Is believing/faith a work ?

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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

If you BELIEVE faith is works, then you are BUILDING your house on sinking sand. See, I can do it too. But alas, just repeating a claim over and over again doesn't advance the ball. But I will advance the ball:

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

You say Romans 4:5 does not negate that "faith" is a "work" because it has "nothing about faith or believing being a condition". Your POV is wrong for several reasons.

First, as I said before, it obvious that Romans 4:5 is saying that the one who is believing is not working for his salvation when it says "him who does not work" is at the same time the one who "believes on Him". So this proves believing is not a "work".

Second, the statement in Romans 4:5 that "his faith is accounted for righteousness" is a conditional statement. The noun "faith" is the subject of the phrase, the verb "is accounted" (which is middle/passive in form) is obviously passive in this case because "faith" is not doing anything, it is being acted upon by God, and He is counting the person's "faith" as "righteousness". Without faith, there is no righteousness. So condition is present.

Third, some people may put their faith in faith, but faith never has and never will save anyone. God alone saves people from eternal damnation. Who He saves and who He does not save is His decision alone. And He has made His criterion known. "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). He decided on His own, without any counsel from man, to save those "who believe" the "foolish" message of the gospel that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

Any doctrine that turns "believing" into a "work that merits salvation" or that claims He makes some people believe so that He must save them and prevents others from believing so that He can't save them is sinking sand, false doctrine, and contrary to grace.

 

[Brightfame52]

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

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.

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

 

[Brightfame52]

If you BELIEVE faith is works, then you are BUILDING your house on sinking sand. See, I can do it too. But alas, just repeating a claim over and over again doesn't advance the ball. But I will advance the ball:

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

You say Romans 4:5 does not negate that "faith" is a "work" because it has "nothing about faith or believing being a condition". Your POV is wrong for several reasons.

First, as I said before, it obvious that Romans 4:5 is saying that the one who is believing is not working for his salvation when it says "him who does not work" is at the same time the one who "believes on Him". So this proves believing is not a "work".

Second, the statement in Romans 4:5 that "his faith is accounted for righteousness" is a conditional statement. The noun "faith" is the subject of the phrase, the verb "is accounted" (which is middle/passive in form) is obviously passive in this case because "faith" is not doing anything, it is being acted upon by God, and He is counting the person's "faith" as "righteousness". Without faith, there is no righteousness. So condition is present.

Third, some people may put their faith in faith, but faith never has and never will save anyone. God alone saves people from eternal damnation. Who He saves and who He does not save is His decision alone. And He has made His criterion known. "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). He decided on His own, without any counsel from man, to save those "who believe" the "foolish" message of the gospel that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

Any doctrine that turns "believing" into a "work that merits salvation" or that claims He makes some people believe so that He must save them and prevents others from believing so that He can't save them is sinking sand, false doctrine, and contrary to grace.

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

 

[Clare73]

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

I'm not confused. . .can you present a video of faith or thinking or trusting or hoping that are identifiable as such?
If not, my assertion that they are not works (performance) stands unrefuted.

 

[Brightfame52]

I'm not confused. . .can you present a video of faith or thinking or trusting or hoping that are identifiable as such?
If not, my assertion that they are not works (performance) stands unrefuted.

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

 

[fhansen]

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

Ok? Then why make a new one? I'm sure you know these so what's the answer?
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." Heb 8:7
"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." 8:13

The old, as I see it, couldn't resolve the basic problem with all humans-our separation from God.

 

[Josheb]

Ok? Then why make a new one? I'm sure you know these so what's the answer?
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." Heb 8:7
"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." 8:13

The old, as I see it, couldn't resolve the basic problem with all humans-our separation from God.

Before you and I proceed I'd like to get a little background. Your profile says your Catholic, so I assume you're not also Dispensationalist (even though some of your posts read that way). Do you understand why - based upon reading the posts hear and sampling them elsewhere in the forum - someone might think you're influenced by Dispensationalism's discontinuous view of Old and New, Israel and the Church, etc.? It's odd because the RCC teaches more continuity than I've observed in these posts. Tell me a little about your views as they pertain specifically to this op. I've told you I am not interested in digressing far afield of another's op and I meant it.

Answer me this, too: Are you genuinely interested in my answers, and will it make any difference to you and your views if what I post is persuasive?


Ima call it a night so think about this and take your time. I'll check back in the morning.

