The Good News/The Bad News

[GodsGrace]

Discussions are good. Different viewpoints should be appreciated. Peter and Paul were polar opposites yet served the same Lord.

How do you believe Peter and Paul to be polar opposites?
In what way? (just generally speaking).

 

[PeterJens]

How do you believe Peter and Paul to be polar opposites?
In what way? (just generally speaking).

I came across a fellow who disliked the calvanist boxes.
He proposed something that I had not quite seen before.

The verse saying we are predestined before the creation of the world can be taken to imply we individually, ie. by our names or predestined by our position in faith. One interpretation is fatalistic, ie. the outcome has no choice along the way, you are either set to heaven or hell, or the other is set, those of faith are predestined to glory.

Equally the Lord reacts to things and we stand outside, not knowing the why, how or cause. As outsiders can anyone judge justice or truth or reality other than trusting because we know the Lord we know it is just. Our very subjectivity means trust is the only game in town.

I have met very insecure people who we have both discussed with, who cannot cope with the idea of possible rejection, not actual rejection just the possibility of it. I know people like this. But you have to stand back and admit unbelief and a lack of faith does not justify the denial of being rejected by the Lords will. For the Lord to be sovereign, He holds the right to reject us, though He declares who and how He will honour His people. Some then say this creates conditions on God, earning salvation, which to me is absurd. It is like a child denying their parents love because they know if they continually rebel they will be cast aside. A heart desiring to follow and love will never be cast aside, which is exactly what God declares, but this involves our free will and hearts.

One individual we conflicted with turns out to be a white supremacist, yet declares God accepts him in this position. To me this is a denial of the very foundation of me a lost sinner in need of love, forgiveness and salvation, to then declare by my birth I have more value than my brother or sister next to me. Arguing theology with such people seems empty, because their failure is deeply emotional and embedded in who they believe they are. I cannot see how they know the Jesus I know and for one moment feel and behave as they do.

It is with great sadness that faith needs a true emotional reaction in ones heart, or it is just wishful thinking.
I can judge no man, but maybe open a door for them to find Jesus. God bless you

 

[PeterJens]

The word GOSPEL means good news.

The word “Gospel” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, “godspel”, or “good story”.

The Greek word “euaggelion” signified “a present given to one who brought good tidings”, or “a sacrifice offered in thanksgiving for such good tidings having come”.
In later Greek uses, it was employed for the good tidings themselves.

And the New Testament certainly is a book of good news.

What are the good news?

1. God devised a plan for us to be able to enter His Kingdom of Heaven.
We are born lost because God has been offended by mankind --- Adam, who represented us all, disobeyed the Holy God. Genesis 3:24 God drove the man out.
God is a just God. He also loved His creation. How to reconcile this? Romans 5:19 Through the obedience to Christ, many will be made righteous.


2. Through belief in Jesus, a person can be saved for eternal life.
John 3:16 WHOEVER, anyone in the world, believes in Christ will be saved and have everlasting life.


This is the Good News: That anyone can be saved from their lost state by believing in Jesus and obeying His commandments.


There also seems to be Bad News in the Christian world.
A news from the N.T. that states that not everyone could be saved.
No matter how much they'd like to be.
No,,,it is up to God to save or banish a person from heaven
and it is not up to the individual to accept the gift of salvation from God.
And this based on nothing at all but God's choice.
They can only hope that they will be one of the lucky ones.

This is indeed Bad News.

Jesus is good news. Paul points out that Jesus is also bad news for those who are lost.

14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him.
15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.
16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life.
1 Cor 2:14-16

Jesus and morality judges those who wish to exploit others for their own ends and they fight and resist those who desire for truthful living and open sharing, because they would then be discovered and everything they have gained would be lost.

There are some who believe unless you fit a certain category you are lost.
This puts the focus not on getting right with God, but confirming you are chosen or not.
Some then conclude they are not chosen but doomed, which is ludicrous and not Gods good news.

Jesus's good news is there is hope for anyone who will listen, learn and follow, literally.
It is what He said. By listening, learning and following you show you are chosen and called.
In one sense without the Holy Spirit warming ones heart at these words, you would never know their reality.
So rather than a sense of disappointment, by just being sensitive to the offer, declares God is working in you.

