Is believing/faith a work ?

[atpollard]

So if you say "After 2500+ posts there can be nothing to say that has not already been said" why are you posting anything?

YOU REQUESTED THAT I POST SOMETHING!

Good grief man ... you complain that you don't like my response to someone else and demand another response ... then you complain that I responded to your request for another response ...

Now you ask me a question and will likely complain that I responded to your question ...

Matthew 11:17 [NLT]
'We played wedding songs, and you didn't dance, so we played funeral songs, and you didn't mourn.'

There is just no satisfying you.

 

[jaybo]

YOU REQUESTED THAT I POST SOMETHING!

Good grief man ... you complain that you don't like my response to someone else and demand another response ... then you complain that I responded to your request for another response ...

Now you ask me a question and will likely complain that I responded to your question ...

Matthew 11:17 [NLT]
'We played wedding songs, and you didn't dance, so we played funeral songs, and you didn't mourn.'

There is just no satisfying you.

Then stop posting. Nobody is requiring you to participate.

Ecclesiastes 3:7b, "[there is] a time to be silent and a time to speak,"

 

[atpollard]

Of course 'believing' is something a person does. The question is, is that the doing of a works gospel? No, of course not. I think Brightframe is the only one who thinks that.

I 100% agree.
At this point, is there any real chance of changing HIS mind?
Will he read post 2600 and suddenly shout "Oh, I get it now!".

 

[atpollard]

Then stop posting. Nobody is requiring you to participate.

Place me on ignore.
It is not your place to police when and where I choose to post.

 

[jaybo]

Place me on ignore.
It is not your place to police when and where I choose to post.

I agree, but you are the one who brought up your participation, not me. And It is not your place to police when and where I choose to post, or whom I put on "ignore" status.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I 100% agree.
At this point, is there any real chance of changing HIS mind?
Will he read post 2600 and suddenly shout "Oh, I get it now!".

Yeah, you're correct. There is no changing of minds for various reasons. The problem is the brightfame52 is the ambassador for reformed doctrine so I feel it incumbent upon someone to state what reformed doctrine teaches correctly. Gee, even Jethro Bodine stated why Reform's doctrine about 'men believing' not being a work in the Reform view.
There's plenty of info on monergism and synergism for brightfame52 to read to get it straight.

brightfame52 .... people do things that result in their salvation but it is God doing the work to cause them to believe and repent. LIke a man and a hammer ... the man is doing the work and the hammer is simply the tool doing the work at the man's command. The man gets the glory and the hammer can't boast. Simply as that.

 

[atpollard]

Yeah, you're correct. There is no changing of minds for various reasons. The problem is the @brightfame52 is the ambassador for reformed doctrine so I feel it incumbent upon someone to state what reformed doctrine teaches correctly.

How about what R.C. Sproul claims that REFORMED teach:

In historic Reformation thought, the notion is this: regeneration precedes faith. We also believe that regeneration is monergistic. Now that's a three-dollar word. It means essentially that the divine operation called rebirth or regeneration is the work of God alone. An erg is a unit of labor, a unit of work. The word energy comes from that idea. The prefix mono- means "one." So monergism means "one working." It means that the work of regeneration in the human heart is something that God does by His power alone—not by 50 percent His power and 50 percent man's power, or even 99 percent His power and 1 percent man's power. It is 100 percent the work of God. He, and He alone, has the power to change the disposition of the soul and the human heart to bring us to faith.​

​

In addition, when He exercises this grace in the soul, He brings about the effect that He intends to bring about. When God created you, He brought you into existence. You didn't help Him. It was His sovereign work that brought you to life biologically. Likewise, it is His work, and His alone, that brings you into the state of rebirth and of renewed creation. Hence, we call this irresistible grace. It's grace that works. It's grace that brings about what God wants it to bring about. If, indeed, we are dead in sins and trespasses, if, indeed, our wills are held captive by the lusts of our flesh and we need to be liberated from our flesh in order to be saved, then in the final analysis, salvation must be something that God does in us and for us, not something that we in any way do for ourselves.​

​

However, the idea of irresistibility conjures up the idea that one cannot possibly offer any resistance to the grace of God. However, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance to the sweetness of the grace of God. Irresistible grace does not mean that God's grace is incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God's grace, and we do resist it. The idea is that God's grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren't dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts. They are no longer hearts of stone that are impervious to the commands of God and to the invitations of the gospel. God melts the hardness of our hearts when He makes us new creatures. The Holy Spirit resurrects us from spiritual death, so that we come to Christ because we want to come to Christ. The reason we want to come to Christ is because God has already done a work of grace in our souls. Without that work, we would never have any desire to come to Christ. That's why we say that regeneration precedes faith.​

​

I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don't believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.​

​

from TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace​

​

So let me FIRST speak about what brightfame52 claims (if I have understood him correctly):

• He is adamant that REGENERATION precedes FAITH and claims that any view that FAITH precedes REGENERATION is, de facto, a synergystic salvation based on man offering something in partnership with God.
• From what I read above, R.C. Sproul, whose Reformed credentials are unimpeachable, agrees with Brightframe52.