 

[fhansen]

Before you and I proceed I'd like to get a little background. Your profile says your Catholic, so I assume you're not also Dispensationalist (even though some of your posts read that way). Do you understand why - based upon reading the posts hear and sampling them elsewhere in the forum - someone might think you're influenced by Dispensationalism's discontinuous view of Old and New, Israel and the Church, etc.? It's odd because the RCC teaches more continuity than I've observed in these posts. Tell me a little about your views as they pertain specifically to this op. I've told you I am not interested in digressing far afield of another's op and I meant it.

Answer me this, too: Are you genuinely interested in my answers, and will it make any difference to you and your views if what I post is persuasive?


Ima call it a night so think about this and take your time. I'll check back in the morning.

I've only been responding to your posts as they've come up so far. Maybe you can point me to one that sums up your view here best. The CC certainly teaches a difference between the old and new, but that the old has nevertheless not been revoked. This is my position as well. The new adds something better: fuller revelation, reconciliation/union with God, life by the Spirit, under grace, empowering us to overcome sin and do good as He pours His love into our hearts. The NC provides the means to finally accomplish what the old pointed to and attested to but could not accomplish.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are those who are converted by the Scriptures.

Who? I have never even heard of someone coming to faith through reading the Word without someone to teach them. That is why God told the disciples to go and teach, not just to spread the written word.

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)

These are the OT Scriptures, and Jesus is speaking to the experts in the OT Scriptures who were already part of what was then the family of God. They were already in, they were not outsiders who needed conversion.

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

Again, who?

Baptism is public profession.

Is baptism done with the mouth? No.
Baptism is indeed an outward act, but it does not fulfill the commandment found in Rom 10:9-10.

 

[Clare73]

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works.

Leaving your assertion with no Biblical demonstrtation to refute my Biblical demonstrtation (Eph 2:8-9).

 

[Clare73]

Ok? Then why make a new one? I'm sure you know these so what's the answer?
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." Heb 8:7
"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." 8:13

The old, as I see it, couldn't resolve the basic problem with all humans-our separation from God.

The basic problem being the payment for and remittance of our sin, with animal sacrifices only covering sin (Ro 4:7), not remitting sin.

 

[Brightfame52]

Leaving your assertion with no Biblical demonstrtation to refute my Biblical demonstrtation (Eph 2:8-9).

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You disagree with Eph 2:8-9

 

[Josheb]

I've only been responding to your posts as they've come up so far. Maybe you can point me to one that sums up your view here best. The CC certainly teaches a difference between the old and new, but that the old has nevertheless not been revoked. This is my position as well. The new adds something better: fuller revelation, reconciliation/union with God, life by the Spirit, under grace, empowering us to overcome sin and do good as He pours His love into our hearts. The NC provides the means to finally accomplish what the old pointed to and attested to but could not accomplish.

If a person (Protestant or Catholic, Christian or not, or whatever else they may be) holds to the continuity of scripture, the premise that all of the Bible speaks with one cohesive voice about a singular condition (or set of conditions) then the discussion of whether or not faith is a work or not must follow that standard. Otherwise, we are inconsistent with our own standard. Gotta practice what we preach. Since we're all Christians here (or at least claim to be so ), the one precept upon which we can all agree (or should all agree) is that the entirety of scripture, from beginning to end is about Jesus Christ, and Christ incarnate, dead, buried, resurrected, and ascendant. All the Law, prophets and psalms testify about Jesus.

Yes?

Assuming that question is answered in the affirmative that means we must practice what we preach - even if or when our denominationally created doctrines teach us to do otherwise (is our allegiance first to God's word or man-made doctrine?). That means every mention of faith - whether occurring in the Old or the New Testaments - is somehow tied to the matter of Christ and the salvation provided in him and only him. It also means care should be taken separating the Old and New Testaments because they are both about Jesus. They are not two entirely different stories.

Now you, @fhansen, commented and inquired about the covenants (plural). I will readily acknowledge the Bible uses the word "covenants" in its plural form, but I will also point out the plural form, "covenants" occurs only four times (Hos. 10:4; Rom. 9:4; Gal. 4:24; and Eph. 2:12) in the entire Bible and two of them (Hos. 10:4 and Gal. 4:24) have nothing to do with the covenant found in Christ Jesus. In other words, there are 320 occasions when the Bible uses the word covenant, but only two of them are in the plural form - and we know all scripture speaks with one cohesive voice and about Jesus and the covenant found in him and him alone. Can that fact be acknowledged? Take your time. Look up the scriptures if necessary. Verify what I just posted (or take my word for it ) and when done acknowledge what I just posted is true and correct.

