Featured Is Faith a Meritorious Work?

I agree.

Faith is rewarded... ( Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:19-22, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23 ).
We also know that without true faith, it is impossible to please God ( Hebrews 11:6 ).

So, I clearly see that "saving faith" is a necessary ingredient of eternal life, and that God will impute righteousness to all those that have it.

I believe that there are several things that need to be addressed in Mark 2:1-12:


1) What is "saving faith"?
Is it the "faith that saves", or is it the faith that accompanies salvation?
I believe that the perspective on this is vital.
Why?

- Because I see some people teaching that all men can potentially "have access" to true faith, and depending on what they do with it, it then results in gaining the gift of eternal life.
- Then there are some people who teach that faith, as a gift, is given to a select group, who then use it similarly to a "tool" ( but in reality it is far more than that ), to do the things God has given to them to do in their Christian lives, and to endure all their trials and tribulations.
I believe the latter.

2) Is "saving faith" a matter of simple and resolute confidence... or a deeply-held and never-shaken belief in Someone who has the power to deliver from all trouble?

As contrast:
- I know of people who have "placed their faith" in a stockbroker, only to have it all fall through.
- I also know of people who have "placed their faith" in Jesus Christ, only to walk away and end up denying Christ later on.
- Then I know of people ( and they are few and far between from my perspective ), who remain resolute in their faith in Christ, and even though it has wavered over the years, yet continue to "have faith" that He will always deliver them and provide for them.

To me, the last one is true, "saving" faith.

 

With the above stated,

Can we use Scripture to determine the spiritual condition of the man that was sick of the palsy, who was let down through the roof in the midst of Jesus' teaching?
I believe so, and here is why:

He believed that Jesus could heal him.
He believed on Jesus Christ, just as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and others of Christ's disciples...like Peter, who, when he was sinking, cried out for Jesus to save him from it.

Because we know from God's word that...
He that believes "hath" or has ( present-tense possession of, not "will have" ) everlasting life ( John 3:16, John 5:24, etc. ).

I also see that the Lord said something significant to him...
"When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." ( Mark 2:5 ).
Present tense: " ...Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."

....that he already had his sins forgiven by God.
What can I then say about this?

A) Since God alone has the power and authority to grant forgiveness of sins, then Jesus was telling him that he was truly forgiven.
B) Since God alone can forgive sins, then Jesus is God.
C) Since forgiveness of sins can only be by the blood of His Son ( and not the blood of bulls and of goats, see Hebrews 10:4 ), then the man's forgiveness for sins was granted to him because of His coming death and resurrection.
D) Jesus called Him "son", therefore, he was elect, and there is no one that God calls a son, unless they are one of His sheep. Please see John 1:12, Romans 8:14-19, Galatians 4:5, Revelation 21:7.
E) That all of his sins were forgiven..." ...Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."
F) That his faith was the faith of someone who trusted in God to deliver him out of his troubles...."saving faith".

Where does "saving faith" come from?
"Hearing" ( Matthew 11:15 and others ) the word of God ( Romans 10:17 ).
The man who was sick of the palsy, had "heard" the words of his Saviour, Jesus Christ ( John 10:27 ), just as blind Bartimaeus would later do in Mark 10:46-52.

Bringing it all back around with statements that are made in Scripture,
I see that the man sick of the palsy had "saving faith" because God gave it to him ( Ephesians 2:8 )...and he then used that faith, "meritoriously", to be credited with righteousness ( Romans 4:3, Matthew 9:22, Mark 5:34, Luke 7:50, Luke 8:48, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:42 ) .

Does that confuse anyone?
I hope not.
It may seem circular, but I think it's intended to be like that...in order to bring God all the glory in saving someone.

" that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." ( 1 Corinthians 1:31 )
" not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" ( Titus 3:5 ).

To clarify:

What I'm seeing, is that God gives "saving faith" to His children, who then turn around and do things by it, and trust in Him through it.
Rather than being directly meritorious, it is indirectly meritorious.
It not only is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ), but it is what God looks upon as a result of His favor...not to gain His favor.

True faith is not merit and cannot gain favor with God, since it is a gift...not "of works", lest any man should boast ( Ephesians 2:8-9 ).


It reflects or gives evidence to God's favor and merit.

 

When you posted this, I was in the process of writing my last two.
Strange, isn't it?

