Is believing/faith a work ?

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
pps



Yes you are, you are just wasting time and showing that you dont understand Faith in the bible.



Thats a lie, I now Faith is a noun and believing is a verb, I been knowing that for over 30yrs



I know that, its a noun being used as a verb belief. The noun primarily means persuasion it comes from the VERB peithó, which results in trust. Again you are wasting my time. Once one trusts or believes as a result of Faith, its [belief,trust] is an act of the mind, a work.

Again, apples for oranges. Stick with the theme of the thread !

If you’re coming against this verse, you’re not a Calvinist. It’s impossible to have the position you do about belief being a verb and still be a Calvinist.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
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.

So those without faith and have no hope of salvation are without faith because God didn't give it to them?

Since God wants all people to come to the knowledge of the truth then why doesn't he give all people faith?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
So those without faith and have no hope of salvation are without faith because God didn't give it to them?

Since God wants all people to come to the knowledge of the truth then why doesn't he give all people faith?

You’ve just asked why Universalism isn’t authentic Christian doctrine. And there are several other issues of your presuppositions that it would take volumes to get into and would likely be futile if you’re asking this question.

But the short answer (that will be lost on you) is Romans 10:17. So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

I’m just posting to refute beloved57’s false claim that faith is a verb and thus a work.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
It’s the faith as a noun doing the work. Nouns verb. We can only do it because we have the faith that does it.

This is the same thing as making a call on a cellular network or chopping down a tree. If someone doesn’t have the thing that calls (the phone), they’re not going to be able to make a call. If someone doesn’t have the thing that chops the tree (the axe or other implement), they’re not going to be able to chop the tree.

Having is a present indicative middle verb. English has no middle voice for verbs, so few understand this. The present indicative asserts something which is occuring while the speaker is making the statement. The middle voice refers to action upon oneself or on one’s own behalf.

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.

You won’t be chopping a tree without an axe, and you won’t be making any calls without a cellphone. Having those items is an issue of possession relative to a middle voice verb, and it’s clear that God is the one from whom the faith comes for “faithing”. There is NO believING without the belief that is faith, and its only source is God, not man.

do you believe that resisting satan's attempts to weaken our faith could be viewed as a work?


is prayer a work?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
do you believe that resisting satan's attempts to weaken our faith could be viewed as a work?


is prayer a work?

Authentic actions such as these are works. Works of faith. Faith’s internal functional activity coming forth into economies of action. Faith without works is dead. These things are aspects of spiritual life. Facets of our resurrection, and of our translation into Christ and being seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
In what way do you think that verses is speaking of faith being a gift from God which some people receive and others don't?

Those who have heard another message, or those who haven’t heard, don’t have THE faith (it’s an articular noun) coming out of that false message that is by means of another Rhema rather than the Rhema of God.

You’re asking questions that indicate you have no idea what the differences are between Greek anarthrous and articular nouns.
 

Jerry Shugart

New member
Those who have heard another message, or those who haven’t heard, don’t have THE faith (it’s an articular noun) coming out of that false message that is by means of another Rhema rather than the Rhema of God.

You’re asking questions that indicate you have no idea what the differences are between Greek anarthrous and articular nouns.

You have not answered my question about faith being a gift of God.

Where did you ever get the idea that faith is a gift of God and He gives it to some people but not to others?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
You have not answered my question about faith being a gift of God.

Of course I have. You just don’t (and won’t) understand that answer.

Where did you ever get the idea that faith is a gift of God and He gives it to some people but not to others?

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, as much as any other on TOL, are unable to process information in any manner other than your presuppositional applications.

Greek anarthrous nouns are beyond your understanding, and you are not correctable. An anarthrous noun refers to the quality, character, and activity of the noun (something that English nouns don’t do). So though God has given unto every man (the) measure of faith, ONLY the faith that comes out of the message by means of the Word of God is salvific.

Everyone has faith of some quality. Only those who have heard the authentic Word and its message of the Gospel have the faith that comes out of THAT report/message/news.

This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, do not have salvific faith. They have a faith that came out of a false message by means of “a” word that is not “THE” Word of God. They’ve heard another Gospel. This is the danger for ANYONE who hears another Gospel and has “a” faith rather than “THE” faith.

The Greek article is your answer in addition to the Greek anarthrous noun construct. But you don’t understand those simple things and don’t have any desire to know them and be corrected.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
... Jehovah’s Witnesses ... do not have salvific faith.
I disagree. JWs believe in Christ's Resurrection, this event being the hub of the faith, the seed of the Gospel. However wayward Christians are beyond believing in Christ's Resurrection, does not nullify their authentic faith in the kernel of the Gospel.
They have a faith that came out of a false message by means of “a” word that is not “THE” Word of God. They’ve heard another Gospel. This is the danger for ANYONE who hears another Gospel and has “a” faith rather than “THE” faith.
As above I repeat that imo the Christian faith is belief in Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact. Support for every other authentic tenet of the Christian faith radiates outward from His Resurrection being real, and JWs and many others certainly hold to views that in many ways conflict with the authentic Christian faith.

