagree, and I think that it's OK for us to do so. I just can't personally imagine that such a person, who believes in Christ's Resurrection but even in literally no other Christian thing, is not saved, and an authentic Christian, in one critical way.

I believe that believing in Christ's Resurrection is tantamount to believing in Christ, to believing the Gospel, to being an authentic Christian. That's just what I think.
And that's why I talk about Christ's Resurrection as a 'seed' or 'kernel,' not unlike the 'Red Pill.' The latter is just a pill, but 'swallowing it' (believing in the Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact) will inevitably start a cascade of dominoes within our souls, I do believe.

It's entirely possible that someone might read my view here, think something facile like, "Oh, that's it? Then I believe in Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact," and then they're "done" with their Christian life, but I haven't yet encountered anybody who's stopped at that one thing. They always think further /deeper than just that.
Sacraments are a unique confluence of the eternal with the temporal.
We agree to disagree about Orthodoxy being the authentic Christian tradition, though of course I believe that Orthodoxy is very close to Catholicism, going so far as to believe that Orthodox bishops are still validly ordained and that the Orthodox preserve Apostolic succession for the purposes of validly celebrating the sacraments, most importantly the one Eucharist.
Here's where I agree: Councils aren't about the faithful, they are about the bishops. When bishops convene a Church council, they compare notes on the particulars of the Apostolic oral tradition that each of them received from their elders (other bishops). For example, at Nicaea, while many see a sort of democratic process for the bishops arriving at the resultant Nicaean creed, I instead see it as a question of the Arian bishops failing to accept /realize that their received Apostolic oral tradition was just slightly deficient for some reason lost to history, and that those bishops instead of refusing to submit, ought to have instead done what I believe all Christians are called to do, which is to submit to our bishops.

As bishops, the general guidance must be tweaked a bit, and that's perhaps where the papacy's real supremacy (speaking as a theological Catholic of course) began to be revealed to the world with substantially more clarity. Though the Pope at the time didn't participate directly at Nicaea, plenty of western bishops did, and it was the western Apostolic oral tradition that did and ought to have 'prevailed' when the council convened, because it must have been the papacy's own Apostolic oral tradition. And the papacy's Apostolic oral tradition is the oral tradition of both Peter and Paul, these two Apostles both having lived, pastored, and died in Rome.

If bishops must also submit to their bishops, then who is the bishops' own bishop? The Pope. All of the bishops are to do just as we are all called to do, and submit to our bishops, and for the bishops themselves, that means submission to the papacy, at least in all matters of faith and morals, if not in Church administrative matters also. Catholicism also believes in the Pope's charism of infallibility, which he exercises when teaching authoritatively in matters of faith and morals, and that this special and unique gift to the Church ensures that the authentic expression of the one Christian faith is always preserved, and that it provides for at least in potential, that all authentic bishops all teach the same thing.
There are, and nobody can do anything about that. But it's got to be just as true that there are plenty of people who pay lip-service to more than just the Resurrection; to even the entire authentic expression of the faith, but who nonetheless don't believe a word of what they say they believe. We're stuck receiving such people into full communion in body, even though their souls are far from us. It's an unfortunate reality, one that probably was far less popular way back before Constantine, back when Christians, and especially bishops, were in some ways hunted and tortured most cruelly, for sport. Very few people would falsely claim to believe the Gospel in such an environment, and today there's so much more safety in being a Christian than then, so it is true that some people who self-identify as Christian, and who go to Mass, do not really believe what they are confessing to believe.

imo, the teaching of the Church concerning mortal sin, is directed at such, and not primarily at authentic Christians. The Church even refers to the sacrament of penance /confession /reconciliation sometimes as re-conversion. Each time such a previously falsely confessing quote-unquote Christian confesses their serious /grave sins, there is the fresh opportunity for them to come to true, genuine, saving Christian faith all over again, if they'll heed the Church wrt their serious /grave sins.

I have not experienced or observed anyone who claims to believe that the Resurrection is nonfiction fact of history, and who is not in some way fairly Christian in their lives. Obviously my experience might be overly limited. But especially given how safe it is today to Not be a Christian (compared with the era from Constantine to the Reformation), I don't really think there's much reason for someone who doesn't really believe in Christ, to go to Mass, especially weekly /regularly. Easter and Christmas? Maybe. But a person who goes to Mass weekly has very little reason to do so, apart from authentic Christian faith.
There is one authentic expression of the one Christian faith, and every belief and practice that is not authentically Christian is outside the scope of Christianity in this sense, including those things you've mentioned, and every other thing that isn't what the bishops teach uniformly.

