Is believing/faith a work ?

[Josheb]

Romans 4:4,5, Paul specifically tells us that faith and belief are not works.

To whom is Paul writing when he made that statement?
About whom was Paul writing when he made that statement?

Let's take a look at the two verses to which you just appealed.

Romans 4:1-6
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

Paul then quotes Psalm 32:1-2 which are explicitly couched in obedience versus disobedience and obedience to the Mosaic Law. So, upon reading what is actually written, it can be seen Paul did NOT actually state faith was not a work. He also did not state faith is the cause of salvation. What he said was righteousness (not salvation) was credited to Abraham because of his faith. It is, therefore correct to say Abe's faith did not earn righteousness, but it is not correct to say faith wasn't a work. James makes this clearer when he draws a connection between faith and faithfulness (works). Abe could believe anything he wanted but that belief is worthless (dead) unless and until acted upon. Abe had to leave Ur. Had he stayed where he was he'd have never received anything, no matter how much intellectual assent of God's existence he possessed.

Notice also, despite the fact Paul appeals to the Mosaic Law when he quotes Psalm 31, Paul has cuched his commentary in an example from Tanakh that is pre-Law! The faith to which Paul is alluding is a faith that occurred before the Law was written, BUT it was a faith that occurred in an already-existing covenant relationship with God that was monergistically initiated by God without Abraham's consent. God chose Abram. God chose Abram without ever asking Abe if Abe wanted to be chosen. Having Chosen Abram, God then called Abram and, again, God called Abe without ever asking Abe if Abe wanted to be chosen or called. Not only did God choose and call Abram without Abram's consent, God then commanded Abram and commanded Abe with an already-existing expectation obedience would ensue and no allowance for any other option. God chose Abram to be the father of many nations without ever explaining that purpose to Abe, or ever asking if Abe ever wanted to be that guy.

That is the context in which Abe's applauded faith existed.

In point of fact, Abram wasn't given a choice until well after the covenant relationship was established. Paul is not actually saying faith is not a work. Post #1346 is correct: The answer to that question is dependent upon how faith is defined because intellectual assent of the sinful flesh is not salvific at all. Faith that is gifted by God, on the other hand accomplishes its purpose, and it is a faith "not of ourselves..., not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Romans 4:4-5 cannot and should not be read to contradict what is plainly stated in Ephesians 2:5-10.

 

[RDKirk]

In point of fact, Abram wasn't given a choice until well after the covenant relationship was established. Paul is not actually saying faith is not a work. Post #1346 is correct: The answer to that question is dependent upon how faith is defined because intellectual assent of the sinful flesh is not salvific at all. Faith that is gifted by God, on the other hand accomplishes its purpose, and it is a faith "not of ourselves..., not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Romans 4:4-5 cannot and should not be read to contradict what is plainly stated in Ephesians 2:5-10.

The discussion of faith versus works originated with Paul in Romans. This would not be a discussion, except for Paul bringing it up. He defined the terms he uses in his own discussion right there in his own discussion.

This thread is the perfect example of 1 Timothy 1:3-7.

 

[Clare73]

To whom is Paul writing when he made that statement?
About whom was Paul writing when he made that statement?

NT apostolic teaching on faith and works applies to all Christianity for all time, there are no exceptions or exemptions.

Post #1346 is correct:

Post #1346 is incorrect.
Post #1351 is Biblically demonstrated to be correct.

 

[Josheb]

So is Faith ever the condition man must meet to be saved or Justified before God ?

That is not how I read scripture.

To begin with, we are justified by faith, but the "we" in Romans 5:1 is the Christian, the already regenerate saved saint, not the unregenerate never-saved, God-denying sinner. One of the most commonly occurring errors in the discussion of "Is faith a work?" (and salvation in general) is the misuse of verses from the epistolary. It is completely inappropriate to take verses written by the saved to the saved about the saved and apply them to the unsaved. That is like treating an apple like and orange, or an apple like a pork chop. It's a false equivalence.

This is important because our justification does not occur first be faith. We are justified by the blood of Christ long before we're justified by faith, and faith is gifted to "us," the same us as the "we". God gives the ability to actually assent to just about everyone, but the gift of salvation by grace through faith is not given to everyone. There is, of course, a raging debate on how that happens but the "how" is not the subject of this thread. This op asks whether or not faith is a work and the answer to that question depends on how "faith" is defined. The problem is one of ambiguity because the word "faith" can - in its most generic sense - simply mean a strong belief in something. People believe many things that are not factually true or correct. Falsehood is of no salvific (or justifying) value. Ever. Faith can also mean trust or confidence and scripture often uses the Hebrew and Greeks terms for those conditions but, again, trusting or having confidence in falsehood is of no salvific merit. For example, trusting and having confidence in my sinful intellectual assent has no merit. On the other hand, trusting and having confidence in the gift of God has tremendous salvific merit.

