Is it possible?

[BBAS 64]

This is potentially a two part question, depending on your answer.

First, as the poll indicates, do you believe that it's possible for a non-believer to do something out of true faith in God? If possible, please cite examples. Biblical examples if possible, personal examples if biblical ones aren't known.

No I do not think a non believer can do anything in true faith in God, because they do not posess true faith from God. If they did they would no longer be un beleivers. Faith is given to believers from God it is his gift and the nessary out come of such faith is belief.

Second, if your answer to the first question was "no," what light do you think that sheds on Romans 14:23:

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Thanks for your participation,
God bless

Don

I do not think this verse has to do with only eating or drinking but puts forth a very usable mark of how Faith is to be a guide in the believers life in all things in which we encounter in our daily walk with the Lord.

Hope this helps,

BBAS

 

[InquisitorKind]

Are you sure it's God they're reaching out for or only what God provides? I see many people who seem to be looking for the things that God provides but they don't really want it from God. We have all seen people who are searching for things like happiness, peace, relief from guilt and personal fulfillment and since we, as Christians, understand that it is God alone that can supply we conclude that they must be seeking God Himself. This is an error. I believe that people desire the benefits that only God can give us but we do not want Him. We want the gifts without the Giver, the benefits without the Benefactor.

This question of motivation has haunted me in the past, and, as you can tell from my posting this, hasn't been adequately answered. I honestly don't know how to go about evaluating my actions and attitudes in order to know whether or not I'm just seeking the benefits or seeking Him. How does a person go about doing this? How long can, and does, it usually take? How can they be sure of the answer?

My reason for asking these questions is because I fundamentally believe that the difference between loving the Creator more and loving His gifts more is the difference between entering the joy Heaven and being thrown into pit of Hell. Is this too extreme? And do you think the testing of faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) encompasses testing whether or not your (generic) love is rightly placed? If so, where does Paul explain how to go about this testing?

Any advice from you would be much appreciated, as it's clear that you know significantly more on this subject than myself.

Of many questions,
~Matt

 

[ByzantineDixie]

My reason for asking these questions is because I fundamentally believe that the difference between loving the Creator more and loving His gifts more is the difference between entering the joy Heaven and being thrown into pit of Hell. Is this too extreme?

If I understand what you are saying.....

Yes, this is too extreme. Your salvation does not depend on whether or not you love God more than you love the things He can do for you...that would involve a "work" on your part and we know there is nothing you can do...even to the point of loving God more than loving the things He does for you...that will earn salvation for you. Only faith in Jesus as your Savior establishes righteousness with God. That faith comes to you by God's grace and only His grace. Whether you love God because he provided for your salvation in Jesus or whether you love the fact that you are saved more than you love God...both demonstrate faith. Rest in Him. He has claimed the victory for you.

You should question your motives, though. You should allow the Holy Spirit to work sanctification in your life to right these motives but you never need to question your salvation as long as you have faith. The Holy Spirit will help you grow in the faith and will help you with your motivations. Sanctification is a process...

Rose

 

[InquisitorKind]

Whether you love God because he provided for your salvation in Jesus or whether you love the fact that you are saved more than you love God...both demonstrate faith.

The situation I'm questioning is more severe. I should've been more clear in what I stated earlier; that is my fault. I also acknowledge that this isn't about works earning justification before God, but more of how our actions reflect our justification (or lackthereof).

I suppose, upon pondering this issue more, the question should be, How does someone know faith is actually present, especially in light of their desires for what God provides over and against their desire for the provider Himself?

If this doesn't make sense, I'd be happy to clarify further.

~Matt

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well... everybody in the gospels who received from God and ministered were unregenerate people.
Can God give faith for a specific thing to an unregenerate? I believe so.

The question would be clearer if we said:
"Can an unregenerate have faith?"

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I suppose, upon pondering this issue more, the question should be, How does someone know faith is actually present, especially in light of their desires for what God provides over and against their desire for the provider Himself?

Nah, I should have known the answer would not have been so easy! (I just didn't want someone tormented because they didn't know if they loved God enough.)

James says faith without works is dead...so it would seem on the surface that one could presume if there are no works of horizontal righteousness...there is no faith. But that is a dangerous place for us to play. I don't think its so easy for us to look, make an assessment based on their works and label someone as a believer or not. We can not know who has faith and who doesn't on the basis of good deeds alone. I know a lot of people who are paving their path to hell with good deeds. Societal and cultural expectations have called them to do this...not a relationship with the Triune God.

