I'd like to first state my motivations behind this line of discussion. I've noticed that whenever 2 people are unable to agree upon the same belief, it's usually due to differences in the 3Ls - Language, Logic or Laws (root First Premises). The first 2 Ls should be technically easy to sort out (but rarely is!), while we have the objective Scriptures for the First Premises (though with our subjective Interpretations). If we proceed with defining all ambiguous terms, avoid logical fallacies and adopt the Scripture-interprets-Scripture principle, we should be able to find more common ground.
I couldn't agree with you more - so we're off to a good start.
This thread essentially asks the basic question of whether our salvation is monergistic (all God's work alone with no cooperation from man) or synergistic (all God's work in cooperation with man). I've worded this in the most common form, but to be more precise we need to elaborate on what we mean by cooperation of man. For in one sense, when we say that something was done without another's cooperation, we quickly assume that it was done against the will of that person, or at least in indifference to his will. But that is not the sense in which this must be used - it simply contemplates whether man co-Operated or not - ie whether man did something as a causative contribution towards his salvation or not. Therefore technically, salvation could be monergistic with no causative cooperation from man and yet within his will.
Again, I could not agree more, but will add to what you've said. There are two other words we must explain here, just to make it easier for us to undersand each other. They are:
Justification
Sanctification
I'm sure you're familiar with both, but let's clarify.
You're saying that salvation is monergistic- God doing all the work. The only causative cooperation on the part of man would be his desire to know God and to serve God. He must be looking for God in order to find Him, and in order to hear His voice. Other than this, I'd say that Justification (initial salvation) is totally the work of God. Man can do nothing to deserve this - he is lost at birth, and God is Almighty, so what could we possibly do for Him?
And herein is our will demonstrated. We WILL to know God.
Then we get to the synergistic.
Sanctification.
Although God gives us the grace to do works, we become sanctified by cooperating with God in this work of His to make us holy, separate. Separate for service to God. So sanctification requires our cooperation since God cannot do the work for us: God - who sends the Holy Spirit to be our paraclete, and Us, who do the works with the help of the Holy Spirit. All this to finish a good work in us - Philippians 1:6
The current discussion on the two words "faith" and "to believe in" addresses this very issue. Both sides agree to the fact that Faith is given by God alone and man is a passive recipient. The ones who hold both words to amount to the same then derive an easy conclusion for monergism. And the ones who do not hold them to be the same derive "Believing in" to be the cooperative work of man in response to God's giving of Faith. Hence, this line of discussion over these words in order to conclude in part on the thread topic.
I believe in monergism and synergism - so where do I fit in?
FAITH: Hebrews 11:1
Faith is a noun. It's a "thing." It's something I have: an assurance that I will eventually have the things I hope for. A conviction, or a being sure of, things I cannot see. I know principalities exist, even though I cannot see them.
God gives us faith, but we also have to want it. It is, however, a supernatural gift - we don't fabricate faith, it comes to us from God. Of course, there are also other types of faith; I could have faith in my car, in an escalator, etc. That faith lets me MOVE to get into my car, or to get on the escalator. My God Faith, lets me move toward God.
Believe is a verb. To believe in Jesus means to understand what He intends, to agree with it, to adhere to His teachings, to be ready to follow them, and Him. It's more of what WE are willing to do for HIM.
The "believe" in your no. 2 below is a lesser belief. It's more of that belief like satan had in Jesus. Satan believed in Him too and His ability to keep His promises on the basis of Jesus' nature and abilities, but satan did not believe in the sense of what I wrote above. So that has to be the "believe" as expressed biblically and which is the correct translation from the Greek.
Actually, the English translation has been pretty faithful to the original words here. I suppose it is us who aren't making the appropriate distinctions between the base word "believe" and the phrasal word "believe in/on/upon". To begin with some working definitions :
1. to Believe : is to hold a premise as True.
2. to Believe in/on/upon somebody : is to hold as True, the sufficiency of that person to fulfill what is expected of him or what he has promised, on the basis of that person's nature and abilities.
Therefore, the devil 1.believes that there is one God - but does not 2.believe in Christ for redemption and salvation.
I think the greek dictionary makes it quite clear that to "believe in/upon a person" is grammatically the same as to "have faith".
Although I understand the two words to have different meanings, I do agree with you that to believe in a person, you must also have faith in that person. If you have "faith" in the person, then you can also "believe" in them.
Wondering