 

If we believe with our minds, it is works

 

Jesus saw faith as proof the person was born again and atoned for. He would be unjust healing any under God's wrath.

 

Oh boy. Where do you get these ideas?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

From roughly the same place that I do, if I'm not mistaken...
His own reading and understanding of God's word.

 

You are headed down a rabbit hole

 

“Now faith is the substance [hypostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

“[Jesus] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his [God's] person (substance/hypostasis) .....” (Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus was the express image of God's substance (hypostasis) just as faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things not seen.

Faith is of God, not man.

 

T

There is a point?

,, Faith does come from God as all things do, but the option to use that faith to accept God's promise or deny God promises is up to us,He does not force us to use that faith to believe. The Holy Spirit leads us, pleads with us to be saved but belief responsibility is on us

 

Jesus only healed born again people? Really? What about:

The Centurion's servant, Matt. 7
Demon possessed people, various places in scripture
"All who were sick" Matt 7:16
The ruler's daughter, Matt 9
Two blind men, Matt 9:27-31
A mute, demon possessed man, Matt 9:32-34
Jewish man with withered hand, Matt 12:9-13
All who were sick and touched his garment, Matt 14:34-35
The Gentile woman's daughter, Matt 15
Great multitudes--the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others; Matt 15:29-31
A man's epileptic and demon possessed son; Matt 17:14-17

I'm sure I could go on. In light of these examples are you still unequivocally stating any and all people that Jesus healed were born again?

 

No, not all the people Jesus healed were born again.
What I'm stating, is that from what I see in Scripture, no one truly comes to Christ except the Father draw him...and, that person will be raised up at the last day ( John 6:44 ).

So, in light of that and many other passages, no one in the "Gospels" who acknowledged Him as "Lord" and had any sort of faith towards Him, was not saved.
To clarify:
They were believers, in the eternal sense.

I may be wrong, but so far, I am convinced of it.
Any person who truly has faith...the enduring faith that God will deliver them out of their troubles, is saved.
If their "faith" fails, then they are not, and never were.

Enduring faith is not the means, but the evidence of a person's salvation.
Otherwise, God would have to rely on a man to use that which he possesses, in order to "permit" God to change his heart.

That is not Scriptural, since it is God's will that a person is born again ( John 1:13, James 1:18 ), not man's will that determines it.
Once again, if faith is something that is available to all men indiscriminately, then salvation is not 100% "of God".
It still relies on men to cooperate with Him.
It still pollutes His efforts with man's efforts.

God saving someone is a holy work...not something that men intrude upon.
He does the saving, and He gets all the credit.

How is it that you seem to find this objectionable?
Does God not have the right to choose who to pardon, and who to punish?
If you've believed, then you are His.


I would think this should be a relief to you...not what looks to me like an offense.

 

#4

#4




Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

But a "rabbit hole" that leads right back to the grace and merciful forgiveness of God, and completely renders men helpless to affect their own salvation, or even to cooperate in it.
Eternal life, 100%of God, 0% "of men".

To me, that kind of gift is worth shouting about.
But I won't shout around you, if you don't want me to.

 

They are not "strawman arguments", and they are not intended to offend you personally.
From my perspective, you genuinely object to anything I say about this, because it offends you.

However,
I've amended my post in #34 to reflect your comments.
My apologies to you, sir.

 

Sure, whatever floats your boat

 

Does a drowning man cooperate in his rescue by accepting the life ring thrown at him?

 

Yes.
Actively reaching out and placing the life ring around himself, takes effort... while someone else placing it around him, doesn't.

Here is what is actually going on:

1) God doesn't force the man to drown ( sin ).
2) Man loves the water ( sin and sinning ) ( Romans 1:18-32, John 3:19-20 ) so much, that he's now in an unconscious delirium filled with ecstacy.
3) But man also hates the Rescuer and will not accept the life ring, because that would mean leaving the comfort and love of the water.
4) Man reaching out to take the life ring, is not only impossible from the man's standpoint, it's the last thing that he wants to do.
5) So, God has to jump in, swim over, place the life ring around his unconscious body and then haul him back to shore.

Then he takes the man He just rescued, dries him off, takes him home and gives him new clothes and sits him down to dinner in a dining hall fit for a king.

That's about as close an analogy as I can come up with.
It's all in God's word, sir, but it uses different language...more suited to a more serious and marvelous set of events that give Him all the credit, once again.