Is believing/faith a work ?

Brightfame52 said:

@AbbaLove

If you believe your faith, your believing is a condition you meet to get saved, that's works, contrary to Grace !

Click to expand...

Faith is a gift of grace-and a human choice at the same time, of accepting and acting upon that gift, daily. God has been soliciting and coaxing and prompting the human will since Eden, to choose rightly, to accept His grace. Sin would be impossible if God's will was always done by His creation. Paul objected to works of the law. And we all should know that such works cannot justify; only God can justify -make right-the ungodly.

B Griffin said:

There are two truisms about faith that get little attention. The first is, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Heb 11:6). The second is like it, "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Ro 14:23). We see these trusisms at work in Jesus' life. See, for instance John 5:19 and John 2:49–50. And He told us that we would indeed be His disciples if we immulated His pattern of life and walked only as He directed (Jn 8:31; Jn 15:7-9, 14).

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up! I was dealing with the understanding of abiding in Jesus just recently.

I learned to abide in Jesus is not to immulate Him, but to abide, which means we live in Him and He lives in us, in our spirit man, by the workings of the Holy Spirit.

We are unable of immulate Jesus, as far as walking in His example, because our carnal sinful man can never please God unto the righteousness God demands. This is why Apostle Paul says, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, Galatians 2:20 KJV.

Jesus helps to understand better: John 15:5 KJV, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

The branches can do nothing without the Vine. The Vine has the life, and that life flows to the branches which produces fruit - for the Husbandman’s satisfaction,
2 Timothy 2:6 KJV
The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

The Husbandman is the Father, John 15:1 KJV, who waits for the previous fruit, James 5:7 KJV.

We abide in Christ literally by the power of the Holy Spirit Who imparts Christ in our spirit, thus causing us to abide in Christ, and Christ abides in us, “He that abideth in me, and I in him,” John 15:5 KJV

Without this imparting of the Spirit, thus regenerating the spirit of a Christian, we are incapable of immulating Jesus; because of our carnal nature that is enmity against God, Romans 8:7-8 KJV. This is the very reason God moved the old man, which is the self nature, which is the carnal man, out of the way by crucifying it on the cross at Jesus death, Romans 6:6 KJV

fhansen said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Thank you for both the immediacy and the brevity.

fhansen said:

Alright, so it's certainly news to me that Jesus didn't bring about a new and better covenant...

Click to expand...

It is disingenuous to say, "Alright," and then follow the affirmation up with rhetorical protest - especially one that completely ignores what I posted. Do it again and I'll ignore your posts. If you want the conversation with me then act like it. Show some respect.

ASK questions. Don't feign "news." We all know it is not news to you and the only reason I'm having this conversation because the trust andhope you will stay on topic.

fhansen said:

it's certainly news to me that Jesus didn't bring about a new and better covenant, since that is explicit enough in His words and the words of..........

Click to expand...

None of which was ever disputed, and all of which was previously affirmed.

So the question has become: Given the fact I acknowledged the "new covenant" and the use of plural covenants, and distinction between Old and New, why is it that ALL of that was just ignored in favor of disingenuous rhetoric, unnecessary repetition of what you've already posted, and the neglect of what I added? Go back and re-read Post 1473 and post something intelligent that actually moves the conversation forward. If the two mentions of plural covenants and the mention of the "new" covenant in Christ occur overwhelmingly in the context of a God-initiated covenant that is, likewise, overwhelming talked about in singular form throughout the whole of the Bible vast the why ignore ALL of that other scripture in favor of elevating one (or two) verses?

You are aware of what is called "proof-texting" (as opposed the appropriate use of a prooftext), and the many problems that result from that practice, yes? If not then say so and I'll explain it.

If that problem is understood, then don't practice it here in this exchange with me. If that problem is understood, then deal with the fact eight verses using the phrase "new covenant" do not define the whole of scripture - especially since the gospel was preached to Abraham and first articulated as early as Genesis 3:15 (indicating the existence of an Old Testament faith identical to that you seem to think is only New Testament). Notice NONE of those commended for their faith in Hebrews 11 are New Testament examples (even though several New Testament persons could have been included in that list).

Re-read Post 1473 (and the three paragraphs immediately above) and either ask me something op-relevant, or post op-relevant commentary (or just ignore this post).

Josheb said:

t is disingenuous to say, "Alright," and then follow the affirmation up with rhetorical protest - especially one that completely ignores what I posted. Do it again and I'll ignore your posts. If you want the conversation with me then act like it. Show some respect.

Click to expand...

Absolute gibberish, childish nonsense. We be done.

fhansen said:

Absolute gibberish, childish nonsense. We be done.

Click to expand...

Bye

In the future, don't bother me if you're not going to stay on topic or answer questions when asked. Just ignore the posts.