Since faith is a gift, it is not a condition of the unregenerate sinful flesh, and since faith is a divine gift that is not a condition of the unregenerate sinful flesh it is not a condition to be met in order to be saved. Similarly, when it comes to justification, sinful flesh justifies nothing; it is the condition preventing any justification at all. As I mentioned in Post #1382, "justification" is a legal term that simply means a person has a legal basis for presenting their case. A person cannot get into the courtroom without a legal justification, a legal basis, to do so. I could try to sue you for picking your nose but since there is no law prohibiting nose-picking I do not have legal basis, or justification for presenting a civil suit against you.

Sinners do not have a legal basis by which they can stand before God. Sinners have already been judged and condemned (John 3:18-19). Apart from the shed blood of Christ the ONLY outcome for the attempt is egregiously destructive wrath, the very thing from which we are saved! However, covered with the shed blood of Christ (someone else's transformative work) there is a basis for standing before God. One's case must still be pled, but no plea can be made without first having a basis for standing before the Judge and doing so.

 

[Josheb]

CONTRARE. . .in the NT they are opposed to one another, not the same as one another.

I never said otherwise.


So please reword the response to my posts so that errors on my part are not implied or insinuated because I do not do red herrings and/or straw men.

 

[Josheb]

The discussion of faith versus works originated with Paul in Romans.

LOL!!!!

Romans was one of his later epistles, not among his first! The discussion of faith did NOT originate in Romans.

This would not be a discussion, except for Paul bringing it up. He defined the terms he uses in his own discussion right there in his own discussion.

This thread is the perfect example of 1 Timothy 1:3-7.

Post 1384 proves otherwise.

 

[Clare73]

I never said otherwise.

Nor did I say you did.

So please reword the response to my post. . .etc., etc. etc.

 

[Josheb]

To whom is Paul writing when he made that statement?
About whom was Paul writing when he made that statement?

NT apostolic teaching on faith and works applies to all Christianity for all time, there are no exceptions or exemptions.

Post #1346 is incorrect.
Post #1351 is Biblically demonstrated to be correct.

I do not trade posts with those who ignore and do not answer (the simplest of) op-relevant questions when asked but choose, instead, to obfuscate the discussion. So please, once again, reword the response to my post so that the question asked is answered and the conversation is moved forward op-relevantly.

Take your time because I'm heading out for dinner (and probably won't be back until tomorrow ).

 

[Clare73]

I do not trade posts with those who ignore and do not answer (the simplest of) op-relevant questions when asked but choose, instead, to obfuscate the discussion. So please, once again, reword the response to my post so that the question asked is answered and the conversation is moved forward op-relevantly.

That is my response to that statement in regard to NT teaching on faith vs. works.

 

[fhansen]

It is only when covered by the blood of Christ that anyone can stand before God and survive, stand before God and have any outcome other than wrath and torturous destruction.

Doesn't that mean, in your view, that they're justified? What else would such a person be called?

Any sound doctrine of salvation must address the problem of the atheist and the blunt fact os scripture is that very little is said about atheists. Nearly everyone in the Bible was a theist of one type or another and every Jew mentioned in the Bible was not only a theist, but a monotheist living in a God-initiated covenant foreshadowing Christological salvation. It is completely inappropriate to compare any of those categories with the God-denying, Christ-denying, sin-denying atheist.

Paul may've agreed that the typical Pharisee was a theist, but only in a technical or legalist sense, I believe, not in a personal one, not having a faith that could be tested and proven by their willingness to sacrifice, for example, as Abraham was.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Okay, so its something we do correct ? An act, or action, something done

It is not a physical action. It is a mental action. We make choices all the time. I decided to drink coffee this morning. The decision was mental. Then I took the physical actions necessary to do it physically. I walked into the kitchen, cleaned my coffee cup, put it in the recepticle, replaced the coffe pod, pushed the button, then waited for the coffee to be made. Then I picked up the cup and took a sip of coffee.

I can only guess as to what point you are trying to make. It appears that you could be trying to equate believing in Jesus with working for one's salvation. Is that what you're doing or is it something else?

Update: Never nind my question. I just read the OP. I dissagree with it. I'll think about the proper response.

 

[AbbaLove]

Update: Never nind my question. I just read the OP. I dissagree with it. I'll think about the proper response.

Round and round they go and when or where they will stop even God doesn't care to know

 

[fhansen]

I think its important to keep in mind that while faith is a gift of grace, it's also a human choice: to accept, embrace, and act upon that gift, and continue doing so. Then this plays itself out in how we live our lives. Faith is certainly no "work of the law" (which is what Paul was objecting to) as those works depend on our efforts to justify ourselves while faith means dependence upon God to justify us. This means that we're now in His family, enabled by the Spirit to live as children of His should live. Our wills remain active and involved in this relationship to the end. We can move closer or further away from Him.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Now for instance, the sin of hatred Gal 5:19-20...
How is that sin committed ? It starts in the mind or heart ! Yet in Vs 19 its stated as an work of the flesh
So activity in and with the mind/heart is a work, this cannot be denied..