I think it is fair to say that unbelievers can do some really "good" and nice things--but these really nice and really good things should not be confused as acts of horizontal righteousness which flow from a right relationship with God. I guess the question for me becomes...if good can only come from God...how is it that unbelievers do "good deeds"? God does use unbelievers to accomplish his purposes...perhaps this is the answer? Maybe in some stream of events these good deeds done by nonbelievers ultimately bless his people....

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

So a definition of rightousness is in order.

Okay, well, I would say "righteousness" is obeying God because you love Him. I am well aware that non-believers will commit acts of civil virtue, which are works that outwardly conform to the Law of God but are not predicated by our love for Him.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

No I do not think a non believer can do anything in true faith in God, because they do not posess true faith from God. If they did they would no longer be un beleivers.

LOL! I thought this exact same thing.

Don

I do not think this verse has to do with only eating or drinking but puts forth a very usable mark of how Faith is to be a guide in the believers life in all things in which we encounter in our daily walk with the Lord.

Hope this helps,

BBAS

I agree completely. I think it does violence to Scripture to say that the latter part of verse 23 deals with just eating and drinking. I think the verse clearly applies this in a universal manner.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

This question of motivation has haunted me in the past, and, as you can tell from my posting this, hasn't been adequately answered. I honestly don't know how to go about evaluating my actions and attitudes in order to know whether or not I'm just seeking the benefits or seeking Him. How does a person go about doing this? How long can, and does, it usually take? How can they be sure of the answer?

Well, the first theologically sound step we take on this matter is to acknowledge that it is illogical to assume we can ever do anything for a purely righteous reason, even as believers, because we will not be purely righteous until we are glorified. Second, we should acknowledge that our sanctification is the process wherein we are conformed to the image of Christ. This is a lifelong process and though we should strive towards that goal every day we should never be under the prideful impression that we are purely righteous in deed. Also, and equally important, is that we should realize we were not made a child of God because of any of our works, past, present or future. We, as children of God, are righteous in the eyes of God by virtue of the righteousness of Christ. In my signature you'll see the phrase "Simul iustus et peccator." This means "At the same time [simultaneously], just and sinner." This is not an affirmation of a contradiction. These assertations refer to the same person, but not in the same relationship. Believers, considered in themselves, remain sinners, yet at the same time, by virtue of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, are considered just in the sight of God.

So, understand that in everything you do there list, at the very least, the shadow of unrighteous motivation, and let that, in turn, motivate you to thank God for His encompassing grace. Constantly question your motives and seek to guard yourself against self-centered motivations.

My reason for asking these questions is because I fundamentally believe that the difference between loving the Creator more and loving His gifts more is the difference between entering the joy Heaven and being thrown into pit of Hell. Is this too extreme?

I don't think "extreme" is the right word. I don't think this view is biblically accurate though. Entering the joy of Heaven is the result of Christ's vicarious atonement, not your love for God. Your love for God is a result of His grace to you:

1 John 4:19
We love Him because He first loved us.

In the same respect, being "thrown in the pit of hell" is the just judgment upon the wickedness of God's enemies. Our motivations for our works are in accordance with our nature. The carnal man can only commit carnal works because he only desires the things of the flesh. The things of God, like righteousness and faith and a love of our Creator are foolishness to him.

And do you think the testing of faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) encompasses testing whether or not your (generic) love is rightly placed? If so, where does Paul explain how to go about this testing?

Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 13:5 are clarification for the doctrine of the assurance of our salvation. Paul asks the Corinthians to examine their own lives for evidence of salvation. Such evidence would include trust in Christ (Heb. 3:6), obedience to God (Matt. 7:21), growth in holiness (Heb. 12:14; 1 John 3:3), the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23), love for other Christians (1 John 3:14), positive influence on others (Matt. 5:16), adhering to the apostolic teaching (1 John 4:2), and the testimony of the Holy Spirit within them (Rom. 8:15,16).

Remember Matt, seeking after God is the main business of the Christian life. We will grow together.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

You should allow the Holy Spirit to work sanctification in your life to right these motives but you never need to question your salvation as long as you have faith.

Your screen name leads me to believe you are Lutheran. If so, I must say that this is a very odd thing for a Lutheran to say. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is incapable of sanctifying us unless we "allow" Him to do so?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Well... everybody in the gospels who received from God and ministered were unregenerate people.

They were? Like who? And how do you know they were unregenerate?

Can God give faith for a specific thing to an unregenerate? I believe so.

For example?

The question would be clearer if we said:
"Can an unregenerate have faith?"

All people, regenerate and unregenerate alike, have faith. What they have faith in determines whether that faith benefits them and whether that faith is righteous.

