Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As you pointed out there are degrees of faith, which suggest to me all “faith” would include faith in things and people that do not save people. 1 Cor. 13:2… if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. Paul suggests you can have great faith, but if it is not saving faith it is worthless?
The lowliest person on earth can trust (have faith in) a benevolent Creator for help, but placing faith in God is a humbling activity.
You might be misinterpreting Eph. 2:8
I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.
Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:
9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)
Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:
(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)
Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:
(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)
The gift from God is referring to the salvation which comes by faith and not the faith itself. This you can also figure out from the next verse without the Greek.
So faith can work without love (which makes Paul's statement not exactly true) ... and the measure of faith given is not a gift from God?and cannot save you ...
To me salvation and faith are not separate things (just as the beginning and the end of our faith are not separate things). Faith is an ever inreasing truth, just as salvation is an eternal gospel, in the light of a kingdom whose increase that has no end.
Faith is the person (express image of his person/substance) of things hoped for, my evidence of those things that are not seen yet.
James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
The demons have less than a saving faith.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
HeLeadethMe said:1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
HeLeadethMe said:Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Nothing in the text says those in Acts 2 were totally depraved and in need of "regeneration" in order for them to be able to understand what was preached by Peter. Since this idea is NOT in the text then it would have to be ADDED to the text, correct?So your "proof" is that I can't prove otherwise? That's not in the text.
Pelagianism - WikipediaYou are basically a Pelagian, are you not?
Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid.
This was spoken to the apostles who were spiritual men miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit in what to say. This has no application to anyone today.
This 'anointing' refers to the Holy Spirit and it teaches you by the written pages of the bible. John was teaching them through this epistle he had written to them by inspiration of the HS.
".....it is clear from the last clause where the neuter pronoun and past tense are used that he is referring to the written records of the gospel. It was that which they had been taught; and it was that which was abiding in them, there being no difference whatever in the word of God dwelling in Christians and the Holy Spirit dwelling in them....Moreover, it was that original gospel which was alone sufficient for all their needs, enabling John to say, "Ye need not that any one teach you." The holy gospel has already given (note the past tense) all of the teaching that Christians will ever need.
That it is that gospel (we now call it the New Testament) of which John taught in this verse is proved by a careful reading of it:
That gospel is no lie.
It is the truth.
It taught you.
As a consequence of its teachings, you abide in him.... Furthermore, John did not teach that Christians had no need of further study. The whole passage must be understood as a plea for the all-sufficiency of the gospel as the complete and effective refutation of heresies."
" Coffman Commentary (my emp)
Those Christians John was writing to were taught by the written word, therefore they did not "need that anyone teach you". There would be no need for the first epistle of John (or any other written epistle) if the HS is gong to 'enlighten" everyone's understanding miraculously apart from the word.
Therefore John is not saying nor implying that each person has direct, miraculous communication from the HS. If this were the case, then the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion and untruths. Just look at this very forum here with all the contradicting, conflicting beliefs and doctrines. If everyone on this forum were getting their understanding miraculously directly from the HS apart from the word, look how the Holy Spirit is full of contradictions, untruths and confusion.
2 Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11 why the need to study of God's word if the HS will simply "enlightens" one's understanding miraculously apart from the word?
None of these verses say anything about man getting understanding about God from anywhere other than the written word.
Your argument is from silence. No, it says nothing about their depravity, one way or another. I would never make an argument for that with this passage, or any other narrative. But you are saying that since it doesn't say they were depraved, we must assume that they weren't. That's an assumption you are making apart from the text.Nothing in the text says those in Acts 2 were totally depraved and in need of "regeneration" in order for them to be able to understand what was preached by Peter. Since this idea is NOT in the text then it would have to be ADDED to the text, correct?
If you (or anyone else) think they were totally depraved and in need of "regeneration" so they could then understand what was being preached, then the onus is upon them to show from the scripture such was the case. Is there a particular verse in Acts 2 that says there were totally depraved and not able to understand what Peter preached?
Those in Acts 7 were spiritually dead, lost yet able to understand what Stephen preached. Obviously they did not stone Stephen killing him because they did not understand what he was saying but stoned him for they DID understand what he was saying and they did not like it.
If one can read a newspaper, a magazine, a novel, directions of any kind and understand them without an miraculous intervening of the HS, then they can in the same way able to understand the word of God when they read it without a miraculous intervening of the HS.
The Bible calls it "believe" which is the same as "faith".Faith fundamentally is for what you cannot see, whereas angels or demons have seen, have they not?
If someone denies original sin he is a Pelagian heretic. No mainline Christian denominations deny original sin.No.
I believe the bible (not Pelagius) and the bible does not teach man is born totally depraved where he can only do evil and not able to understand the bible. If man is passively born against his will where he can only do evil then there is no free will. Free will is simply having the ability to choose between 2 or more options and under the totally depravity idea there are no options to choose to do good for evil was forced upon one at birth. Hence the fact there is no original sin and no totally depravity are BIBLICAL not Pelagian.
No.
I believe the bible (not Pelagius) and the bible does not teach man is born totally depraved where he can only do evil and not able to understand the bible. If man is passively born against his will where he can only do evil then there is no free will. Free will is simply having the ability to choose between 2 or more options and under the totally depravity idea there are no options to choose to do good for evil was forced upon one at birth. Hence the fact there is no original sin and no totally depravity are BIBLICAL not Pelagian.
There are different degrees of "faith", is what I have been saying.I guess my point is ... why do you need faith, or belief for something you have already seen.
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,As you can see, St. Paul is writing this letter to believers, and those who have been blessed "with every spiritual blessing" and those whom God has "made known . . . all his wisdom and insight the mystery of his will." The fact that Paul does not mention supernatural help in Chapter 3 does not lead to the conclusion that such help is unnecessary, because it is clear from Chapter 1 that they have already received supernatural help. Nor would Paul's silence have implied an exclusion of supernatural help, if he had written to non-believers instead.
To the saints who area also faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us. 9 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fulness of time, to united all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; 22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.The underlined portion above, from the Ephesians 1, also refutes your theory. Paul continues to pray that God gives them a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, and that will result in the eyes of their hearts being enlightened. It is not something that they do via their own power, but is given to them from God.
Yes, and it is because it is Christ exalted in the person, really. He is lifted up in a person when the person humbles (lowers) themself. HE is our glory (and the lifter of our head....who is Christ..) He said if He be lifted up He will draw men to Himself.God exalts the humble ... which is the reverse of building a tower.
I guess my point is ... why do you need faith, or belief for something you have already seen.
There is no indication anywhere in the bible that before those Ephesians became Christians they were totally depraved and unable to understand without God first acting upon them so they could understand.
As I already pointed out, all the contradictions on this forum alone shows a serious flaw in the idea that people understand by miraculous enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. If posters on this forum have their understanding miraculously 'enlightened" by the HS, then they would be just as infallible as the HS in their understanding. But just look at all the fallible contradictions. Have you, or anyone else on this forum, ever changed a view on a bible topic? If so, then was the HS in error and mislead on the issue earlier? How could one even objectively tell he has been "enlightened"? He couldn't.If anyone prefers to reason away the plain teachings of God's word rather than receive it......then I am not interested in arguing. They are putting the thoughts of the carnal mind which is ENMITY WITH GOD, above His word. As for me I find His word renews my wrong thinking to come into agreement with His. Choose we this day who we will serve.
Your argument is from silence. No, it says nothing about their depravity, one way or another. I would never make an argument for that with this passage, or any other narrative. But you are saying that since it doesn't say they were depraved, we must assume that they weren't. That's an assumption you are making apart from the text.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?