There is a covenant implied with Adam. There is a covenant initiated by God stated with Noah. The same applies with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as Moses and David. If you check, I think you will find God Himself ties them all together as aspects of a contiguous whole that culminates in the Christ covenant. There appear to be multiple covenants, but scripture never speaks that way (except on two out of 320 occasions); it never treats the God-initiated covenant as disparate and wholly unrelated.

If that is true, then there is also a contiguous faith and not a multitude of differently defined faiths that save.









And I also want you to know I, personally, have no particular axe to grind with Catholics. My mother was RCC and my profession (I'm retired now) included the need to network with priests, local RC churches, and many RC's as clients. I've been a student of theology for more than four decades (long before I became a convert to Christ). I say this because my experience in Christian internet discussion forums is such that many Prots go into the RCC boards just to rag on RCs and that is not my thing. I won't be ragging on you personally unless you make you the subject of the discussion (so don't do that ). Alternatively, I have often found RCs, like Dispies, enter every thread they can trying to hijack the thread and make everyone discuss RCCism. I trust and hope that's not the case here. If that happens if it turns out the only reason for participating in the thread is to make the entire thread about RCCism then I'll move on. I have already observed some difficulty staying on topic. This op is about whether or not faith is a work and I have answered that question several times (and in somewhat diverse manner). I'll have that conversation as it pertains to real and/or perceived difference between and Old and New and the continuity of scripture only as long as the conversation remains op-relevant. No commentary on this last paragraph is required because I will assume you can and will stay on topic and if that doesn't happen, I do not care why. I'll ask for a return to the op-topic and if that doesn't happen I'll move on. I believe these are standards anyone and everyone can abide.

 

[fhansen]

Since we're all Christians here (or at least claim to be so ), the one precept upon which we can all agree (or should all agree) is that the entirety of scripture, from beginning to end is about Jesus Christ, and Christ incarnate, dead, buried, resurrected, and ascendant. All the Law, prophets and psalms testify about Jesus.

Yes?

Yes.

If that is true, then there is also a contiguous faith and not a multitude of differently defined faiths that save.

Alright, so it's certainly news to me that Jesus didn't bring about a new and better covenant, since that is explicit enough in His words and the words of Hebrews, as well as Jer 31. Again, the old covenant, aka "old law" wasn't revoked, abolished, or nullified, but improved upon as it clarifies God's will now "in the fullness of time". So some related teachings are as follows:

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed.
1967 The Law of the Gospel "fulfills," refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.

 

[Clare73]

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You disagree with Eph 2:8-9

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Doug Brents]

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You disagree with Eph 2:8-9

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite movies, "You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You misinterpret Eph 2:8-9, along with many other Scriptures, and it has lead you to a very faulty belief system.

 

[AbbaLove]

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

If that isn't typical of a calvinist who believes one's action (work) isn't necessary before or after salvation. So how does God decide who deserves His Salvation of Grace and who doesn't deserve His Salvation of Grace IF our action (work) is of no conseqence before one's salvation?

Realize you wouldn't be able to answer ... except to pontificate (to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you know everything about salvation).

After 72 pages it's quite obvious you're a Calvinist with an adversion to any works other than those inspired by the Holy Spirit? So if a born again new creation isn't of a Calvinist persuasion you might say they are, but don't know it or they really aren't a born again new creation in Christ if they are of an Arminian influence and are inspired by the Holy Spirit to good works that advance the Kingdom of God.

Praising the Lord in song isn't considered a "work" or "performance" when the Holy Spirit is controlling one's lips
whether of an Arminian persuasion or Calvinist persuasion.

Calvinist Stock Photo ...
​

 

[Brightfame52]

Previously addressed. . .

Okay then let it rest, you know where I stand and likewise

 

[Brightfame52]

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite movies, "You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You misinterpret Eph 2:8-9, along with many other Scriptures, and it has lead you to a very faulty belief system.

If you condition salvation on something you DO its works. You also disagree with Eph 2:8-9

 

[Brightfame52]

@AbbaLove

If that isn't typical of a calvinist who believes one's action (work) isn't necessary before or after salvation. So how does God decide who deserves His Salvation of Grace and who doesn't deserve His Salvation of Grace IF our action (work) is of no conseqence before one's salvation?

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