Actually, the questions I was asking are pretty straight forward. Obviously we must have faith in God before we can do something because of faith in God. The issue I am confused about is the paradoxical idea that many Christians subscribe to that non-believers can commit righteous acts without having faith in God. I believe that Romans 14:23 makes it clear that anything we do not motivated by faith (in God is clearly implied) is sinful. Logically this does not include actions that are not the result of a choice, i.e., reflexive actions, biological processes, etc.

Do you believe differently? If so, please give either biblical examples or real life examples. I'd like to avoid turning this into a purely theoretical debate, with statements like "I think they can." Okay. Why do you think they can?

God bless

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Your screen name leads me to believe you are Lutheran. If so, I must say that this is a very odd thing for a Lutheran to say. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is incapable of sanctifying us unless we "allow" Him to do so?

God bless

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Its difficult for me to always remember to use precise language when speaking about such things. Clearly, the only response we can have in the sanctification process is one of rejection..."Sorry, Holy Spirit, but I'd rather not do this godly thing...I'd rather watch TV, meet my friends for pizza, spend some quality 'me' time." "Allow" was a poor choice of words. Ya got me!

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Its difficult for me to always remember to use precise language when speaking about such things.

All Christians are naturally Pelagian and it pervades our theology on every front. It's very difficult to guard against and we can all see our weaknesses to a humanistic side from time to time.

Clearly, the only response we can have in the sanctification process is one of rejection..."Sorry, Holy Spirit, but I'd rather not do this godly thing...I'd rather watch TV, meet my friends for pizza, spend some quality 'me' time." "Allow" was a poor choice of words. Ya got me!

Rose

Do you mean our natural response to the Holy Spirit apart from the grace of God would be "Sorry, Holy Spirit, but I'd rather not do this godly thing...I'd rather watch TV, meet my friends for pizza, spend some quality 'me' time?"

I believe, and I'm sure you do, that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome our natural tendency to rebel. He doesn't do this by force, but by sanctifying us and giving us the desire to serve the Lord in obedience.

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

Remember Matt, seeking after God is the main business of the Christian life. We will grow together.

God bless,
Don

Don,

Thanks for your long and thorough response. I appreciate it and will ponder its contents in light of the questions I have. I'll let you know if I have anything else to ask.

Thanks again,
~Matt

 

[Reformationist]

Don,

Thanks for your long and thorough response. I appreciate it and will ponder its contents in light of the questions I have. I'll let you know if I have anything else to ask.

Thanks again,
~Matt

Your welcome and I look forward to our continued growth in our Lord.

God bless,
Don

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Do you mean our natural response to the Holy Spirit apart from the grace of God would be "Sorry, Holy Spirit, but I'd rather not do this godly thing...I'd rather watch TV, meet my friends for pizza, spend some quality 'me' time?"

I am unclear as to what you mean by a "natural" response. I do see it as a "fleshy" response we might make in rejecting the grace needed to do that right thing. As your signature line says, simul justus et peccator. We live each day in that tension and sometimes we reject what God would have us do and give us the grace to do.

I believe, and I'm sure you do, that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome our natural tendency to rebel. He doesn't do this by force, but by sanctifying us and giving us the desire to serve the Lord in obedience.

Absolutely...we are in agreement.

Peace

Rose

 

[Reformationist]

I am unclear as to what you mean by a "natural" response. I do see it as a "fleshy" response we might make in rejecting the grace needed to do that right thing.

By "natural" I just mean according to our nature. If we are fallen we are going to act in accordance with that fallen nature. The "natural" response to the things of God by an unregenerate person is a response of the flesh.

As your signature line says, simul justus et peccator. We live each day in that tension and sometimes we reject what God would have us do and give us the grace to do.

Yes. However, I think it's pertinent that we acknowledge that our rejection of God's grace does not, in any way, insinuate that His grace is futile in the face of our will. His sovereign grace will always accomplish its goal, though we, as finite creatures, may not understand the means that God uses to sanctify us.

God bless

 

[Amleto]

This is potentially a two part question, depending on your answer.

First, as the poll indicates, do you believe that it's possible for a non-believer to do something out of true faith in God? If possible, please cite examples. Biblical examples if possible, personal examples if biblical ones aren't known.

Second, if your answer to the first question was "no," what light do you think that sheds on Romans 14:23:

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Thanks for your participation,
God bless

As others have said previously, I find the question self-answering.

With respect to the second part, I think connections made by yourself are out of context/inapplicable.

The passage that contains your quoted verse, I believe, pertains to one's own faith, and the allowable/beneficial things therein. If one doesn't have faith in what one does/intends to do, then one is morally unsure and therefore sinning.

Logically, it is suggested in your question that all actions of an unbeliever are sin (with reference to the quoted verse). However, I think the verse is taken out of context. With reference to people with faith, it says if what one does is not by faith, then it is sin. I don't think this is applicable to people without faith, as they have nothing to contradict, and therefore cannot sin by the act of contradicting their faith.

