Is believing/faith a work ?

[Clare73]

Who?

Rom 10:14-15 says that we are saved through calling on the name of the Lord, and we call on Him in whom we believe, and
we believe because we have heard the Gospel, and we hear the Gospel from someone who teaches it.

There are those who hear the gospel from and are converted by the Scriptures.

The written Word is not supposed to be the teaching medium,

Jesus disagrees:
"Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?"
"Have you not read. . .?"
"Go and learn what this means. . ."
(Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)

it is the medium for further learning, study, and evidentiary support of the truth of the Gospel. It is the teacher of the Word whose feet are beautiful. So then, everyone who has come to belief in Christ has had a teacher bring them to belief,

What about those who came to faith in reading the Scriptures?

based on Matt 10:32 and Luke 12:8, this confession must also be public, not just verbal.

Baptism is public profession.

 

[fhansen]

I do know. This op is about whether or not believing faith is a work. I also know Post #1415 was off topic and my question was designed to get us on topic and in agreement to that effect, but I see there is difficulty answering a question as simple as "What is the subject of this op?" so I will thank you for your time and move on because I've no interest in going off topic, especially if it's likely to hijack someone else's thread. As I stated previously, this op is not about the purpose of faith, or the difference between the old and new covenants. Post those inquiries in a separate thread and I am confident many will offer their respective replies.

Ok, except that I think the purpose of faith is intrinsically related-simply because faith is opposed to works by its nature, due to its very purpose. And when I went about defining faith in post #18, the OP immediately declared that I was making faith a work.

 

[Josheb]

...faith is opposed to works by its nature...

Not according to James. Note also Abraham's faith was not credited to him as righteousness until he'd operationalized it. Faith begets faithfulness.

The answer to the question asked in the title to this op depends on how one defines "faith." Intellectual assent is not the same as salvific faith gifted by God and neither are synonymous with lip service faith. If a person defines faith as something opposed to works by its nature that definition is necessarily going to lead to different answers, especially since a person can have faith in works. It certainly would not be consistent with the example set by Jesus.

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.


They do not sit around idle, they live.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes they are, and if you condition your salvation on them, its a works base salvation, which is sand

There is no "sand" in Calvinistic theology, so what are you saying?

And why not address the Scripture that says your POV on faith is wrong?

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Ro 4:5).​

I'll answer for you. You do not want to admit that Romans 4:5 clearly says a person is not working for salvation when he believes on Him and that it affirms the position that is contrary to your position that "his faith is accounted for righteousness".

 

[Brightfame52]

There is no "sand" in Calvinistic theology, so what are you saying?

And why not address the Scripture that says your POV on faith is wrong?

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Ro 4:5).​

I'll answer for you. You do not want to admit that Romans 4:5 clearly says a person is not working for salvation when he believes on Him and that it affirms the position that is contrary to your position that "his faith is accounted for righteousness".

Nothing about Faith or believing being a condition in Rom 4:5, so if you condition your faith on Justification before God, its works religion.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Nothing about Faith or believing being a condition in Rom 4:5, so if you condition your faith on Justification before God, its works religion.

What harm is there in a works religion? No religions (or false beliefs about faith) have the power to overcome the inevitability of election. So, show me the sand.

 

[fhansen]

Not according to James. Note also Abraham's faith was not credited to him as righteousness until he'd operationalized it. Faith begets faithfulness.

The answer to the question asked in the title to this op depends on how one defines "faith." Intellectual assent is not the same as salvific faith gifted by God and neither are synonymous with lip service faith. If a person defines faith as something opposed to works by its nature that definition is necessarily going to lead to different answers, especially since a person can have faith in works. It certainly would not be consistent with the example set by Jesus.

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.


They do not sit around idle, they live.

Alright, I'm still having a problem making myself clear I guess. In light of the OP, I've been distinguishing between faith and works of the law, which is what Paul was objecting to. I have to remember that not everyone reads my posts-for some reason .

A work of the law depends on myself for expressing my own "righteousness" while faith is to depend on God for our righteousness. The one is prideful while the other comes with humility; they're two different animals. Man has no righteousness of his own until He turns to God, the true source of all righteousness. We don't have it to any sure and sufficient extent although His image remains even in the fallen man, but now dimmed, obscured, ignored. Faith restores the broken relationship that Adam initiated for humanity by denying God's authority, and therefore His godhood and therefore His very existence. Justice/righteousness are the automatic result of belief in God, of entering union or relationship with Him.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

To put it another way, love is the result although until we're "perfected in love", until our union is complete, presumably not fully until the next life, we can still stray even with faith. The mark of a true Christian is this love which fulfills the law by its nature. The new covenant and the gospel do not constitute a reprieve from man's obligation to be obedient and righteous-but are the means to accomplishing that very thing, now under grace, now with God. Neither the greatest commandments or the following are to be dismissed, but fulfilled, in order for man to be achieving his very purpose, incidentally.
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

And this is why, as examples, the following make perfect sense:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

The will of man is never absolutely removed form this equation, although he needs grace in order to even begin to turn to God. Faith, hope, and love are each gifts of grace...and simultaneously human choices to accept, embrace, and act upon those gifts-and continue to do so throughout our lives. God hasn't, and wouldn't, have it any other way.

