Is believing/faith a work ?

The example of Cornelius contradicts what you have quoted in Post #125.

Cornelius did what Reformed theology teaches he was incapable of doing. Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man who sought God (Acts 10:22). According to the Reformed's Ordo Salutis, this is impossible.

St. Peter says, "...I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." Acts 10:34-35)

 

You weren't clear answering my question about your intent with the word 'saved', and you still haven't answered it. But that's your prerogative.

Yes. Justified by the blood of Christ while we were still yet sinners:

8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5

 

Justification is not linked to faith only, the scripture is abundantly clear on that:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

 

As to post 125, you certainly are under no obligation to believe everything Packer says but I promise you he was aware of Cornelius. Scripture is under no obligation to tell us the exact working of the Spirit on every individual. Cornelius could have been a decent guy naturally. The Reformed position allows for that. God could have already been working on him. What I do know is that he is not a good example for you to use because he was in the transition time where the finished work of Christ was just becoming known and so there were many people of the Jewish faith who simply did not know about how Christ fit in to the new way. And the general belief of Jews was that God did not work with gentiles. Peter didn't know for sure in regards to Gentiles and that's what the chapter is about, especially verses 34 and 35 that you quoted.

Remember, total spiritual inability does not mean that everyone is as vile as they can be before they are saved. The Ethiopian eunuch was a serious student of scripture. Saul (later Paul) says he was completely blameless as concerning the law.

 

You are correct on that. Jonathan Edwards says there are many things connected to justification in this sense: if you have them you will be justified but if you don't have them you are not justified. These would be things like loving others, pursuing holiness, having a forgiving spirit and other things too. But faith, like nothing else is the actual linking of a person to Christ and so it is that one thing that the scripture sets apart as that which is directly involved in justification. In a strict theological sense justification is by faith alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 mentions only faith for a reason - because it is unique in salvation in a way nothing else is.

 

So, according to you, in a 'strict theological sense', grace is not necessary for justification, works is not necessary for justification, and the blood of Christ is not necessary for justification. Justification is by faith alone. Right?

 

No. Not at all. Faith alone is what is required on our part. The meritorious cause of justification is God's grace, specifically because of the blood of Christ. This is why the scripture is so clear about making sure you don't get mixed up and think that any kind of work or virtue or even faith has any part in MERITING our justification. However, as Edwards would say, for two rational beings to interact there must be something done on the part of both parties. That is what faith does. Some call it an "instrumental" cause to differentiate it from being a work or a merit. But essentially faith is the actual coming to Christ or closing with Christ or uniting with Christ on the part of the person involved. And it is the only thing we contribute. Although "contribute" is not a good word because it implies bringing an actual merit or value when all it is really is accepting or coming. That's why I simultaneously insist that it is not a work, and it is something WE do, on our part. (Although even here, the ability to have this faith is a result of our being quickened by the Holy Spirit).

 

A key proof text is Romans 10:13-15. Without question in my understanding of the text, belief prceded salvation.

 

Good post, I agree with much of it as long as there's no eternal consequences involved.

I'm curious, what you think was Abraham's state prior to Genesis 15:6? Was he hell bound up until that moment?

Or Nathaniel, was he hell bound up until this moment [John 1:46-47]?

...there's others but that's enough for now.

 

Romans 10:13-15 belief precedes salvation. I agree, although the time factor could be argued is almost simultaneous. But remember, I do separate justification from regeneration so these verses are not a proof text that belief precedes regeneration. If it would help, let me suggest a couple of things. First, when talking theology, you will get into a splitting of hairs that really has no practical value. I separate regeneration and justification because I see some theologians do it. When you are regenerated faith and justification will certainly follow and fast. So in a practical sense, at the level we live they can be combined. If you read enough reformed literature you will find theologians combining the two just like that. If someone had time, it would be interesting to see how far back the term "regeneration" is even used. I will tell you right now that reformed theology is vast and diverse and although it is what I subscribe to it is not infallible.

 

How many nanoseconds do you allow between the two? There's one prominent Reformed member on this board that is adamant it's not even one nanosecond. It's like a zap of lightning, BOOM! Regenerated and converted at the same millisecond, but regeneration came first, because that's what Calvinists believe. You agree? That would mean there's only about two nanoseconds difference between Monergestic Soteriology and Synergism.

 

My guess would be no in both cases. Abraham had already been following God for a long time. In the case of Abraham and Nathaniel we don't have any information in scripture about such things. Two things stand out to me though. God chose Abraham and seemed to know he would follow Him. And Jesus didn't seem to have to ask tons of potential disciples in order to get the 12. So there was evidence of divine control. But I honestly am not sure about your question.

 

So, he had 'works' prior to faith, right? Like Cornelius.

Both, and many other examples we're given in the scriptures were regenerate long before 'faith'.

 

Sometimes it is like a lightening strike. Paul, on his way to persecute Christians was instantly turned from that to saying "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" I heard a testimony of a man who spoke Arabic and said he attended church with some Presbyterians mainly to practice his English. He said one day he opened his window and in a mocking way began to pray the Lord's prayer out the window. Half way through he came under conviction and began weeping and repenting. He is serving the Lord full time to this day.
But other times the Spirit takes much longer and people realize they are on a path to destruction and they try to improve their lives and listen to preaching and read the Bible and come to faith much later. Who knows when they were actually quickened or born again?
The difference between Monergism and Synergism is that in Synergism God has to wait for man to respond and do his part. Monergism links it all to God ultimately.

 

No. What you do not see in Abraham is him deciding to pack up his family and leave his home land in order to please God or show some good work. God came to Abraham and he obeyed what God specifically told him to do. I would say he acted in faith, and by the way like it is explained in Hebrews 11:8.

 

redneck, you don't seem to comprehend Paul's argument regarding justification and how Romans 2 expresses the reason why one is justified by faith alone. You seem to be thinking like a Roman Catholic.

 

Agree totally. Hebrews 11, the faith chapter is permeated with 'works'. It's as James crystallized:

18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

It's just as the Spirit through Peter concerning Cornelius declared:

35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

...and the only way for depraved man to do that is to be first born from above.

 

Back on ignore you go.

 

Faith is active. They all were justified by faith alone...because faith is...active.

 

Probably best since you have yet to actually explain your theology.
It seems that your theology is very similar to the RCC in regard to justification.