NEXT let me speak about what Fastfredy0 claims (if I have understood him correctly):

• When Paul speaks of a salvation by works vs a salvation by faith, he is speaking of trusting in OUR GOOD WORKS (obedience to the OT Law or acts of moral goodness) to JUSTIFY us in the sight of God vs FAITH in the Blood of Christ as our only source of JUSTIFICATION.
• R.C. Sproul, in the above quote, would agree whole-heartedly with you. He speaks of the FAITH that comes FROM GOD ... which is the Faith that you speak of when you contrast YOUR faith to works.

So who is right and who is wrong?
At the risk of pissing off my close personal friend (jaybo ), both sides appear correct from their specific point of view and both sides appear wrong in their misinterpretation of what the other side is saying.
... but I am arrogant and ignorant, so you should probably ignore everything that I say.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay, atpollard , that's a good, informative post about Calvinism. I could only scan it because I'm at work and can't devote a lot of thought to it right now, but I will later.

So at this point I will just say that my non-Calvy view is that what you say is actual regeneration that gives a person the will to believe and be saved is actually just a simple non-salvific, non-regenerational illuminating of the Spirit that frees the will of the person to either choose or reject the gospel that is being illumined in them. It is indeed compelling, but can be resisted.

I'm referring to the illumination of the Spirit that even Calvinism acknowledges spoken about in Hebrews 6:4-6. I suggest that's all a person needs in order to make an educated and empowered and accountable decision to believe and receive the gospel and be saved, or not believe it and be condemned. It's sufficiency in that role is demonstrated by the fact that, eventually, rejecting it justly condemns that person to never having the chance to be saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

How about what R.C. Sproul claims that REFORMED teach:

In historic Reformation thought, the notion is this: regeneration precedes faith. We also believe that regeneration is monergistic. Now that's a three-dollar word. It means essentially that the divine operation called rebirth or regeneration is the work of God alone. An erg is a unit of labor, a unit of work. The word energy comes from that idea. The prefix mono- means "one." So monergism means "one working." It means that the work of regeneration in the human heart is something that God does by His power alone—not by 50 percent His power and 50 percent man's power, or even 99 percent His power and 1 percent man's power. It is 100 percent the work of God. He, and He alone, has the power to change the disposition of the soul and the human heart to bring us to faith.​

​

In addition, when He exercises this grace in the soul, He brings about the effect that He intends to bring about. When God created you, He brought you into existence. You didn't help Him. It was His sovereign work that brought you to life biologically. Likewise, it is His work, and His alone, that brings you into the state of rebirth and of renewed creation. Hence, we call this irresistible grace. It's grace that works. It's grace that brings about what God wants it to bring about. If, indeed, we are dead in sins and trespasses, if, indeed, our wills are held captive by the lusts of our flesh and we need to be liberated from our flesh in order to be saved, then in the final analysis, salvation must be something that God does in us and for us, not something that we in any way do for ourselves.​

​

However, the idea of irresistibility conjures up the idea that one cannot possibly offer any resistance to the grace of God. However, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance to the sweetness of the grace of God. Irresistible grace does not mean that God's grace is incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God's grace, and we do resist it. The idea is that God's grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren't dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts. They are no longer hearts of stone that are impervious to the commands of God and to the invitations of the gospel. God melts the hardness of our hearts when He makes us new creatures. The Holy Spirit resurrects us from spiritual death, so that we come to Christ because we want to come to Christ. The reason we want to come to Christ is because God has already done a work of grace in our souls. Without that work, we would never have any desire to come to Christ. That's why we say that regeneration precedes faith.​

​

I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don't believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.​

​

from TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace​

​

So let me FIRST speak about what brightfame52 claims (if I have understood him correctly):

• He is adamant that REGENERATION precedes FAITH and claims that any view that FAITH precedes REGENERATION is, de facto, a synergystic salvation based on man offering something in partnership with God.
• From what I read above, R.C. Sproul, whose Reformed credentials are unimpeachable, agrees with Brightframe52.