Jesus's good news is He is there beside you, in every situation you face and has an answer that will resolve everything, not just a little, but eternally. It is so close, but to those who shut love out, so very far away. And there are folk this lost, to whom the message of love and acceptance is so impossible they regard it as just optimistic evil, leading to exploitation. I know this after having a pastor use these exact sentiments to me, which I understand emotionally 100% after living in an emotionally hidden family, but also I know it is a lie of the enemy to keep people captive.

God bless you

 

[GodsGrace]

I came across a fellow who disliked the calvanist boxes.
He proposed something that I had not quite seen before.

The verse saying we are predestined before the creation of the world can be taken to imply we individually, ie. by our names or predestined by our position in faith. One interpretation is fatalistic, ie. the outcome has no choice along the way, you are either set to heaven or hell, or the other is set, those of faith are predestined to glory.

That is exactly what it means.
We were predestined, before the beginning, to be saved by Jesus.
It is HOW we are saved, and not WHO is saved.

The N.T. does not support the idea that God chooses the eternally saved and the eternally damned
based on no reason at all. This would not be justice --- and God is a just God.

Equally the Lord reacts to things and we stand outside, not knowing the why, how or cause. As outsiders can anyone judge justice or truth or reality other than trusting because we know the Lord we know it is just. Our very subjectivity means trust is the only game in town.

Agreed.

I have met very insecure people who we have both discussed with, who cannot cope with the idea of possible rejection, not actual rejection just the possibility of it. I know people like this. But you have to stand back and admit unbelief and a lack of faith does not justify the denial of being rejected by the Lords will. For the Lord to be sovereign, He holds the right to reject us, though He declares who and how He will honour His people.

Agreed again.
We have a loving and just God that we can trust because, in His merciful attitude toward us, His creation, He
wished to let us know and be aware of His existence and He revealed to us, in the bible, how we can be saved.

Some then say this creates conditions on God, earning salvation, which to me is absurd. It is like a child denying their parents love because they know if they continually rebel they will be cast aside. A heart desiring to follow and love will never be cast aside, which is exactly what God declares, but this involves our free will and hearts.

How can anyone/anything create conditions on God???!!!
As you state above, it's impossible.
Jesus did state He would never cast us aside.....John 6:37
As long as we wish to abide in Him....Galatians 2:20

One individual we conflicted with turns out to be a white supremacist, yet declares God accepts him in this position. To me this is a denial of the very foundation of me a lost sinner in need of love, forgiveness and salvation, to then declare by my birth I have more value than my brother or sister next to me. Arguing theology with such people seems empty, because their failure is deeply emotional and embedded in who they believe they are. I cannot see how they know the Jesus I know and for one moment feel and behave as they do.

Amen. All Jesus taught is LOVE....
Love God
Love your neighbor (whatever color he is)
Love yourself

Those that cannot love others, might have a problem with themselves.
1 John 4:7-8
7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

It is with great sadness that faith needs a true emotional reaction in ones heart, or it is just wishful thinking.
I can judge no man, but maybe open a door for them to find Jesus. God bless you

More than an emotion...it is just a knowledge...it is knowing.

Amen.

 

[jerry63935]

Stand by what we know.
I agree to that.

I do want to say that Catholics believe a person also has to believe in Jesus to be saved....
they are not automatically saved because they are baptized.
Along with belief, they do state that baptism is necessary.
(I don't agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine either).

problem is we have so many off the wall doctrines .it was years after i got saved that i even heard of calvinism or free will . another old time preacher man said he was glad he got saved before becoming a baptist. i will prob be getting a vacation 4 long as admin dont like my remarks on center subject..i kicked the golden cow over and broke it

 

[OzSpen]

I hope you do not mind me making a point here.
Words describe something else, a kind of objectivity on the subject in question.
Words come with context and implied meaning to the speaker which may be different from the listener.
The object being described is always being described in part, as words are particular and not all encompassing.

In the religious biblical context, unloving is meant as the antithesis of who God is.
So you could say something as the opposite of love, like hate of another, or as a passive stepping back and doing nothing while another suffers. That is unloving, as in not responding to an obvious need, as if it does not exist.
So the priests and teachers of the law passed by on the other side of the road to the man wounded and bleeding in the road in need of help. A lack of love, is also something that can be understood by people who actually feel love and see real need, which creates a loving response.