You are correct that sin comes from and is committed in the heart. Jesus made this crystal clear.

18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” (Mk 7:17–23)​

and

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mt 5:28)​

​

Now believing is either a work of the flesh [unregenerate] or of the Spirit [regenerated]

This statement is theologically challenged. You are claiming that believing is a "work" by virtue of the fact that it is a verb?

But now Salvation is not by works, Neither by works of the flesh or works of the Spirit.

This statement is even more theologically challenged. It is clear that God has decided that He will save people who believe the gospel.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Co 1:21)​

 

[Josheb]

Doesn't that mean, in your view, that they're justified? What else would such a person be called?

In my view? Yes, sorta. As a Reformation-minded Protestant who endeavors to build and maintain views from scripture, the blood of Christ, or his work on Calvary, is sufficient to justify every single human being on the planet who has ever lived, is living, and will ever live but just as equally factual and true is the fact not all are justified or saved and that's not a particularly Calvinists OR Arminian point of view. Arms and Cals may explain that condition in different ways but the condition is acknowledged by both groups. I post that because I do not want anyone to think everything I am posting here is strictly Calvinist or that I am trying to impose ideology (or doctrine) on the thread). I'll ignore those who treat the posts that way, jsyk. The Reformed perspective discriminates between sufficiency and efficiency with the "efficiency" pertaining to how, who, and why God applies what is otherwise an all-powerful condition or tool in salvation. The Reformed Calvinist will offer a solely monergistic explanation to who has justification applied and the Arminian will offer a synergistic explanation, but both hold the justifying power of the cross to provide a basis for standing before God is not experienced by all and both will agree the first act - the cross itself - is solely monergistic. Both will also agree the decision who gets what is also solely in the "hands" or will of God. On these points there are no differences between Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or Wesley. The Pelagian and Provisionist may disagree. So "my view" is not particularly unique.

There are at least four different means of justification in the NT. They should not be conflated. Neither should justification by faith be treated as preeminent since it can be built only on the cross/blood that justifies first (both chronologically and ordinally). And, as I previously noted, justification by faith should not be confused with salvation through faith and never should any Christian incorrectly think salvation is by faith. Scripture never actually states we are saved by faith. It is a point of view read into scripture, not something scripture actually ever states.

Paul may've agreed that the typical Pharisee was a theist, but only in a technical or legalist sense, I believe, not in a personal one, not having a faith that could be tested and proven by their willingness to sacrifice, for example, as Abraham was.

Paul is irrelevant to that point. The chronically repeated facts of scripture are that of theism and a covenant relationship (and both preceded Judaism). It's not technical or legalistic. It's also a point you could instantly disprove by citing any verse in which scripture specfically and explicitly cites an atheist is justified by his faith.

Do it now, please.

Let's not delay a minute further. Let us not obfuscate and debate the op further without having first established consensus on this matter. Any sound doctrine of salvation must address and cover the condition of the atheist, how and atheist is saved. Jews are not atheists. Pagans like Cornelius are not atheists, either. Scripture says very, very, very little about those who deny the existence of God and what it does say begins with, "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'." Those people do get saved. They get saved but comparing the atheist to a theist is a false comparison. Asserting a doctrine of salvation that ignores all the aspects of the covenant relationship is misguided. If that is the position you intend to take then let's resolve that now.

Show me the verse explicitly justifying the atheist.

Or concede there is no such verse.

Then, having established a consensus with scripture we can proceed .

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

God gives the ability to actually assent to just about everyone, but the gift of salvation by grace through faith is not given to everyone. There is, of course, a raging debate on how that happens but the "how" is not the subject of this thread.

I wouldn't say the debate is "raging". A Bing search reveals,

There are 1.34 billion Catholics in the world and (a generous high estimate) 1 billion Protestants; also 260 million Orthodox. So it’s about 2.6 billion Christians altogether. Now, Calvinism (Presbyterian + Reformed in the denominational categories) is 7% of all Protestants, or 70 million: a small minority of the larger minority group.​

 

[Josheb]

I wouldn't say the debate is "raging".

Visit a random sample of Christian internet discussion forums' soteriology boards. They tend to be the most vigorously debated, and often adversarial, boards in any forum (along with the Trin boards). CF is better moderated and appears to have a more respectful membership (so I don't find it comparatively representative).