If a non-believers actions don't go against their morals or the word of God, then it is not a sin.

 

[Reformationist]

As others have said previously, I find the question self-answering.

Okay. I do not disagree. I pose the question because of the frequency with which I am exposed to the belief that non-believers can actually respond in faith. Though to many, myself included, the obvious contradiction in a non-believer responding in faith seems a bit of a given by virtue of the nature of faith and how that relates to a person's status as believer or non-believer that, unfortunately, does not belay the illogical claims that are so frequently made that state that non-believers can do just that, respond in faith.

With respect to the second part, I think connections made by yourself are out of context/inapplicable.

Just for the record, I think we're spending more time analyzing whether or not the latter half of Romans 14:23 is applicable just because of it's immediate context than we are asking ourselves whether that sentiment, even if it actually does only refer to the immediate context, also actually applies elsewhere. What I mean is that even if "whatever is not from faith is sin" actually only deals with it's immediate context, don't you believe that that applies to every part of Scripture? Or, do you believe that someone's works could be righteous apart from a motivation of faith? You see, there are not shades of righteousness. There is perfectly righteous and then there are all others, the unrighteous. God is perfectly righteous, we are not. You'd be on some pretty risky theological ground to imply that one fallen person is more righteous than another. The "righteous" works of fallen man are like filthy rags before the righteousness of God.

The passage that contains your quoted verse, I believe, pertains to one's own faith, and the allowable/beneficial things therein. If one doesn't have faith in what one does/intends to do, then one is morally unsure and therefore sinning.

So our sins are the result of being "morally unsure?" Can you elaborate?

Logically, it is suggested in your question that all actions of an unbeliever are sin (with reference to the quoted verse).

Yes, that the proposition. However, we must qualify that by saying that "all actions of an unbeliever are sin in the eyes of God."

However, I think the verse is taken out of context.

Okay. Didn't you already say that?

With reference to people with faith, it says if what one does is not by faith, then it is sin.

All people have faith Amleto; Not all people have faith in God. It's where our faith is that distinguishes the sinfulness or righteousness of our actions.

I don't think this is applicable to people without faith, as they have nothing to contradict, and therefore cannot sin by the act of contradicting their faith.

So a non-believer's lack of faith renders his works not sinful just because he/she doesn't submit to the Law of God? Sin is not subjective in the eyes of God Amleto. Just because a non-believer does not acknowledge the authority of God's Law doesn't mean God's Law has no authority to convict them.

If a non-believers actions don't go against their morals or the word of God, then it is not a sin.

Are you sure you don't mean "their morals and the Word of God?" Surely you don't believe God doesn't count an action that violates His Word as sinful just because it doesn't violate the morals of the creation?

Tell me something, if you will. What distinguishes an act as righteous or sinful? For instance, let's say that a non-believer gives ten dollars to a homeless person. Would you say that's a "righteous" work in the eyes of God?

God bless

 

[Amleto]

So our sins are the result of being "morally unsure?" Can you elaborate?

One definition of sin:
2. To violate a religious or moral law.

I elaborated, with Romans in mind, to say that one need not necessarily violate a moral law, just to be morally unsure about one's actions is 'bad' enough

All people have faith Amleto; Not all people have faith in God. It's where our faith is that distinguishes the sinfulness or righteousness of our actions.

When I talk of faith I mean:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Under such a premise I propose that not all people have such faith

So a non-believer's lack of faith renders his works not sinful just because he/she doesn't submit to the Law of God?

I never said that, I said:

If a non-believers actions don't go against their morals or the word of God, then it is not a sin

Sin is not subjective in the eyes of God Amleto. Just because a non-believer does not acknowledge the authority of God's Law doesn't mean God's Law has no authority to convict them.

I know.

Are you sure you don't mean "their morals and the Word of God?" Surely you don't believe God doesn't count an action that violates His Word as sinful just because it doesn't violate the morals of the creation?

No. I mean or. If either condition is satisfied, then it is a sin.

Tell me something, if you will. What distinguishes an act as righteous or sinful? For instance, let's say that a non-believer gives ten dollars to a homeless person. Would you say that's a "righteous" work in the eyes of God?

God bless

If the act of giving to the homeless person can be accepeted as loving your neighbour as yourself, and therefore righteous for a Christian, then I believe the act to be also righteous for a non-believer.

This is a point that I was alluding to, (by trying to allow non believers to be capable of not sinning by actions): Should the same act, done by two people (one a believer, one not) with equally good intent, not receive the same 'credit'?

I think so. I do not think that one (of the identical) action(s) should be labelled sinful, whilst the other righteous.

Amleto