We are not authorized to disagree with the bishops in matters of faith and morals. The bishops are not authorized to disagree with the papacy in the same matters. The idea that we are authorized to do so, is not Christian. Yet today, Protestants all believe that we are.

The still existing Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox bishops is really above either of ours paygrade. Neither of us are bishops, and so we're really incidental to reunification between all of them. They need to work things out among themselves. I have my view, and you yours, but it's up to the bishops---it's their job---to find the way to reunite themselves together back into one college.

I pray that they do soon.

:e4e:

I do not think reconciliation is possible for East and West without apostasy to do so. The Confessions, though similar, also have Orthopraxy that precludes such. It would be a contradiction for it to happen, not merely a suspension of tertiary differences.

I neither foresee nor want such a reconciliation. The West is corrupt at a few crucial points that have tainted the faith for the rest of the world through the age since Nicea and beyond. And I say this as a Confessional Lutheran who can both state and omit the Filioque within the Creed without compromise. I know no one else who has such understanding and could (or would) do so.

Though I see your views as purely Inclusive without Universalism, I also see that virtually everyone else who would hold such a position is an Ecumentist and Syncretist.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
So...

Faith (pistis) is a noun, as is belief (pistis); and neither is the verb believe/believING (pisteuo).

So since a noun cannot be a work, faith is not a work.

The thread topic is settled, even if the OP and/or others resist the truth that nouns are not verbs.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
What determines to whom He gives saving faith and to whom He doesn't give it?

If you’ll learn basic Greek grammar and semantics with lexicography, you won’t have to be confused and asking the wrong questions.

Romans 10:17 might help you, but not if you don’t know the difference between nouns and verbs.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
His own Sovereign Will determined those things.

Your answer is contradicted by the following words which explain why some people don't believe:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (Jn.3:18-21).​
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
It is a wrong question only because you don't have an answer that makes sense.

The answer doesn’t make sense because you don’t have basic language understanding and presuppositions based upon your own preferential concepts that aren’t scriptural.

Faith comes out of the message, and the message by means of the Word of God. That’s where faith comes from as the gift from God.

And you STILL won’t understand. There’s a veil over your eyes. But you would never dare admit it. You’re convinced that your own incomplete and partial and erroneous understandings are the final standard for truth when they’re not.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
Faith comes out of the message, and the message by means of the Word of God. That’s where faith comes from as the gift from God.

Please quote the verses which you think proves that "faith" is a gift from God.

I say that the Scriptures reveal that some people do not believe for reasons other than they weren't given the gift of faith by God. For instance, the gospel comes in power and in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5) and some people do not believe because they resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51).

That is not the same as those same people not having faith because God did not give them a gift of faith.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Please quote the verses which you think proves that "faith" is a gift from God.

There are plenty. Go find them, since you evidently haven’t read scripture. It’s not my job.

I say that the Scriptures reveal that some people do not believe

There you go again. BELIEVE IS A VERB. Faith is the noun, not the verb. God doesn’t give “believING”. This is why you have no idea what I’m talking about. You don’t know the difference between nouns and verbs.

So it doesn’t matter what “you say”.

for reasons other than they weren't given the gift of faith by God. For instance, the gospel comes in power and in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5) and some people do not believe because they resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51).

There’s that verb ‘believe” again, which is not faith. Faith is a noun, believe is a verb. Maybe one day you’ll get the difference between nouns and verbs. But not today.

That is not the same as those same people not having faith because God did not give them a gift of faith.

Sigh. Nothing you posted was about faith, the noun. All you posted was about “believe”, the verb.

This is why you are so heterodox about so many areas of doctrine, yet you’re utterly uncorrectable.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Your answer is contradicted by the following words which explain why some people don't believe:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (Jn.3:18-21).​

Your subject, once again: Believe/believeth. THE VERB.

Faith is a noun. Please, please, please learn the difference in nouns and verbs. Please?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The difficulty for some here is the same that plagues most English speakers (and that doesn’t mean anyone has to be or become a linguist just to read scripture, but recognition of basic grammatical forms is necessary for everyone).

Nouns are not verbs. English translation is difficult at a few points from other languages like Hebrew and Greek. Greek has a default noun construct that can APPEAR to be a verb because of how English demands translation. The Greek anarthrous noun indicates quality, character(istic), or functional activity, but the activity is internal because of the state of being of the “thing” that is the noun.