It is because they do not submit to their bishops. Every JW assembly /community exists within a Catholic diocese, or in both a Catholic diocese and in an Orthodox diocese. They all have their bishops, and they all fail to submit to them. The bishops are the authentic pastors of the one Body of Christ, their office instituted by the Apostles, a process described and alluded to throughout the New Testament, especially after the Gospels. Being in communion with the Church is physical, and not only spiritual. We are one because of our shared faith, in Christ's Resurrection (including JWs and every other Christian who doesn't submit to their bishops), but we are also one by receiving the one body and blood of our Lord, in valid celebrations of the one Eucharist. Authentic pastors---the bishops---are required for the valid celebration of the one Eucharist, which "limits" Christians to Catholic and Orthodox parishes. "Limits" because they're everywhere.

The Church used to be in both spiritual and physical communion with each other, for centuries. We are the frayed end of a rope right now though, with only about 2/3 of us in communion as I've put forth (which is a communion that I have admittedly made up, based upon analysis of the liturgy of the Eucharist, and personal interpretation of what I see in both Catholicism and in Orthodoxy), and granting Catholicism as the authentic Christian tradition /Church (I know you don't agree, but just to further the point), then only half of the Church is "in full communion" with her authentic supreme pastorate, the papacy (which is Catholicism's authorized definition of Christian 'communion;' being in communion with the papacy, which entails being authorized to receive Holy Communion, the one Eucharist).

We will reunite. The world will fall to the Church. The stage is set, all the ducks are in a row, and the only thing stopping this or delaying it, is the Church herself. We don't require anyone else to do anything, we just have to do it ourselves, somehow. We are who has to do it, and we will do it.
 

Bright Raven

New member
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
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!

Exactly.

Nouns aren’t works.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I disagree. JWs believe in Christ's Resurrection, this event being the hub of the faith, the seed of the Gospel. However wayward Christians are beyond believing in Christ's Resurrection, does not nullify their authentic faith in the kernel of the Gospel.
As above I repeat that imo the Christian faith is belief in Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact. Support for every other authentic tenet of the Christian faith radiates outward from His Resurrection being real, and JWs and many others certainly hold to views that in many ways conflict with the authentic Christian faith.

It is because they do not submit to their bishops. Every JW assembly /community exists within a Catholic diocese, or in both a Catholic diocese and in an Orthodox diocese. They all have their bishops, and they all fail to submit to them. The bishops are the authentic pastors of the one Body of Christ, their office instituted by the Apostles, a process described and alluded to throughout the New Testament, especially after the Gospels. Being in communion with the Church is physical, and not only spiritual. We are one because of our shared faith, in Christ's Resurrection (including JWs and every other Christian who doesn't submit to their bishops), but we are also one by receiving the one body and blood of our Lord, in valid celebrations of the one Eucharist. Authentic pastors---the bishops---are required for the valid celebration of the one Eucharist, which "limits" Christians to Catholic and Orthodox parishes. "Limits" because they're everywhere.

The Church used to be in both spiritual and physical communion with each other, for centuries. We are the frayed end of a rope right now though, with only about 2/3 of us in communion as I've put forth (which is a communion that I have admittedly made up, based upon analysis of the liturgy of the Eucharist, and personal interpretation of what I see in both Catholicism and in Orthodoxy), and granting Catholicism as the authentic Christian tradition /Church (I know you don't agree, but just to further the point), then only half of the Church is "in full communion" with her authentic supreme pastorate, the papacy (which is Catholicism's authorized definition of Christian 'communion;' being in communion with the papacy, which entails being authorized to receive Holy Communion, the one Eucharist).

We will reunite. The world will fall to the Church. The stage is set, all the ducks are in a row, and the only thing stopping this or delaying it, is the Church herself. We don't require anyone else to do anything, we just have to do it ourselves, somehow. We are who has to do it, and we will do it.

But you’ve made the resurrection alone to be the exclusive message that is the Gospel. The historical Christian faith has always had a framework of essentials, and that has always included a number of other things besides just resurrection.

Though specific (not merely ignorant) denial OF the resurrection indicates a lack of salvific faith; inclusion of the resurrection does not guarantee there is salvific faith.

The issue with the JWs, besides their false Christology (not an absence of Christology, but a replacement and substitute) is their works Soteriology. They deny Christ by insisting it is their own works of their “law” that saves them.