For the lurkers.

There are eight verse that speak of a "new covenant." The first is in Jeremiah 31. Another occurs on the occasion of the Lord's final meal when he celebrated the Passover. Four of the eight occur in the letter to the Hebrews. It's the Hebrews author who states, "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." As I've already shown, there are only two examples in the Bible when the word "covenant" is spoken of in a plural form. Of the eight mentions of a new covenant and the two about plural covenants, these all occur in the repeated context of God speaking about His covenant in singular form. The very last mention of "covenant" in the Bible is found in Revelation 11.

Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

And that is a direct and explicit reference back to the Old Testament (and its Law, the manna, and the priesthood). Those are just a few of the relevant, unvarnished facts of scripture. These are a few simple observations anyone can verify objectively for themselves. Not a word of doctrinal interpretation has been added.

However, the fact is, this op is not about the covenants. This op is about whether or not faith is a work. Covenants were brought into the conversation as justification for the unsubstantiated premise there must two (or more different kinds of faith - one Old/old, and the other New/new. The problem with that view is the gospel was preached in the Old Testament!

Galatians 3:1-9 ESV
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

The gospel was preached to Abraham. I think I already covered this so I'll just summarize it here and if I'm thinking of another thread I'll gladly provide the relevant scriptures. Abraham heard the gospel. Abraham knew he had to leave home to reach the promised land and he knew the city of peace was ruled by a kingly priest (or priestly king). He also knew God had pledge fealty to Himself, pledging His own life if He failed (the suzerain covenant in Abe's vision). Abe knew a son would be sacrificed, God would provide the sacrifice, and if the son died God would raise him from the grave. Abraham knew his singular seed would bring about the covenant promises, and he knew he'd be the father of many nations. Abraham believed all of that! For that faith he was justified and Paul makes it very clear ALL of God's people are justified by faith (whether faith alone or not is irrelevant). The righteous shall live by faith. Furthermore, all the OT people of faith listed in Hebrews 11 are said to be made complete in "us" those who believe in Christ.

Again, I point out these are the facts of scripture. I have not laid a single word of sectarian or doctrinal "interpretation" atop these facts. Anyone can objectively verify each of these statements. They are not up for debate.

While this next point is not said about Abraham (it's written about David) we can reasonably infer Abraham understood it because Abe knew about the God raising the son from the dead.

Acts 2:29-32 ESV
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

This is an alarming statement to some. Peter, as reported by Luke, is claiming David was writing about the resurrection and the Son not rotting in the grave! When God swore and oath to David He spoke about the resurrection!

So.....


If the gospel was preached in the OT and that gospel was overtly about Jesus's resurrection in which we find salvation from sin, death, and wrath, what basis then is there for the claim there are two kinds of faith, one old and the other new, one an old covenant faith and the other a new covenant faith?


None

Josheb said:

For the lurkers.

There are eight verse that speak of a "new covenant." The first is in Jeremiah 31. Another occurs on the occasion of the Lord's final meal when he celebrated the Passover. Four of the eight occur in the letter to the Hebrews. It's the Hebrews author who states, "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." As I've already shown, there are only two examples in the Bible when the word "covenant" is spoken of in a plural form. Of the eight mentions of a new covenant and the two about plural covenants, these all occur in the repeated context of God speaking about His covenant in singular form. The very last mention of "covenant" in the Bible is found in Revelation 11.

Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

And that is a direct and explicit reference back to the Old Testament (and its Law, the manna, and the priesthood). Those are just a few of the relevant, unvarnished facts of scripture. These are a few simple observations anyone can verify objectively for themselves. Not a word of doctrinal interpretation has been added.

However, the fact is, this op is not about the covenants. This op is about whether or not faith is a work. Covenants were brought into the conversation as justification for the unsubstantiated premise there must two (or more different kinds of faith - one Old/old, and the other New/new. The problem with that view is the gospel was preached in the Old Testament!

Galatians 3:1-9 ESV
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

The gospel was preached to Abraham. I think I already covered this so I'll just summarize it here and if I'm thinking of another thread I'll gladly provide the relevant scriptures. Abraham heard the gospel. Abraham knew he had to leave home to reach the promised land and he knew the city of peace was ruled by a kingly priest (or priestly king). He also knew God had pledge fealty to Himself, pledging His own life if He failed (the suzerain covenant in Abe's vision). Abe knew a son would be sacrificed, God would provide the sacrifice, and if the son died God would raise him from the grave. Abraham knew his singular seed would bring about the covenant promises, and he knew he'd be the father of many nations. Abraham believed all of that! For that faith he was justified and Paul makes it very clear ALL of God's people are justified by faith (whether faith alone or not is irrelevant). The righteous shall live by faith. Furthermore, all the OT people of faith listed in Hebrews 11 are said to be made complete in "us" those who believe in Christ.