Example: A table is not tablING when it holds up items it was designed to support. That’s an internal functionality of its state of being as a table.

So faith is not believING, but the verb is what the noun does. So no one can believe without being given the thing that does the actING/actION of believING. Nouns verb. Things do.

One can’t make a cellular call without having a phone that does the callING. One can’t chop a tree without having the axe that does the chopping. One can’t believe without having the thing that does the believING, which is belief/faith as a noun.

This noun of faith is a gift of God. Romans 10:17 clearly says “THE faith cometh out of THE message/report/news (yes, hearing is a NOUN), and THE message/report/news by means of the Word of God.

ALL NOUNS, and ALL articular (the/this/that). Any faith can come out of any message by means of any word/s. But THE faith cometh out of THE message/report/news by means of THE Word of God.

This is how God gives this gift of THE faith, which is a noun. And the noun does the believING. So because God has given the thing that believes, then man believes. Man cannot believe without the thing that does the actING of believING. Without God’s gift, man cannot believe the correct thing.

This is why faith is not a work. Faith/belief is a noun. Nowhere in the text is faith/belief a verb. Nouns aren’t verbs. So it’s the God-given gift of faith by the message of the Word that does the believING, and thus those who have THE faith believe THE message and THE Word.

“A” wrong Word and “a” wrong message mean “a” wrong faith. It doesn’t mean all men don’t have faith. It DOES mean not all men will have THE faith that saves them. God gives this salvific gift of faith out of the Gospel of grace by means of the Word of God.

God hath given to every man (the) measure of faith (Romans 12:3). Measure is a noun and it’s anarthrous. This means God has given man the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of internal belief in general. Man is now able to believe, the verb.

But there has to be a thing believed and a thing heard and a source of those things. That source is the Word of God; that message/report/news that is the thing heard is the Gospel; and that thing believed is what belief is. Faith is the thing believed, which is the Gospel of grace from the Word.

There is NO way salvation can be of works, and faith is not a work because it’s a noun. Likewise, THE faith will have works. The works of faith are not the works of the Law by man’s own standard/s. The works of faith come out of the noun that is faith, and that came from the Gospel from the Word of God.

This is actually quite simple once one gets past the problem of basic grammar in translation.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I know the difference

No. You “know” the general label difference, not the actual functional difference from a linguistic perspective.

but you make assertions and then run and hide when asked to give proof from the Bible to support your assertions.

No. The meanings are in the grammatical forms and lexicography for the words, not in endless modern proof-texting to reinforce false concepts like your misunderstandings.

You have constantly referred to faith (the noun) and then provided verses with believe/believing (the verb). You keep thinking that man can believe without the noun of faith that does the believING.

You think man can believe without faith, because you can’t yet comprehend that it is faith itself that does the believING.

So EVERY scripture you’ve provided that refers to believING is the clear demonstration that God gives man faith as a gift. And there’s a distinction between “a” faith in general and “the” faith in particular.

But because you don’t have the slightest idea how to understand Greek anarthrous nouns versus Greek articular nouns, you don’t have any idea what scripture is saying and have substituted your false understandings to conflate nouns and verbs (particularly faith and believe/believing).

And you’re going to keep on and on and on and on posting that the problem is mine when I’ve demonstrated your lack of understanding over and over and over and over. You just can’t and won’t get past the veil that is over your eyes.

Romans 10:17 is all ANYONE needs for this to be demonstrated. But every scripture you’ve posted ALSO bears witness to all I’ve said. You just still conflate believe/believing (the VERB) with faith (the NOUN).

You think you make cellular calls when it’s your phone that is doing the calling. You only call because you “have” a cellphone. This simple example is to be applied to faith. Faith believes. Nouns verb. Things do. Man can only have faith; man cannot believe if not given faith.

Stop trying to blame me repeatedly when it’s your fundamental ignorance that has sculpted your false views and spurious doctrines. You’ve hijacked a thread because you refuse to be corrected. And this is because you can’t ever entertain the fact of how wrong you are in so many ways, beginning here with nouns and verbs. It has tainted everything you think and believe. Everything.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
Stop trying to blame me repeatedly when it’s your fundamental ignorance that has sculpted your false views and spurious doctrines.

Since you seem to think that you really know what you speak about then why do you continue to refuse to give us the Scriptures that you think proves that you are right when you said that "faith" is a gift.

You call me ignorant but where is your evidence? I think it is you who is ignorant about this subject and not me. How long will you refuse to back up your assertions with evidence from the Scriptures?
 
Top