Is believing/faith a work ?

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
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?

And you STILL don’t get that providing scripture after scripture after scripture in proof-texting mode is a modernist error. You don’t understand the noun of faith and the verb of believe/believing in ONE verse, so you’re surely not going to understand them in a thousand verses.

I provided all the scripture that is necessary. Romans 10:17. But ANY other scripture with the word faith/belief in it is the same, just as ANY other scripture with the word believe/believing.

EACH of the (few) verses you provided referred to BELIEVE/BELIEVING. THE VERB. That means there was already faith there from some source to do the believING.

Your biggest problem is your proof-texting mentality. By that you just presuppose all the wrong meanings in each scripture you post, and from an ignorant English-only perspective.

Your stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Nouns aren’t verbs. Faith is not believing.

Enough. The veil over your eyes is too thick and you want to keep it. You don’t want to know the truth. All you want is to manipulate multiple verses to attempt to say what your false doctrines insist.

Faith. Is. A. Noun. Faith believes. You don’t believe. No man believes. Only faith believes. Nouns verb. Things do.

For faith to be the thing that believes, FAITH MUST BE GIVEN TO MAN BY SOME MEANS. Man can’t believe without faith.

I’ve wasted too much precious time with you already. If you don’t begin to get this by now, it’s not my problem or responsibility to keep arguing with you about nouns and verbs to teach you.

You insist scripture has to explicitly say that faith is a gift given to man by God. Scripture says this by its constant usage of nouns and verbs as faith and believing. ALL the verses are proof-texts if they have pistis or pisteuo in them. Scripture knows the difference. You don’t.

Enough. Learn or not.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
I provided all the scripture that is necessary. Romans 10:17.

Are you really this dense? Romans 10:17 doesn't say that "faith" is a gift.

People do not lack faith because they are not given a so-called gift of faith to them but instead because they resist the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

I cited that verse earlier and you did not address it. Instead, you try to change the subject by accusing me of not being able to tell a verb from a noun!
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Are you really this dense? Romans 10:17 doesn't say that "faith" is a gift.

People do not lack faith because they are not given a so-called gift of faith to them but instead because they resist the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

I cited that verse earlier and you did not address it. Instead, you try to change the subject by accusing me of not being able to tell a verb from a noun!

Learn or not. Your verse used the term believe, which is a verb. Learn or not.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
Learn or not. Your verse used the term believe, which is a verb. Learn or not.

Of course you just ignored the evidence that I gave that demonstrates that people do not believe because they haven't received a so-called "gift" of faith from God but instead because they resist the Holy Spirit.

And the word "believe" is not found at Acts 7:51.

Jerry... Where do all things come from? Who is the Creator?

So are you now going to argue that God is the source of all evil despite the fact that in Him there is no darkness (1 Jn.1:5)?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Of course you just ignored the evidence that I gave that demonstrates that people do not believe because they haven't received a so-called "gift" of faith from God but instead because they resist the Holy Spirit.

Of course you continue to ignore Greek grammar and semantics to have ANY clue what nouns are and what words actually mean apart from your false concepts and doctrines.

And the word "believe" is not found at Acts 7:51.

But it’s found in all the other verses you proof-texted (without even knowing the meaning of the word or its grammatical form.

You simply will never understand grammar because you refuse to give up your false understandings and doctrines.

So are you now going to argue that God is the source of all evil despite the fact that in Him there is no darkness (1 Jn.1:5)?

Again, you have NO idea what words mean, including evil in both Hebrew and Greek, and darkness in Greek; just like you have no idea how simple grammatical forms disprove your ignorant assertions and concepts.

BTW...
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7

God indeed DOES create evil, just as He said in Isaiah. But you have no idea what the word means for a valid Christian Theodicy (just like you don’t know what Theodicy is or means.)

At this point, I’ve exhausted too much time and energy on your false understandings, and you are unteachable and uncorrectable by the Word according to grammar and semantics while stubbornly keeping your false concepts and doctrines.

When you can tell me exactly what it means that God creates evil, then I will respond again. But it will have to be accurate. It’s a waste to have discussion with you.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7

God indeed DOES create evil, just as He said in Isaiah.

The LORD creates darkness because part of the world is in darkness when that part is facing away from the sun. But that is not what the following verse is about:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all"
(1 Jn.1:5).​

Of course you said nothing about those words but instead you quoted a verse in a failed attempt to make what John wrote to be in error.

Besides that, you don't know the LORD God if you actually think that He is responsible for the evil in the world. Here is a better translation of Isaiah 45:7:

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Ish. 45:7; NIV).​

Evil is caused by sin and the LORD is not responsible for anyone's sins. If you think that evil is a result of God's actions then you do not know the one and only God.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The LORD creates darkness because part of the world is in darkness when that part is facing away from the sun. But that is not what the following verse is about:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all"
(1 Jn.1:5).​

And I didn’t contradict that verse. You just don’t and can’t know that because you don’t know what words actually mean yet presume you do.