Again, I point out these are the facts of scripture. I have not laid a single word of sectarian or doctrinal "interpretation" atop these facts. Anyone can objectively verify each of these statements. They are not up for debate.

While this next point is not said about Abraham (it's written about David) we can reasonably infer Abraham understood it because Abe knew about the God raising the son from the dead.

Acts 2:29-32 ESV
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

This is an alarming statement to some. Peter, as reported by Luke, is claiming David was writing about the resurrection and the Son not rotting in the grave! When God swore and oath to David He spoke about the resurrection!

So.....


If the gospel was preached in the OT and that gospel was overtly about Jesus's resurrection in which we find salvation from sin, death, and wrath, what basis then is there for the claim there are two kinds of faith, one old and the other new, one an old covenant faith and the other a new covenant faith?


None

Click to expand...

There are many Messianic prophesies spoken through many prophets in the Old Testament.

God said “I call the end from the beginning, and things that are not yet done,” Isaiah 46:10 KJV. So, God established from the beginning the new covenant which would be established after the old covenant (end from the beginning) by the mouth of two or three witnesses (the prophets).

God’s prophets under the Old Testament foretold Jesus, and the New Covenant, done by the mouth of two or three prophets - witnesses (By the mouth of two or three witnesses, a thing is established, John 8:17 KJV, 2 Corinthians 13:1 KJV).


This link is helpful in understanding God establishing his word using two or three witnesses!

Brightfame52 said:

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You also disagree with Eph 2:8-9

Click to expand...

No sir, that is where your misinterpretation of that Scripture begins. There are many passages which tell us that there is an action man must do that leads to receiving salvation, as you have been told any times before. The fact that you ignore those passages and misinterpret this passage does not change the fact that there are things man must do to receive the blessing God has promised to those who do those things.

Look at any of the people in the OT who were promised something from God. Every one of the was given something to do that lead to them receiving the gift. The widow who poured the oil in 2 Kings 4, Naaman in 2 Kings 5, the nation of Israel in taking the city of Jericho, and many, many others. None of their actions "earned" the gift, but if they had not done the action the gift would not have been received. So it is with salvation in the NT.

Brightfame52 said:

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You also disagree with Eph 2:8-9

Click to expand...

Calvinism (reformed Christianity) now comes under different shades since its inception in the 16th century.

Calvinists decide how to interpret scripture (Eph 2:8-9) according to their theology. For example Reform Baptists (Calvinist theology) don't believe Baptism is necessary as it's ... "something you DO its works" ... yet they call themselves Baptists. There are over 20 distinct Baptist affiliations from Conservative Baptists to 7th Day Baptists to Tongue Speaking Baptists with each Baptist affiliation convinced they're right ... just as is Bf52 with his choice of reformed theology.

biblelesson said:

Thanks for bringing this up! I was dealing with the understanding of abiding in Jesus just recently.

I learned to abide in Jesus is not to immulate Him, but to abide, which means we live in Him and He lives in us, in our spirit man, by the workings of the Holy Spirit.

We are unable of immulate Jesus, as far as walking in His example, because our carnal sinful man can never please God unto the righteousness God demands. This is why Apostle Paul says, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, Galatians 2:20 KJV.

Jesus helps to understand better: John 15:5 KJV, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

The branches can do nothing without the Vine. The Vine has the life, and that life flows to the branches which produces fruit - for the Husbandman’s satisfaction,
2 Timothy 2:6 KJV
The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

The Husbandman is the Father, John 15:1 KJV, who waits for the previous fruit, James 5:7 KJV.

We abide in Christ literally by the power of the Holy Spirit Who imparts Christ in our spirit, thus causing us to abide in Christ, and Christ abides in us, “He that abideth in me, and I in him,” John 15:5 KJV

Without this imparting of the Spirit, thus regenerating the spirit of a Christian, we are incapable of immulating Jesus; because of our carnal nature that is enmity against God, Romans 8:7-8 KJV. This is the very reason God moved the old man, which is the self nature, which is the carnal man, out of the way by crucifying it on the cross at Jesus death, Romans 6:6 KJV

Click to expand...

You are so right. The vine and branches analogy points us to the God who lives in our hearts. He has at His disposal "all things that the Father has" (Jn 14:15; 1 Cor 2:10), He "declares" those things to us (Jn 14:14; 1 Cor 2:12), and when we abide (i.e., "trust", "receive", "cherish", "walk") in Him, then we bear much fruit (Gal 5:16-26).

Speaking of the same concept, Paul said that in Him "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3), that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", that we are "complete in Him" (Col 2:9–10), and that we who "have received Christ Jesus the Lord" (active voice) and who are therefore "rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith" (3 passive voice verbs) must also "walk in Him" (active voice, imperative mood) (Col 2:6–7). This is how we bear much fruit.

