Is believing/faith a work ?

I think what causes people confusion is that everything we do starts by a willing of the mind. When someone says they believe on their own free will the truth is they have already had their will acted upon by God. Is there any requirement in scripture that says a person should be chastised if they have not thought this through? "All that the Father gives to me will come to me and he that comes to me I will in no wise cast out". John Owen, in his preaching, tells people this. If they say "how do I know I have been given to Christ by the Father?" He says you know that by the fact you want to come to Him. If people don't understand how God has acted on them to cause them to come to Christ then they lack understanding but they have not turned faith into a work.

 

Yet another of your petty smears. It belies your shallowness also, this being at the very core of the C&A debate.

 

If one takes the care to note points of detail where there is disagreement. As aways it goes to disallowing or adding to what a text says by interpertations.

Set any two disagreements side by side. Making generalities will likely be wrong.

 

I think what you're talking about here is called duty-faith (google it), originally a Fullerite doctrine, and I've mixed opinions about it, depending on what the 'consequences' are involved with it. How are you using the word 'saved' here? Do you mean 'saved from eternal torment'?

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing unto God:
6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. Heb 11

Does 'NOT being well-pleasing' unto God mean that one is bound for eternity in hell? The types and examples given in the scriptures say no, many Saints were NOT well-pleasing to God.

 

kyredneck, it seems you are plucking theories and then attempting to fit your theories into the Bible.
First you had some sort of temporal vs eternal salvation and now you bring up some kind of "duty" faith.
Whatever it is you are attempting to teach, I cannot follow it. Moreso, it seems to be a twisted use of Bible verses in your attempt.
What would help is if you would just clearly explain your teaching.

 

It's two different conversations, two different topics, Austin. NOT two different theories.

 

Educate yourself. I'm amazed that you don't have a grasp of this topic.

 

I interpret this as you being incapable of explaining what you mean. It is incumbent upon you to educate us regarding your theology. This is especially true since others have also been questioning you.

 

Lol, this is supposedly YOUR theology, and you should be all too familiar with the inherent tension between man's responsibility and Sovereign Grace. You put on to be a sage of the Reformed tradition, I suggest you get with it and start educating yourself. The link includes videos from big-name Calvinists of YOUR theology.

 

Where is the tension?
God has chosen His children before the foundation of the world. He has written our name into the New Covenant where Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator and our intercessor. Every person God has chosen will believe. We are predestined to respond to God's call at precisely the exact time God has chosen.

Do you believe we must cooperate with God and if we fail to cooperate God will therefore fail?

Where is the tension?

Honestly, I think your call for me to educate myself is your diversion because you cannot articulate what you, yourself, actually believe.

Stop trying to deflect and state your personal theology. Explain it to me because so far you are not making sense.

 

The key word here is "before". If regeneration or being born again is the first thing that happens to you when you become a Christian then you can say that. I believe that is how it happens also. But the act of faith in justification is done by the person. And faith is always put forth in scripture as set apart and unique from anything else - not just works.

The reformers do separate justification and salvation but it is confusing because sometimes the words are interchanged. Edwards believed that faith and other things too are attached to salvation and even justification in this way: if you don't have them you will not be saved. He says in that sense they are "conditions". This is what makes it confusing. To avoid the confusion they all talked about justification by "faith alone". Faith describes the actual uniting with Christ like nothing else is.

Does anyone on here have any reference to the reformers referring to faith as a work before the modern era of Ligonier and so on? I have found 1 but it relates to covenant theology. It would help me if you know of any.

 

Educate yourself, sage. There's buku material out there on it.

"The tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is a formidable problem. A. W. Pink refers to it as the Gordian knot of theology. As previously mentioned, certain theological systems deny God’s absolute sovereignty over all things or propose that he sovereignly gives man the ability or freedom to override his complete control."
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility - Fairview Baptist Church

[add]

If it weren't for this tension the C & A Forum on this board would not exist.

 

I asked:

You said:

Not sure what you mean.

For example:

40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2

Is Peter exhorting these men to save themselves from hell?

 

So your source is the Fairview Baptist Church website, not the Bible?

How about we accept what God tells us regarding the New Covenant and whose names are written into the Covenant? Is that too complicated? Must we twist and spin that which God has been straightforward about?
Now, to turn the tables, go educate yourself regarding God's Covenant given to His people. Hopefully it will clear up the confusion you are having.

 

Well actually I've provided you with multiple sources, names like MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, Sproul...names supposedly of your theology.

Ah, you're just blowing smoke now,

 

You have skirted around and given generic names, but you are incapable of expressing your own theology and why you have created dual views of salvation.

I have been very clear and explained what I see in scripture. It is obvious you cannot do the same. Go fall upon your secondary sources as the basis for your faith.
Good day...

 

Oh I'm perfectly capable, but these are my pearls, they're precious to me, and you're frothing at the bit to trample all over them.

Not dual views, rightly dividing between where man is responsible to act and where man is totally passive. It's just that simple.

 

Nah, you just can't explain your personal theology.
Second, it's more obvious you are a synergist, not a monergist.