Of course you said nothing about those words but instead you quoted a verse in a failed attempt to make what John wrote to be in error.

Wrong again. Neither John nor any other human author of scripture is in error. The problem is that you don’t understand what scripture says because you stubbornly cling to your English-based concepts of error and are absolutely and completely uncorrectable.

Besides that, you don't know the LORD God if you actually think that He is responsible for the evil in the world.

And here we go again. You don’t know what ra’a means. That’s the Hebrew word that is translated as evil and many other words. And you don’t know what tov means if you don’t know what ra’a means, because ra’a is explicitly related to tov in a particular manner. Tov is often translated good, among other renderings.

You don’t have any idea what tov (good) and ra’a (evil) are and mean, just like you don’t know what much of anything else means as far as grammatical forms and semantics with biblical lexicography.

Here is a better translation of Isaiah 45:7:

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Ish. 45:7; NIV).​

No, this is not a better translation. You’re not a linguist. You have NO grounds on which to determine which translations are better or worse, or any other facet of language translation.

BOTH the KJV and the NIV are correct. But you don’t have any idea why or how, yet you’ll likely continue to post and post and post and post and post as though you know something about this.

Ra’a is the word used in Isaiah 45:7, just like it’s the word used in Genesis for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So now you’ve insisted it’s the tree of the knowledge of good and disaster.

Evil is caused by sin

Evil and sin are related, but again, you have no idea how because you don’t remotely know what either word means.

and the LORD is not responsible for anyone's sins. If you think that evil is a result of God's actions then you do not know the one and only God.

Yet again, you double down on your ignorance of what words mean. You don’t know what evil is or you wouldn’t have said anything you’ve said.


I’m going to leave you in your ignorance. Discussion is pointless with you because you have no idea what grammar or words mean. You refuse to be corrected in any manner. DO NOT ADDRESS ME AGAIN ON THIS FORUM. There are plenty of others you can troll. Post to others. Do not post to me.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
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).​

False and invalid statement !
 

Bright Raven

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your comment isnt sensible nor relevant !

He's right you know.

How can believing faith be a saving work if the following is true:

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.

It is a gift of God, not of works that no man can boast!
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Your comment isnt sensible nor relevant !

There’s literally nothing more sensible and/or relevant than knowing the difference between nouns and verbs. And you have conflated them, which is beyond silly.

Your thread title conflates them by referring to faith/believing. This is why you’re a Hyper-Calvinist opposing biblical Monergism, which quite literally qualifies someone for insanity.

If God doesn’t give man faith by whatever means, man cannot believe the Gospel message by the Word of God.

You just can’t face that you’ve had your false doctrine destroyed by grammar and semantics from the Greek text for scripture. That’s not my fault.

Faith and belief are nouns. Believe and believing are verbs. Belief is NEVER a verb, contrary to your false assertions to accomodate your false doctrine/s.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
I’m going to leave you in your ignorance. Discussion is pointless with you because you have no idea what grammar or words mean. You refuse to be corrected in any manner. DO NOT ADDRESS ME AGAIN ON THIS FORUM. There are plenty of others you can troll. Post to others. Do not post to me.

I just want everyone to see that you did not even offer an explanation concerning the meaning of this verse:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn.1:5).​

Your problem is not understanding the meaning of words but instead your problem is the fact that you just refuse to believe what is written in the Bible. That is why you refuse to give me your interpretation of the meaning of what is written at 1 John 1:5.

You can run but you cannot hide!

If God doesn’t give man faith by whatever means, man cannot believe the Gospel message by the Word of God.

So God gives some men faith and does not give it to others! That is what the Calvinists teach.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
False and invalid statement !

So you deny that the following passage explains 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).​
 

Idolater

Well-known member
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.
Can you please elaborate?
I neither foresee nor want such a reconciliation.
Why don't you want reunification? You're certainly not the first Christian I've encountered who's bristled at the prospect of Church reunification, and it's just so surprising to me. I do not understand why we'd be against it.
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.
Oh. So does this mean that you believe that the Church's bishops became inauthentic teachers at Nicaea? I'm always curious to find out when the episcopacy became untrustworthy altogether, and this looks like maybe you think it was Nicaea, and not the AD 1054 mutual excommunication fiasco /Schism between western and eastern bishops?
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.
Who couldn't omit it? 'Filioque' doesn't contradict the Nicaean creed, and its omission does nothing but simply subtract a clause from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, changing nothing else. Anybody could omit 'filioque' without compromise.