In my discussions with others I have been struck by how many are totally shut down to love in their hearts.
Jesus's focus is very simple. God is love, open, clear, giving without restraint. To meet Him is to be confronted with something as sinners we have shut out. On that final day, either ones heart is open in praise and worship or one is lost.

Our words are in the end just reflections of this reality or its absence.
This is hard for sinful man to face, everything springs from our hearts and whether we have met the Lord and been cleansed or not.

God bless you

Peter,

I accept that explanation but it does not provide the answer to the question: "Which biblical Greek word for 'love' is used in Rom 1:31? What does that word mean whether as "loving" or "unloving"?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Correct. But showing how the two words are related in the Greek is not redefining the word. It’s expanding ones understanding of the word and at the same time it allows us to better hear the original intent.

SB,

Knowing which Greek "love" word is used in "unloving" (Rom 1:31 ESV) tells us the nature of love Paul was describing, even though this is in the negative.

I agree it is not redefining the word but is explaining the exact/precise/accurate meaning of the word. The word for "love" in "unloving" in Rom 1:31 does not have the same meaning as "love" in 1 John 4:7-8. How do we know the differences in the words used and their meaning?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Why you hittin' yer head?
Teachers are good.

There's a 10 book collection of the writings of the ECFs.
Besides being just too much to read...it's also very costly.
I use the net for this.....
I'm very interested in what THEY believed.
So far, I haven't found anything to disagree with, but I haven't
read everything they wrote either.

David Bercot (bersew) did study them in full and has a great series
on YouTube. It's called WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIAND BELIEVED ABOUT.......(fill in the blank).

Here is one on salvation:

wondering,

Since you have access to the Internet, there's no need to purchase any volumes of the writings of the ECF. They are all available on the New Advent and CCEL sites for FREE.

I will not accept the view that God's gift of teachers (through commentaries) is not for the body of Christ. There are too many holes in that kind of theology that 'castrates' one of God's gift from the body.

Oz

 

[jerry63935]

Who taught you that absolute?

this forum carm forum .who taught you

 

[OzSpen]

Correct. But showing how the two words are related in the Greek is not redefining the word. It’s expanding ones understanding of the word and at the same time it allows us to better hear the original intent.

SB,

Faith and belief are used interchangeably in the NT. We read this in John's Gospel: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31 ESV). I have searched in vain in John's Gospel for the word, "faith" (It may be there), but have not found the exact word but the concept of faith is there. Pisteuo is used over 100 times in John's Gospel.

So the noun, "faith," is not used in the Gospel of John but the verb, pisteuo (meaning 'I believe') is used around 100 times. Remember Jesus' use of the verb in speaking to Thomas, the one who doubted Jesus. This applies to all who hear the Gospel: 'Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."' (John 20:29).

Throughout Scripture, I find there is no distinction between faith and belief. Both are based on the same Greek root: pistis (faith) and pisteuo (I believe).

Yes, people can have false or inadequate faith or belief. The differences between faith and belief seem to be more in contemporary use. As long as we remember faith and belief do not distinguish between mental assent and unswerving commitment, we are on safe biblical grounds.

Oz

 

[jerry63935]

The differences between faith and belief seem to be more in contemporary use. As long as we remember faith and belief do not distinguish between mental assent and unswerving commitment, we are on safe biblical grounds.

i have to agree and another word is trust prov trust in the Lord WITH ALL YOUR HEART

 

[PeterJens]

Peter,

I accept that explanation but it does not provide the answer to the question: "Which biblical Greek word for 'love' is used in Rom 1:31? What does that word mean whether as "loving" or "unloving"?

Oz

Philio and agape.
Jesus asks Peter do you love me, using these two, as a test of loyalty after Peter's denial. Foundationally it is my love for Jesus and His love in me that is eternal life. The door was the cross, the burning anointing that put everything into perspective.

It is why to be unloving is not just an action, it is a void in knowing our Lord. It cannot be overcome unless one truly encounters Jesus God bless you

 

[OzSpen]

Philio and agape.
Jesus asks Peter do you love me, using these two, as a test of loyalty after Peter's denial. Foundationally it is my love for Jesus and His love in me that is eternal life. The door was the cross, the burning anointing that put everything into perspective.