Brightfame52 said:

okay and ?

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

Click to expand...

Let's try something different. Here are some things Jesus said using present tense, active voice, imperative mood verbs. These are things He exhorted (imperative) people to do themselves (active) right now (present).

• From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt 4:17)
• But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. (Mt 6:33)
• Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Mt 7:7)
• If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. (Jn 12:26)
• While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. (Jn 12:36)
• Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn 14:11)

Jesus' exhortations to repent, seek, ask, knock, follow, and believe are "works" under your definition because they are verbs. Since they are imperative mood verbs, then under your definition He is commanding people to "work".

Are you accusing Jesus of false doctrine, preaching a false religion, and telling people to build their house on sinking sand?

Doug Brents said:

Who? I have never even heard of someone coming to faith through reading the Word without someone to teach them. That is why God told the disciples to go and teach, not just to spread the written word.

Click to expand...

I was taught the meanings of Scripture and still had no faith in them.
It's not the preaching and teaching of the Word that brought me to faith.

Doug Brents said:

These are the OT Scriptures, and Jesus is speaking to the experts in the OT Scriptures who were already part of what was then the family of God. They were already in, they were not outsiders who needed conversion.

Click to expand...

No one was in who denied Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

Doug Brents said:

Again, who?

Click to expand...

Me.

Doug Brents said:

Is baptism done with the mouth? No.
Baptism is indeed an outward act, but it does not fulfill the commandment found in Rom 10:9-10.

Click to expand...

And you know for a fact that everyone in those crowds baptized by the apostles made an explicit public confession, how? . . .their coming forth to be baptized itself being a public confession.

Clare73 said:

I was taught the meanings of Scripture and still had no faith in them.
It's not the preaching and teaching of the Word that brought me to faith.

Click to expand...

This explains some of the false doctrines you exhibit. If one is only self taught in the Scriptures they cannot help but run into problems understanding the Scriptures. Those who are wiser and more deeply rooted in the Word are needed to guide a young disciple to proper understanding. This is how Jesus ordained the spreading of the Gospel (Matt 28:18-20).

Clare73 said:

No one was in who denied Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

Click to expand...

The Pharisees were the Religious leaders of Israel, they most certainly were "in" under the Old Covenant. But very few of them became part of the Church. But we are talking about those who are new disciples, those who are coming to be followers of Christ.

Clare73 said:

And you know for a fact that everyone in those crowds baptized by the apostles made an explicit public confession, how? . . .their coming forth to be baptized itself being a public confession.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I have seen many baptized who did not understand what they were doing. They were being baptized because it was what their friends (who did understand and who had made Jesus their Lord) were doing. It was just a show on their part, but there was no salvation taking place in their lives.

Doug Brents said:

This explains some of the false doctrines you exhibit. If one is only self taught

Click to expand...

Seems you need to read it again. . .

biblelesson said:

There are many Messianic prophesies spoken through many prophets in the Old Testament.

God said “I call the end from the beginning, and things that are not yet done,” Isaiah 46:10 KJV. So, God established from the beginning the new covenant which would be established after the old covenant (end from the beginning) by the mouth of two or three witnesses (the prophets).

God’s prophets under the Old Testament foretold Jesus, and the New Covenant, done by the mouth of two or three prophets - witnesses (By the mouth of two or three witnesses, a thing is established, John 8:17 KJV, 2 Corinthians 13:1 KJV).

Click to expand...

Relevance to the op?

biblelesson said:

This link is helpful in understanding God establishing his word using two or three witnesses!

In the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses | American Pastor

americanpastor.com

Click to expand...

I trust you understand my disdain for extra-biblical sources, especially if and when doctrinally biased,* and all the more so when scripture itself is sufficient for the task at hand. Not a big fan of self-promotion, either (for those who link to their own websites, blogs, etc.). The first half of the post is somewhat commendable (assuming some degree of relevance to the op), even though anyone can copy and paste Bible verses into a post. Not so much the link.











*see Article V
.

Brightfame52 said:

okay and ?

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

Click to expand...

A Reformed Baptist chaplain (calvinist persuasion) once emphatically declared in a YMCA Bible Study group (that he was leading) that ..."You can't invite Jesus into your heart". No one challenged him because he believved ... "If you condition salvation on something you DO its work."

No one in the group of 8 men challenged him. If someone had he would've turned on them. Kind of like a college professor that belittles an outspoken Christian student in his psychology or philosophy class.

Someone in the group informed the YMCA Director which resulted in this chaplain giving a half-hearted apology to the group. In other words the Director o the YMCA and members in the group had enough sense to realize this chaplain had his own religious agenda.