Unless what you mean is, that to omit 'filioque' is to flip the bird to Peter's pastorate the papacy and to the Pope, and that you're able to do that without compromise. I guess I couldn't do that; you've got me there. But 'filioque' is definitely there because of the authority of the papacy over the other bishops, which is the same as the charism of infallibility which preserves the papacy from teaching error in any matter of faith and morals when teaching from Peter's chair, 'ex cathedra.'

I know that you don't believe in that. But it's Catholicism nonetheless, the Catholic position. It's somewhat understandable, in light of both Peter and Paul having lived in and been killed /murdered in Rome. The bishops who were in Rome when Peter and Paul were there, were probably the western bishops' Apostolic oral tradition forebears. They may not have gotten over to the east so much.
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.
I don't know anyone else who holds this position.

In Romans 10:9 KJV if I could ask, do you read it that Paul is essentially making salvific faith dependent upon two things, yes believing in Christ's Resurrection is one of them, but is the other one to believe that Jesus is God, in saying, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved?"
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Can you please elaborate?

Too many things are held as inviolable by both East and West. It would require standing apart from any and all of those positions for there to be reconciliation. That would thus disannul many things that have stood for a very long time as orthodoxy for either side.

Why don't you want reunification? You're certainly not the first Christian I've encountered who's bristled at the prospect of Church reunification, and it's just so surprising to me. I do not understand why we'd be against it.

“How can two walk together except they agree?” It would have to be a fascade placing alleged unity above doctrinal integrity. That’s not even unity.

Oh. So does this mean that you believe that the Church's bishops became inauthentic teachers at Nicaea? I'm always curious to find out when the episcopacy became untrustworthy altogether, and this looks like maybe you think it was Nicaea, and not the AD 1054 mutual excommunication fiasco /Schism between western and eastern bishops?

I’m referring to something quite specific, and I can outline it briefly. Post-Nicea, the Cappadocians quite literally rescued the Faith from fracturing beyond recovery over the disparate use of Greek terms in Theology Proper. Basil came to the understanding that East and West were talking past each other because of their respective usage of terminology and the applied functional definitions of the key words used to explicate the Trinity.

By installing the appropriate implementation of hypostasis/es and ousia (per the Eastern formulaic), the accusations from both side were abated. But the West functionally retained their conceptual understanding, resulting in the necessity of the Filioque for the West and the continued necessity of its omission by the East.

The West contends that the ousia “has” the three hypostases, which is a diversion from the purity of the Cappadocian resolution to early pending and averted schism. The East rightly contends that the hypostasis/es underlie the ousia, and thus it is the hypostasis/es that “have” the ousia.

For this reason, the Filioque is an added component necessary in the West for all the reasons regarding the core debate that historically surrounded the schism relative to this contributing topic. But the Filioque is not only unnecessary in the East, it is abhorrent (again for all the reasons in contention for centuries leading up to 1024AD).

Because of the Papacy, the Filioque was “bullied” through, and the East ultimately initiated the ultimatum to the West to recant or be in schism. (The West, of course, would never see it in this light.) So I rightly consider the West to have become schismatized in 1024 from the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, which is the East. It wasn’t a split of equals that can be reunited. Rome would have to openly repent of its corruption of heterodoxy and heteropraxy, and denounce the antichrist Papacy as sin and pride.

Rome will never do that, and that’s why any attempts at reunification will be a severe compromise of Ecumenism and Syncretism. So any alleged “unity” will be invalidated as merely a band-aid on a bullet hole, so to speak.

And your whole tact, whether you realize it or not, is from the perspective of Papal power-mongering. You’re passively demanding and expecting reconciliation without the repentance of the West (which would then violate the Magisterium, so it’s impossible).

It’s not that I don’t want the entire Church in unity, but “the poor you have with you always”. Those without the wealth of their existence (their ousia) qualitatively determined by their foundational individual reality (hypostasis) will always be poor. The Filioque, and its heinous leveraged means of installation in the creed/s, is an anathema. The West shrugs this off as you have done. This should not be.

Who couldn't omit it?

Catholics and theologically/doctrinally/historicaly-literate Lutherans and Protestants of every ilk.

'Filioque' doesn't contradict the Nicaean creed, and its omission does nothing but simply subtract a clause from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, changing nothing else. Anybody could omit 'filioque' without compromise.

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

Of course Rome want “reconciliation” in this manner. It means ruling the world. And that’s always been the Emperor-driven mindset of the West and her progeny. It’s Magisterial rather than Ministerial. The supplantation of all the Bishops in favor of one. Judas Syndrome.

The Papacy is a corruption that must be dissolved, and that means the West could never be in actual unity, instead demanding that the East concede to having been in schism rather than the truth that it has been vice versa. Reconciliation would wrongly absolve Rome of her sins without authentic repentance. This should not be.