Doctrinally, you’re too inclusive. Now if we’re talking about primitive situations with those who have no teaching or access to doctrine, then your assertions may have some merit. But in the modern western first world where everyone has an internet connection, then much more is available for accountability than just affirming the resurrection.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
But you’ve made the resurrection alone to be the exclusive message that is the Gospel.
No, I haven't. I employed the words 'seed,' 'hub,' and 'kernel,' each of which implies that there is more to the Gospel than Christ's Resurrection. I think you're mischaracterizing what I said.
The historical Christian faith has always had a framework of essentials, and that has always included a number of other things besides just resurrection.
Yes, agreed.
Though specific (not merely ignorant) denial OF the resurrection indicates a lack of salvific faith
Agreed.
; inclusion of the resurrection does not guarantee there is salvific faith.
Agreed to disagree. It's just how I take 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV. About no other thing does Paul say that without it, the Christian faith is a fraud, like he does in that scripture, about Christ's Resurrection.
The issue with the JWs, besides their false Christology (not an absence of Christology, but a replacement and substitute) is their works Soteriology. They deny Christ by insisting it is their own works of their “law” that saves them.
And in that, they are wrong. No Christian should heed any JW teaching that diverges from authentic Christian teaching, and no non-Christian should rely upon JW teaching as authoritative Christianity either.
Doctrinally, you’re too inclusive.
Agreed to disagree. Are you Orthodox btw? I am non-Orthodox, non-Catholic, but theologically Catholic (so I accept the validity of Orthodox bishops to celebrate the Eucharist), and I'm anti-Protestant because I'm against the protest against the papacy.
Now if we’re talking about primitive situations with those who have no teaching or access to doctrine, then your assertions may have some merit. But in the modern western first world where everyone has an internet connection, then much more is available for accountability than just affirming the resurrection.
I agree that we live in a privileged era wrt access to information. This era happens to align with the Church age where we are not in communion with each other like how our spiritual ancestors were all in communion with each other, before the East-West Schism of AD 1054. They each received the one Eucharist, and they were all in communion with the papacy before then; now, post-Reformation, there are a good number of us who are not in physical communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, but are only in (real) communion because of our shared faith. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong in equating salvific faith with believing in Christ's Resurrection, full stop; but as I said, it's based upon how I read 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV, which is just an astounding admission of the Resurrection's importance to the Christian faith.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
No, I haven't. I employed the words 'seed,' 'hub,' and 'kernel,' each of which implies that there is more to the Gospel than Christ's Resurrection. I think you're mischaracterizing what I said.
Yes, agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed to disagree. It's just how I take 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV. About no other thing does Paul say that without it, the Christian faith is a fraud, like he does in that scripture, about Christ's Resurrection.
And in that, they are wrong. No Christian should heed any JW teaching that diverges from authentic Christian teaching, and no non-Christian should rely upon JW teaching as authoritative Christianity either.
Agreed to disagree. Are you Orthodox btw? I am non-Orthodox, non-Catholic, but theologically Catholic (so I accept the validity of Orthodox bishops to celebrate the Eucharist), and I'm anti-Protestant because I'm against the protest against the papacy.
I agree that we live in a privileged era wrt access to information. This era happens to align with the Church age where we are not in communion with each other like how our spiritual ancestors were all in communion with each other, before the East-West Schism of AD 1054. They each received the one Eucharist, and they were all in communion with the papacy before then; now, post-Reformation, there are a good number of us who are not in physical communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, but are only in (real) communion because of our shared faith. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong in equating salvific faith with believing in Christ's Resurrection, full stop; but as I said, it's based upon how I read 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV, which is just an astounding admission of the Resurrection's importance to the Christian faith.

All your points are well taken. It’s just seems a bit Semi-Universalistic as stated. 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.

I’m a Confessional Lutheran because Sacraments are the key foundation that inheres faith to practice, 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.

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.

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.

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.
 

glorydaz

New member
Spoiler
All your points are well taken. It’s just seems a bit Semi-Universalistic as stated. 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.

I’m a Confessional Lutheran because Sacraments are the key foundation that inheres faith to practice, 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.


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.

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.

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.

Interesting read, but then this caught my eye, and if you don't mind my asking.....I can't help but wonder if you're speaking of some extreme sect that I'm not aware of. :think:
 

glorydaz

New member
Agreed to disagree. It's just how I take 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV. About no other thing does Paul say that without it, the Christian faith is a fraud, like he does in that scripture, about Christ's Resurrection.

Paul isn't saying that without the resurrection the Christian faith is a fraud.

He is saying without the resurrection our hope of eternal life is in vain....for naught.



BUT, without Christ's death, we would still be in our sins, and being resurrected would be in vain...for naught. So, clearly His death and His resurrection are equally necessary.

BTW....Haven't you and I discussed this before in some Gospel thread? :think:
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Interesting read, but then this caught my eye, and if you don't mind my asking.....I can't help but wonder if you're speaking of some extreme sect that I'm not aware of. :think:

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.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Paul isn't saying that without the resurrection the Christian faith is a fraud.

He is saying without the resurrection our hope of eternal life is in vain....for naught.



BUT, without Christ's death, we would still be in our sins, and being resurrected would be in vain...for naught. So, clearly His death and His resurrection are equally necessary.

BTW....Haven't you and I discussed this before in some Gospel thread? :think:

^This^
 
Top