A Bing search reveals,

There are 1.34 billion Catholics in the world and (a generous high estimate) 1 billion Protestants; also 260 million Orthodox. So it’s about 2.6 billion Christians altogether. Now, Calvinism (Presbyterian + Reformed in the denominational categories) is 7% of all Protestants, or 70 million: a small minority of the larger minority group.​

Put three people from each group in a room and ask them to discuss salvation doctrines.

Btw, Calvinism is not synonymous with Reformed. Arminius was Reformed and Reformed Arminians possess a soteriology substantively different than other self-styled Arms. Many Arms are more accurately Wesleyan, or even Provisionist (and do not know it). Works te other way around, too. Lutherans are Reformed, but they do not subscribe wholly to Perseverance (for example), and strict determinism is often incorrectly conflated with Calvinism.



As far as the op goes (the tangents take us off topic), the answer to the question asked in the title is dependent upon how a person defines faith and to what degree that definition is couched in the precedents found in scripture. Scripturally speaking, intellectual assent is not the same kind of faith as that salvifically gifted by God.

 

[Clare73]

Doesn't that mean, in your view, that they're justified? What else would such a person be called?

They are called saved (Eph 2:8-9) from the wrath of God at the Judgment, by forgiveness of their sin through faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified).

Paul may've agreed that the typical Pharisee was a theist, but only in a technical or legalist sense, I believe, not in a personal one, not having a faith that could be tested and proven by their willingness to sacrifice, for example, as Abraham was.

"Pharisee" was not a "Biblical" term, it was simply the name given to those of a particular Biblical persuasion.

Abraham's faith which justified him (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-3) was in the promise of Ge 15:5, in addition to faith in God.

 

[fhansen]

They are called saved (Eph 2:8-9) from the wrath of God at the Judgment, by forgiveness of their sin through faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified).

Yes, they're saved, by their belief in God just as Abraham believed and was justified.

"Pharisee" was not a "Biblical" term, it was simply the name given to those of a particular Biblical persuasion.

Abraham's faith which justified him (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-3) was in the promise of Ge 15:5, in addition to faith in God.

So what's the point? Was the faith of the Pharisees sufficient or not? Or since they're non-biblical, should we even discuss them for that matter?

 

[fhansen]

In my view? Yes, sorta. As a Reformation-minded Protestant who endeavors to build and maintain views from scripture, the blood of Christ, or his work on Calvary, is sufficient to justify every single human being on the planet who has ever lived, is living, and will ever live but just as equally factual and true is the fact not all are justified or saved and that's not a particularly Calvinists OR Arminian point of view. Arms and Cals may explain that condition in different ways but the condition is acknowledged by both groups. I post that because I do not want anyone to think everything I am posting here is strictly Calvinist or that I am trying to impose ideology (or doctrine) on the thread). I'll ignore those who treat the posts that way, jsyk. The Reformed perspective discriminates between sufficiency and efficiency with the "efficiency" pertaining to how, who, and why God applies what is otherwise an all-powerful condition or tool in salvation. The Reformed Calvinist will offer a solely monergistic explanation to who has justification applied and the Arminian will offer a synergistic explanation, but both hold the justifying power of the cross to provide a basis for standing before God is not experienced by all and both will agree the first act - the cross itself - is solely monergistic. Both will also agree the decision who gets what is also solely in the "hands" or will of God. On these points there are no differences between Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or Wesley. The Pelagian and Provisionist may disagree. So "my view" is not particularly unique.

There are at least four different means of justification in the NT. They should not be conflated. Neither should justification by faith be treated as preeminent since it can be built only on the cross/blood that justifies first (both chronologically and ordinally). And, as I previously noted, justification by faith should not be confused with salvation through faith and never should any Christian incorrectly think salvation is by faith. Scripture never actually states we are saved by faith. It is a point of view read into scripture, not something scripture actually ever states.

Paul is irrelevant to that point. The chronically repeated facts of scripture are that of theism and a covenant relationship (and both preceded Judaism). It's not technical or legalistic. It's also a point you could instantly disprove by citing any verse in which scripture specfically and explicitly cites an atheist is justified by his faith.

Do it now, please.

Let's not delay a minute further. Let us not obfuscate and debate the op further without having first established consensus on this matter. Any sound doctrine of salvation must address and cover the condition of the atheist, how and atheist is saved. Jews are not atheists. Pagans like Cornelius are not atheists, either. Scripture says very, very, very little about those who deny the existence of God and what it does say begins with, "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'." Those people do get saved. They get saved but comparing the atheist to a theist is a false comparison. Asserting a doctrine of salvation that ignores all the aspects of the covenant relationship is misguided. If that is the position you intend to take then let's resolve that now.

Show me the verse explicitly justifying the atheist.

Or concede there is no such verse.

Then, having established a consensus with scripture we can proceed .

Well, you pretty much lost me in all that to be honest. It appears I'll at least need to review the thread in order to reply appropriately. But off hand I wonder if you're not confusing mere lip-service with genuine faith.