Unless what you mean is, that to omit 'filioque' is to flip the bird to Peter's pastorate the papacy and to the Pope, and that you're able to do that without compromise. I guess I couldn't do that; you've got me there. But 'filioque' is definitely there because of the authority of the papacy over the other bishops, which is the same as the charism of infallibility which preserves the papacy from teaching error in any matter of faith and morals when teaching from Peter's chair, 'ex cathedra.'

It’s not “flipping the bird to Peter’s pastorate the papacy and to the Pope”. There is no such thing. The Roman See is the first among equals IN HONOR, not IN AUTHORITY. The authority rests with the Bishops as a whole, with due honor given to Rome in this regard. There can be no Christ Vicar and a usurpation of all Bishops together as the dissemination of all that Rome pretends to hoard for itself in that one vocation/calling.

The Pope is thus anathema to itself as a usurpation of position. A violation of all other Bishops for the sake of seizing power that does not exist. The Papacy must be dissolved for there to be authentic unity. Without such, Rome is doing lip service to reconciliation in impenitence.

I know that you don't believe in that. But it's Catholicism nonetheless, the Catholic position. It's somewhat understandable, in light of both Peter and Paul having lived in and been killed /murdered in Rome. The bishops who were in Rome when Peter and Paul were there, were probably the western bishops' Apostolic oral tradition forebears. They may not have gotten over to the east so much.

And certainly to their detrient, and thus to the Church at large. And you really can’t validly claim to adhere to Catholicism without being internal to the Church in totality, which you say you are not. This is beyond paradox.

I don't know anyone else who holds this position.

How oddly non-Catholic. Doesn’t that alarm you? It’s actually impossible to wholly embrace Catholic doctrine without being Catholic. It would seem you still have a number of things to work through if you are not converted to Catholicism and in good standing within the Catholic Church. It’s oxymoronic.

In Romans 10:9 KJV if I could ask, do you read it that Paul is essentially making salvific faith dependent upon two things, yes believing in Christ's Resurrection is one of them, but is the other one to believe that Jesus is God, in saying, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved?"

It’s at least strongly implied. And there are other things related to various doctrines that are at least as urgently implied.

I’m quite concerned about non-Sacramentalists. I’m even more concerned about those who adamantly refuse orthodox Christology and other such crucial points of historically settled and readily available core doctrines (like soul sleep, and a whole list of other issues that cannot be included).

I’m just not buying that the resurrection of our Lord is the sole criteria for salvific faith, even given your caveats. There are other essentials, no matter where the “line” is drawn to the contrary. If not, the historical anathemas could not stand and would thus be self-disannulling.

If a doctrine is missing, there is a vacuum that draws in false doctrine as substitue and replacement. That’s what the Greek prefix anti- means, and these things are relative to Christ. So that means such omissions with substitutes are antichrist. And that’s what the elevation of the Roman See is: Antichrist. We can’t have antichrist and unity IN Christ simulataneously.

So when the Pope steps down and the whole of Rome admits it’s been in schism to the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, THEN there can be unity. It won’t and can’t happen, and your own words indicate that.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
So you deny that the following passage explains 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).​

See post 188 where I answered a question of yours. You haven't come near answering that with any scripture. What you posted makes no sense at all.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
There’s literally nothing more sensible and/or relevant than knowing the difference between nouns and verbs. And you have conflated them, which is beyond silly.

Your thread title conflates them by referring to faith/believing. This is why you’re a Hyper-Calvinist opposing biblical Monergism, which quite literally qualifies someone for insanity.

If God doesn’t give man faith by whatever means, man cannot believe the Gospel message by the Word of God.

You just can’t face that you’ve had your false doctrine destroyed by grammar and semantics from the Greek text for scripture. That’s not my fault.

Faith and belief are nouns. Believe and believing are verbs. Belief is NEVER a verb, contrary to your false assertions to accomodate your false doctrine/s.
again your comment isnt sensible nor relevant !
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
again your comment isnt sensible nor relevant !

LOL. Evidently grammar for translation of the inspired text isn’t sensible or relevant to YOU, but it’s very sensible and relevant.

You’d rather turn nouns into verbs and keep your false doctrine than be corrected by Holy Spirit-authored scripture. And then when you’re corrected, you just say comments aren’t sensible or relevant.

Belief is a NOUN. It’s NEVER a verb. Nouns aren’t verbs. So belief is not a work, and faith is not a work. They’re the same word in Greek.

Your thread topic has been proven wrong by simple grammar. Faith is not a work. Belief is not a work.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I don’t know if it’s appropriate to request a thread to be closed when the thread title and content has been unequivocally proven wrong.

But if so, I’d like to request this thread be closed. Faith is a noun. Nouns aren’t works. So faith/belief cannot be a work.

Thanks. :)
 
Top