It is why to be unloving is not just an action, it is a void in knowing our Lord. It cannot be overcome unless one truly encounters Jesus God bless you

Peter,

This is why exegesis is so important. Neither philia nor agape is used in Rom 1:31, but another Greek word for love/unloving is used. What is it and what's the difference with philia and agape?

Oz

 

[Fastfredy0]

Romans 1:31
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful. HCSV
31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. NET2
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ESV
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. ISV
31 Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. MSG
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: {without natural...: or unsociable} KJV
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful NASB

unloving ἀστόργους
Morphology: A--AM-P Strong's: 794 Transliterated: astorgous Root: ἄστοργος
1) without natural affection, unsociable (Ro 1:31 marg.), inhuman (2Ti 3:3 RSV), unloving (2Ti 3:3 NKJV)

 

[PeterJens]

Peter,

This is why exegesis is so important. Neither philia nor agape is used in Rom 1:31, but another Greek word for love/unloving is used. What is it and what's the difference with philia and agape?

Oz

astorgous - heartless, without a heart, is close to the english word unloving.
Part of the falleness of man is our ability to protect our hearts from pain or the vulnerability of love and its need to give in the hope of receiving back, that we cut off our emotions and response to others, which makes us heartless.
So this is exactly the opposite of philia or brotherly love and agape, sacrificial love.

I wonder why you feel there is an issue here?

One important point about Paul is he talks with his emotions and his heart. He longs to see people, to encourage, to rejoice, is hurt when people fail and desires to help them restore them to Christ. Now if one reads this with a hard heart it is the facts that pour out, the theology and not the emotion and feeling. But when you feel Pauls encouragement and rebukes, you know his full involvement and passion with the churches and disciples.

I know too many christian leaders who have read the bible, seemingly know Jesus yet do not feel or know these realities in their hearts or reading the passion of Pauls writing. And boy is he a passionate man.

God bless you

 

[OzSpen]

astorgous - heartless, without a heart, is close to the english word unloving.
Part of the falleness of man is our ability to protect our hearts from pain or the vulnerability of love and its need to give in the hope of receiving back, that we cut off our emotions and response to others, which makes us heartless.
So this is exactly the opposite of philia or brotherly love and agape, sacrificial love.

I wonder why you feel there is an issue here?

One important point about Paul is he talks with his emotions and his heart. He longs to see people, to encourage, to rejoice, is hurt when people fail and desires to help them restore them to Christ. Now if one reads this with a hard heart it is the facts that pour out, the theology and not the emotion and feeling. But when you feel Pauls encouragement and rebukes, you know his full involvement and passion with the churches and disciples.

I know too many christian leaders who have read the bible, seemingly know Jesus yet do not feel or know these realities in their hearts or reading the passion of Pauls writing. And boy is he a passionate man.

God bless you

Peter,

This is why I consider there is an issue here.

The Greek word for “unloving” in the Greek NT is astorgos, “a” meaning “no/not”, so it negates the Greek noun, storgo, which means “love, feel affection for someone, of the love of a wife for her husband.”[1] So astorgos refers to someone who is unloving, and feels no affection or love for another person, including a spouse. This is not the same kind of love as for philia or agape (or eros, which is not in the NT). Exegesis of the text is so important – obtaining the meaning out of the text and not imposing one’s meaning on the text, of the original language.

If a preacher/teacher doesn’t know the original biblical language he or she will have to depend on commentaries by teachers who knew the original languages.

Oz

---

[1] Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich (1957, 774).

 

[stovebolts]

Throughout Scripture, I find there is no distinction between faith and belief. Both are based on the same Greek root: pistis (faith) and pisteuo (I believe).

Thank you for sharing.
I am not a student of Greek, so please bear with me.
While Pistis and pisteuo share the same root Pist, it seems to me they must carry a subtle nuance from one another based on their suffix.

would you break down the root and suffix please?
1. Pist
2. Is
3. Euo

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for sharing.
I am not a student of Greek, so please bear with me.
While Pistis and pisteuo share the same root Pist, it seems to me they must carry a subtle nuance from one another based on their suffix.

would you break down the root and suffix please?
1. Pist
2. Is
3. Euo

SB,

That's not how the grammar of pistis and pisteuo work in Greek. For the feminine noun, pistis (faith), pist indicates the main stem which we pursue to discover the etymology of the root stem. The suffix, is, indicates it's a singular, feminine noun.