"The only thing that counts is faith working through love." Gal 5:6

 

[Brightfame52]

What harm is there in a works religion? No religions (or false beliefs about faith) have the power to overcome the inevitability of election. So, show me the sand.

You seem to be trusting in works for your salvation, not Christ, that's sand foundation

 

[Josheb]

Alright, I'm still having a problem making myself clear I guess. In light of the OP, I've been distinguishing between faith and works of the law, which is what Paul was objecting to.

I understand. I think you've made your views sufficiently clear, or adequately understandable. I simply disagree and consider the entire position a red herring and all the "reasoning" by which the position was reached faulty. It is definitely a way of defining faith that leads to a specific answer to the question the op's title asks, but it's a faulty definition leading to a faulty answer.

The answer to the question asked in the title of this op's inquiry depends on how faith is defined. Intellectual assent is much different than the gift of salvific faith, and both are different than a two-definition Old/New view of faith. Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear: you have proved my reply to this op correct! The answer very much depends on how "faith" is defined. Most definitions are red herrings because the only faith that has any soteriological salience and efficacy is the faith gifted by God, and that is not an Old or New condition. The righteous have always lived by faith and it was never the faith of sinful flesh, the Law, intellectual assent, or any other kind of faith.

 

[fhansen]

I understand. I think you've made your views sufficiently clear, or adequately understandable. I simply disagree and consider the entire position a red herring and all the "reasoning" by which the position was reached faulty. It is definitely a way of defining faith that leads to a specific answer to the question the op's title asks, but it's a faulty definition leading to a faulty answer.

The answer to the question asked in the title of this op's inquiry depends on how faith is defined. Intellectual assent is much different than the gift of salvific faith, and both are different than a two-definition Old/New view of faith. Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear: you have proved my reply to this op correct! The answer very much depends on how "faith" is defined. Most definitions are red herrings because the only faith that has any soteriological salience and efficacy is the faith gifted by God, and that is not an Old or New condition. The righteous have always lived by faith and it was never the faith of sinful flesh, the Law, intellectual assent, or any other kind of faith.

There must be a difference between the old and new covenants, however, and that difference involves reconciliation between man and God, wrought by Christ, so that now the life of grace is available in a way and on a scale that it wasn't before. Along with this, revelation, itself, is greater with the NC, where God is revealed more fully and definitively than ever before.

In any case, the historic understanding, in both the east and west along with the ECFs, is that grace must-and does-precede everything. The difference in our views is really about whether or not grace is resistible at the end of the day. And it is, from Eden until now. That's why we live in the world we do, because God does not wish to overwhelm the human will and simply do it all for us. He didn't make puppets to begin with-and there's no reason to think He suddenly wants them now. If that's what he wanted, He could've precluded all the sin and evil and suffering this world has known and just put a portion of His creation in heaven and the rest in hell to begin with. Instead we live in a place where the Master's effectively gone away, where good and evil are experienced daily, and we can choose, between the two, with the help of His ever-present grace. Again, faith (however one may define it), along with hope and love are gifts of grace- and human choices. And I'd submit that most people experience it this way.

 

[biblelesson]

It's not about grammar, it's about NT doctrine.

The NT's setting of faith against performance (post #1351) means that faith (believing) in the NT is not a performance, it is a disposition, which always results in performance (obedience), but it is not the performance (obedience) itself, it is only its source.

Amen! Exactly correct! Faith generates from the heart resulting in belief. This faith/belief results in performance (I like your use of performance), which performance/works “shows” your faith! So, I agree it is not the performance/works, but it is the faith generated from the heart that is the source!

Performance is the byproduct of faith! It is not the byproduct that’s counted as righteousness, it’s faith that’s counted as rightiousness!

Abraham believed God (from the heart), and it (faith), was counted as righteousness, Romans 4:2-3 KJV, Romans 4:5 KJV

Performance/works only identifies that a man has faith, it’s proof of faith, James 2:18 KJV.

There are no individual faiths or individual beliefs. There is only one faith, that of Abraham’s faith. We must possess Abraham’s faith, not our own faith. There is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV.

Therefore if the faith of the gospel is that of Abraham’s faith, there is no place for works as justification, Romans 4:2 KJV

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

You seem to be trusting in works for your salvation, not Christ, that's sand foundation

Now you're saying trusting in Christ is solid ground, not works salvation. Very confusing.