NEXT let me speak about what Fastfredy0 claims (if I have understood him correctly):

• When Paul speaks of a salvation by works vs a salvation by faith, he is speaking of trusting in OUR GOOD WORKS (obedience to the OT Law or acts of moral goodness) to JUSTIFY us in the sight of God vs FAITH in the Blood of Christ as our only source of JUSTIFICATION.
• R.C. Sproul, in the above quote, would agree whole-heartedly with you. He speaks of the FAITH that comes FROM GOD ... which is the Faith that you speak of when you contrast YOUR faith to works.

So who is right and who is wrong?
At the risk of pissing off my close personal friend (jaybo ), both sides appear correct from their specific point of view and both sides appear wrong in their misinterpretation of what the other side is saying.
... but I am arrogant and ignorant, so you should probably ignore everything that I say.

Did you know that RC was reluctant to become reformed because the thought it didn't make sense to him?
This was written in one of his biographies in which he told the above to his mentor and PhD supervisor.
I have the distinct feeling that he carried this through with him throughout his career.
I say this because he seems to be the most reasonable in his theological explanations.
I heard Piper, MacArthur and Sproul explain how God created even evil...Sproul, as usual, as the most reluctant to admit this. Do you have any knowledge of the above? I've posted this before, with videos from YouTube, but I guess the calvinists here don't even believe their own eyes and ears and told me I was wrong. (about God creating evil from the reformed POV)

 

[GodsGrace]

Okay, atpollard , that's a good, informative post about Calvinism. I could only scan it because I'm at work and can't devote a lot of thought to it right now, but I will later.

So at this point I will just say that my non-Calvy view is that what you say is actual regeneration that gives a person the will to believe and be saved is actually just a simple non-salvific, non-regenerational illuminating of the Spirit that frees the will of the person to either choose or reject the gospel that is being illumined in them. It is indeed compelling, but can be resisted.

I'm referring to the illumination of the Spirit that even Calvinism acknowledges spoken about in Hebrews 6:4-6. I suggest that's all a person needs in order to make an educated and empowered and accountable decision to believe and receive the gospel and be saved, or not believe it and be condemned. It's sufficiency in that role is demonstrated by the fact that, eventually, rejecting it justly condemns that person to never having the chance to be saved.

I'm not sure Sproul calls it regeneration...I can't remember.
Plus, it's late here now and I also can't get into this now.
I THINK Sproul means it more as a change of heart - the way we non-cals do.
(nice title!!)

 

[atpollard]

Okay, atpollard , that's a good, informative post about Calvinism. I could only scan it because I'm at work and can't devote a lot of thought to it right now, but I will later.

So at this point I will just say that my non-Calvy view is that what you say is actual regeneration that gives a person the will to believe and be saved is actually just a simple non-salvific, non-regenerational illuminating of the Spirit that frees the will of the person to either choose or reject the gospel that is being illumined in them. It is indeed compelling, but can be resisted.

I'm referring to the illumination of the Spirit that even Calvinism acknowledges spoken about in Hebrews 6:4-6. I suggest that's all a person needs in order to make an educated and empowered and accountable decision to believe and receive the gospel and be saved, or not believe it and be condemned. It's sufficiency in that role is demonstrated by the fact that, eventually, rejecting it justly condemns that person to never having the chance to be saved.

I would suggest that Calvinism goes a little further (as Calvinism tends to) and would claim that God places a finger on the scale of Human decision. Yes one may resist God … for a while. No God does not save people against their will. I guess Calvinism would say God relentlessly pursues those He loves and eventually seduces them (us, actually) to fall in love with Him and to choose Him. More than just giving us a choice. Less than forcing us to love Him against our will.

Does that make any sense?

 

[atpollard]

I heard Piper, MacArthur and Sproul explain how God created even evil...Sproul, as usual, as the most reluctant to admit this. Do you have any knowledge of the above? I've posted this before, with videos from YouTube, but I guess the calvinists here don't even believe their own eyes and ears and told me I was wrong. (about God creating evil from the reformed POV)

God creating evil is a controversial doctrine even among Reformed. Some accept it and some reject it. The question is “Just how SOVEREIGN and IN CONTROL is God?” Some say “totally and absolutely” and back it up by accepting that God even created EVIL (for which their ARE verses that offer support). Others say “God is not the author of evil” (for which there are ALSO verses that offer support). Thus this is a HARD theological question because it places two BIBLICAL aspects of the character of God against each other.