Pist, the root of both faith and believe, comes from peitho, which means “tried to convince” (Acts 18:4), “persuade, appeal to someone” (2 Cor 5:11), “conciliate, satisfy” (Matt 28:14), “depend on, trust in, put one’s confidence in” (Philm 21; Lk 11:22), “be convinced, be sure, certain” (Rom 2:19; Heb 13:18); in the passive voice, “be persuaded, be convinced, come to believe” (Luke 16:31; Heb 11:13); “obey, follow” (Rom 2:8; Gal 3:1); and “be convinced, certain” (Heb 6:9; Luke 20:6).[1]

As for the verb, pisteuo, pist is from peitho (see meaning above). The suffix, euo, indicates it's a first person, present tense verb, i.e. I am continuing to believe (have faith) since the Greek verb indicates kind of action and not primarily the time of action.

On author summarised this with precision: "The root of pistis ("faith") is peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1)" [source].

Therefore, in my understanding, the root meaning of pistis and pisteuo is basically the same: "faith" and "I believe/I have faith". Both refer to "divine persuasion."

Why would John use "believe" and not "faith" in John 3:16 (NIV)? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." To believe leads to eternal life and saving from perishing. Romans 5:1 (NET) states, "Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." I conclude faith and to believe are used interchangeably.

There is a very large article showing the similarities and differences between these words in Kittel & Friedrich's (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 6, pp. 174-228. You'll need to be able to read Greek and understand its grammar to gain full benefit from this article.

Please let me know if I need to 'clear the fog' in this explanation.

Oz

---

[1] Peitho’s definition is from Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon (1957, 644-45).

 

[PeterJens]

SB,

That's not how the grammar of pistis and pisteuo work in Greek. For the feminine noun, pistis (faith), pist indicates the main stem which we pursue to discover the etymology of the root stem. The suffix, is, indicates it's a singular, feminine noun.

Pist, the root of both faith and believe, comes from peitho, which means “tried to convince” (Acts 18:4), “persuade, appeal to someone” (2 Cor 5:11), “conciliate, satisfy” (Matt 28:14), “depend on, trust in, put one’s confidence in” (Philm 21; Lk 11:22), “be convinced, be sure, certain” (Rom 2:19; Heb 13:18); in the passive voice, “be persuaded, be convinced, come to believe” (Luke 16:31; Heb 11:13); “obey, follow” (Rom 2:8; Gal 3:1); and “be convinced, certain” (Heb 6:9; Luke 20:6).[1]

As for the verb, pisteuo, pist is from peitho (see meaning above). The suffix, euo, indicates it's a first person, present tense verb, i.e. I am continuing to believe (have faith) since the Greek verb indicates kind of action and not primarily the time of action.

On author summarised this with precision: "The root of pistis ("faith") is peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1)" [source].

Therefore, in my understanding, the root meaning of pistis and pisteuo is basically the same: "faith" and "I believe/I have faith". Both refer to "divine persuasion."

Why would John use "believe" and not "faith" in John 3:16 (NIV)? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." To believe leads to eternal life and saving from perishing. Romans 5:1 (NET) states, "Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." I conclude faith and to believe are used interchangeably.

There is a very large article showing the similarities and differences between these words in Kittel & Friedrich's (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 6, pp. 174-228. You'll need to be able to read Greek and understand its grammar to gain full benefit from this article.

Please let me know if I need to 'clear the fog' in this explanation.

Oz

---

[1] Peitho’s definition is from Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon (1957, 644-45).

This is a very complicated subject. I have debated such issues with free grace believers, who hold that any sense of action or effect that belief has devalues the work of Christ and exalts the believer in self justification.

Paul coming from a very righteousness by lifestyle position before faith, emphasises His faith leads him to obedience through a changed heart, and the changed heart is demonstrated through his lifestyle.

John emphasises belief in Jesus and His work saves us, that we cannot be saved without centring in Jesus and who He is. The belief is a chain that leads us to listen, obey and follow. If we believe Him we will do these things as He commands us to, and unbelief will be demonstrated in a lack of action.

Belief is an objective thing, I believe these facts, these events, these realities therefore this is the result.
Faith is my action that comes from the belief, I do because I know what is true. I am given a gift of faith so I know if I speak these words, that individual over there will be blessed, or healed, or delivered etc.