 

[Brightfame52]

Now you're saying trusting in Christ is solid ground, not works salvation. Very confusing.

Its confusing to you, not me. If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Amen! Exactly correct! Faith generates from the heart resulting in belief. This faith/belief results in performance (I like your use of performance), which performance/works “shows” your faith! So, I agree it is not the performance/works, but it is the faith generated from the heart that is the source!

Performance is the byproduct of faith! It is not the byproduct that’s counted as righteousness, it’s faith that’s counted as rightiousness!

Abraham believed God (from the heart), and it (faith), was counted as righteousness, Romans 4:2-3 KJV, Romans 4:5 KJV

Performance/works only identifies that a man has faith, it’s proof of faith, James 2:18 KJV.

There are no individual faiths or individual beliefs. There is only one faith, that of Abraham’s faith. We must possess Abraham’s faith, not our own faith. There is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV.

Therefore if the faith of the gospel is that of Abraham’s faith, there is no place for works as justification, Romans 4:2 KJV

While I do agree in general with the concept that faith results in action, I do believe some caution is warrented in the application of the concept.

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).

In this regard, the two truisms about faith apply. If we walk by faith, trusting Him to do and say as He leads, then we are well pleasing to Him and are not sinning. In other words, if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. This is the proper application of faith leading to action.

But it would be wholey inappropriate to judge our own salvation (or the salvation of others) based on our (or their) failure to walk by faith 100% of their lives as Jesus did. We still need His grace and His forgiveness, and thankfully He does not withold it.

 

[Clare73]

Nothing about Faith or believing being a condition in Rom 4:5, so if you condition your faith on Justification before God, its works religion.

Are you serious?

"To the one who does not work. . .his faith is credited as righteousness."

Not to mention the testimony of the rest of the NT; e.g., Eph 2:8-9:
"For. . .you have been saved. . .through faith--not by works, SO THAT no one can boast" (Ro 3:27, 4:2, 2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5).
Do you not see that Eph 2:8-9 opposes (sets against) faith to works, it does not equate them?
Do you not understand how important it is to God that salvation be by him, and him alone through faith alone, and not by any human work?

You interpret Ro 4:5 and Eph 2:8-9 as stating "Nothing about Faith or believing being a condition"?
And you expecting to be taken seriously on this "misreading"?

First rule of Scripture: To set the word of God against itself (e.g., Ro 4:5 against Eph 2:8-9) is to demonstrate misunderstanding of it (for God does not contradict himself in his word written), and is to leave inadequate basis for Scriptural discussion.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Its confusing to you, not me. If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

You are definately confused because faith is not works. If you BELIEVE faith is works, then you are BUILDING your house on sinking sand.

But I will do you a favor. I will point you to the source of your confusion so that you may overcome it.

Your CONFIDENCE that faith is works is a by-product of you BELIEVING that saving faith is given to the chosen and witheld from the rest. If you OVERCOME this belief, the other will fall with it. This, by the way, is the reason you can't see that Romans 4:5 does indeed say that BELIEVING (though it is a verb) is not WORKING.

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Ro 4:5)​

 

[Brightfame52]

Also nothing about negating it either, whereas the rest of the NT does require faith for salvation; e.g., Eph 2:8-9.

First rule of Scripture: To set the word of God against itself (e.g., Ro 4:5 against Eph 2:8-9) is to demonstrate misunderstanding of it (for God does not contradict himself in his word written), leaving inadequate basis for discussion of it.

Nothing in these scriptures make faith an condition man meets in order to get saved. You impose that , and make salvation by works, denying the very scriptures you quote.

 

[Brightfame52]

You are definately confused because faith is not works. If you BELIEVE faith is works, then you are BUILDING your house on sinking sand.

But I will do you a favor. I will point you to the source of your confusion so that you may overcome it.

Your CONFIDENCE that faith is works is a by-product of you BELIEVING that saving faith is given to the chosen and witheld from the rest. If you OVERCOME this belief, the other will fall with it. This, by the way, is the reason you can't see that Romans 4:5 does indeed say that BELIEVING (though it is a verb) is not WORKING.

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Ro 4:5)​

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

 

[Clare73]

Its confusing to you, not me. If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

Where the definition of "works" in that doctrine is determined by the NT (i.e., exclusive of performance), and by no other authority.

Post #1455 remains unaddressed.

Please post video of faith or thinking or trusting or hoping that are identifiable as such (and cannot be seen as something else, as the work of skiing cannot be seen as something else like cooking breakfast or sitting in a lawn chair), that I may see these at work.

 

[Josheb]

There must be a difference between the old and new covenants...

No, there mustn't. That would mean God has double standards.