• God is perfectly good.
• God is totally in control.
• So what about the “problem of evil”?

(Yes, I am familiar with the issue.)

 

[atpollard]

Did you know that RC was reluctant to become reformed because the thought it didn't make sense to him?

He seems to have eventually overcome his reluctance … he founded Ligonier Ministries.

 

[Rookie]

The word “believe” in the Greek text is “pisteuo” which is a verb denoting a work. If a person could believe in Christ before they are born again by the Spirit, it would mean they have done a work and that would mean they have worked for their salvation which is totally against what the scriptures teach. Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I believe that's an over-simplification (for lack of better words) of the text. If we take that literally, breathing, thinking, walking, talking, every single function is a work. And what Jesus is requiring would be impractical because if we aren't "working" we are decomposing/dead. Only dead people don't work.

The work Jesus is refering to is this: Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

Works here in the greek is: ergon, a nueter noun, which (according to the KJV) is translated as work 152x, deed 22x, doing 1x, and labour 1x. It means:
business, employment, that which any one is occupied/that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
_____________________________________
Perphaps another explanation is that the work which Jesus is saying doesn't get you into heaven alone is labouring and doing good deed in order to achieve heaven, but the greek work you mentioned simply means to have trust and confidence in. Which is us actually surrendering to Christ which is exactly what we are called to do. It's like falling backwards in Christ arms. Now faith without works is dead though, as it says in James, not that faith needs works but true faith automatically produces work. If you have faith in a chair, you sit on it, if you don't you find another one! But Jesus isn't saying works are excluded, but works don't get you in heaven ALONE. It's like doing and indicative without the imperative. It's not to become a child of God I obey Him, it's because I am a loved, cherished, adored, and precious child of God I do his commandments.

I did a bad job explaining... you bring up a good point though.

 

[Rookie]

God creating evil is a controversial doctrine even among Reformed. Some accept it and some reject it. The question is “Just how SOVEREIGN and IN CONTROL is God?” Some say “totally and absolutely” and back it up by accepting that God even created EVIL (for which their ARE verses that offer support). Others say “God is not the author of evil” (for which there are ALSO verses that offer support). Thus this is a HARD theological question because it places two BIBLICAL aspects of the character of God against each other.

• God is perfectly good.
• God is totally in control.
• So what about the “problem of evil”?

(Yes, I am familiar with the issue.)

Ultimately we will never understand fully the providence of God. He is infinite and we are finite, so by definition, we will never be able to encapsulate God and fully understand what he does and why he does it. And He doesn't have an obligation to explain Himself, sort of similar in a parent-child relationship. But I believe one day all things will be revealed, but not now to keep us humble and from being conceited.

 

[GodsGrace]

Q

He seems to have eventually overcome his reluctance … he founded Ligonier Ministries.

He's a natural leader and well liked.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ultimately we will never understand fully the providence of God. He is infinite and we are finite, so by definition, we will never be able to encapsulate God and fully understand what he does and why he does it. And He doesn't have an obligation to explain Himself, sort of similar in a parent-child relationship. But I believe one day all things will be revealed, but not now to keep us humble and from being conceited.

Does God allow us to know what He expects from us to become saved?

 

[Rookie]

Does God allow us to know what He expects from us to become saved?

He did, all throughout Scripture.

 

[atpollard]

He's a natural leader and well liked.

He is also uncharacteristically PRACTICAL for a Calvinist.
The REFORMED reject “Dispensationalism” (God operates differently at different times … so Noah was saved different from King David who was saved different from Peter). It mostly plays out in arguments about the End Times and whether God will save people different in the Final 1000 year Kingdom. R.C. Sproul was the opening speaker for a Reformed Conference on Dispensationalism and announced to the crowd that if they believed that things changed when Adam and Eve fell, then we are all at least a little “Dispensationalist”. Anyone that can make a joke about their own position is all right in my book.

 

[Fastfredy0]

How about what R.C. Sproul claims that REFORMED teach:

In historic Reformation thought, the notion is this: regeneration precedes faith. We also believe that regeneration is monergistic.

Amen

I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don't believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.

Maybe splitting hairs ... I'm good with both

[Brightframe52] He is adamant that REGENERATION precedes FAITH

We're (us 3) all good with this.

and both sides appear wrong in their misinterpretation of what the other side is saying.

That is a possibility. There is also the issue of so many statements being made that it is difficult to unscramble who said what. Thx for your input.