We do not talk about a gift of belief, but we do say a gift of faith.
Jesus asked about healing, "If you can?" The question was about the facts of who Jesus was and what He could do.

"But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”
Mark 9:22

The statement was not believing Jesus could do something, but rather questioning was it possible.
They did not know Jesus or believed in Him but were desperate for any solution.

Without belief we can gain nothing, ie. without knowing who and what Jesus is and how He responds.
Faith is putting belief into action. I believe Jesus can heal, but do not have the faith to believe He will heal today and now in a particular situation. The idea of having the faith to believe something will happen in a series of outcomes, distinguishes the nuance between the possible, and the actual in time.

This is pertinent with dementia, MS disease, cancer, of which 3 people I know suffer from. People have prayed to the Lord for healing, but the response has been about loving support rather than healing of the body. The word of faith group suggest this is a demonstration of unbelief, except what is healing ie bodily perfection and what is bearing with our frailties, while knowing His presence. So people live with limitations they do not consider unbelief, but a cancer must be healed or it is satan getting the victory. Even more pertinent, what is being taken to be with the Lord at an appropriate time, and what is continuing in ministry with Gods blessing.

Often people fall into unbelief, that their ministry is so important they must be healed, rather than the Lord is calling them home. So these points are not passive theology, but real emotional life issues faced regularly in church life.

God bless you

 

[OzSpen]

This is a very complicated subject. I have debated such issues with free grace believers, who hold that any sense of action or effect that belief has devalues the work of Christ and exalts the believer in self justification.

Paul coming from a very righteousness by lifestyle position before faith, emphasises His faith leads him to obedience through a changed heart, and the changed heart is demonstrated through his lifestyle.

John emphasises belief in Jesus and His work saves us, that we cannot be saved without centring in Jesus and who He is. The belief is a chain that leads us to listen, obey and follow. If we believe Him we will do these things as He commands us to, and unbelief will be demonstrated in a lack of action.

Belief is an objective thing, I believe these facts, these events, these realities therefore this is the result.
Faith is my action that comes from the belief, I do because I know what is true. I am given a gift of faith so I know if I speak these words, that individual over there will be blessed, or healed, or delivered etc.

We do not talk about a gift of belief, but we do say a gift of faith.
Jesus asked about healing, "If you can?" The question was about the facts of who Jesus was and what He could do.

"But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”
Mark 9:22

The statement was not believing Jesus could do something, but rather questioning was it possible.
They did not know Jesus or believed in Him but were desperate for any solution.

Without belief we can gain nothing, ie. without knowing who and what Jesus is and how He responds.
Faith is putting belief into action. I believe Jesus can heal, but do not have the faith to believe He will heal today and now in a particular situation. The idea of having the faith to believe something will happen in a series of outcomes, distinguishes the nuance between the possible, and the actual in time.

This is pertinent with dementia, MS disease, cancer, of which 3 people I know suffer from. People have prayed to the Lord for healing, but the response has been about loving support rather than healing of the body. The word of faith group suggest this is a demonstration of unbelief, except what is healing ie bodily perfection and what is bearing with our frailties, while knowing His presence. So people live with limitations they do not consider unbelief, but a cancer must be healed or it is satan getting the victory. Even more pertinent, what is being taken to be with the Lord at an appropriate time, and what is continuing in ministry with Gods blessing.

Often people fall into unbelief, that their ministry is so important they must be healed, rather than the Lord is calling them home. So these points are not passive theology, but real emotional life issues faced regularly in church life.

God bless you

Peter,

I'm still thinking through how faith relates to belief. Are they the same or are there differences. This is what I'm thinking on: Could belief and faith be slightly different terms. As an example, when Jesus told someone, "Your faith has made you well" faith was a gift from him (cf. Eph 2:8-9).

However, once that gift has been received by a person, is that now belief? I think of the times in the NT when Jesus said "your faith" or "their faith". However, it can't be self-generated faith, as faith is a gift from God (2 Thess 1:11 NIV).


So, does to believe mean that we accept the gift of faith extended by God, believing in Jesus for salvation, and demonstrate that belief by good deeds performed to demonstrate we have the genuine gift of faith and so believe, based on that faith?

I'm thinking through these options and your interaction and those by others have helped me do that. I'm not at a final decision yet.

Oz