Faith a gift

[Skandelon]

It would seem that every man has "faith" if faith is defined by the ability to believe in something.

However, faith to believe in the gospel requires also a correct understanding of the gospel as well as a disposition to receive what is understood.

How does that differ from the faith of a muslim in understanding their Koran and their disposition to believe what they understand? Why is that lie understandable while the powerful life giving truth remains unattainable?

You are just giving unbelievers a good excuse for their unbelief. I say they understand the truth, it is clear and they have everything they need to believe it but CHOOSE to rebel and thus are completely accountable for their unbelief. Nothing but their own unbelief prevents their salvation. They are without excuse.

In this sense it would appear that no human being has this ability by natural birth (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Jn. 6:44)

Jn 6:44: In Jn 6 the gospel, the means by which God draws men to himself, hasn't even been sent into the world yet. He is hiding the truth in parables and only revealing himself to a select few from Israel, the rest are hardened.

I Cor. 2:14:: Keep reading into the next several versus, because the "brethren" can't accept these same "deep spiritual truths" (vs. 10) because they are living carnally/natural lives. You must understand the means God has chosen to reveal his these mysteries. Paul, a chosen apostles inspired to write scriptures, is one of those means, so for him to say THESE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS must be SPIRITUAL DISCERNED, could very well mean that HE, a spiritually inspired author, needs to explain them to the church, just like he explained the milk of the gospel to them earlier.

Rom. 8:7: I'm not sure what men's inability to submit to God law has to do with their ability as enemies to respond to his Holy Spirit wrought Gospel appeal to be reconciled.

The Gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit, thus any effect IT has is a fruit of the Spirit's work. Jesus said 'the words that I speak to you are spirit and life.' The gospel IS the POWER of God unto salvation though some in stubborn rebellion reject it and rightly deserve the punishment they receive for their free choice of rebellion. And NO I don't mean "free" as in they are just doing what they wanted to do because their natures wouldn't allow them to do otherwise. I mean the Gospel is powerful enough to a make its appeal and anyone who rejects Christ's words will be judged by them (Jn. 12)

 

[The Biblicist]

How does that differ from the faith of a muslim in understanding their Koran and their disposition to believe what they understand?

That is my point! There is no difference. The only difference is in respect to the disposition and object of faith. The unregerate man does not have the disposition (Rom. 8:7) to embrace the Gospel nor does he have the heart (Jn. 3:18-20) to embrace the gospel or the understanding (Mt. 16:17) necessary to embrace the gospel.

Why is that lie understandable while the powerful life giving truth remains unattainable?

.

There is more to saving faith than mere intellectual understanding. Intellectual understanding is sufficient to condemn them but not sufficient to save them (Rom. 1:19-20; Jn. 3:18). Saving faith is the consequence of prior disposition toward the truth (Jn. 3:18-20) coupled comprehension of the truth which is by revelation (2 Cor. 4:6; Mt. 16:17) rather than mere grasp of data or understanding the mere facts.

Jn 6:44: In Jn 6 the gospel, the means by which God draws men to himself, hasn't even been sent into the world yet. He is hiding the truth in parables and only revealing himself to a select few from Israel, the rest are hardened.

The parables of "the kingdom" were hidden but the gospel was preached since the foundation of the world (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Jn. 14:6; Rom. 10:16 with Isaiah 53; Romans 4:4-12 with Galatians 3:6-17).

[

B]I Cor. 2:14:[/B]: Keep reading into the next several versus, because the "brethren" can't accept these same "deep spiritual truths" (vs. 10) because they are living carnally/natural lives. You must understand the means God has chosen to reveal his these mysteries. Paul, a chosen apostles inspired to write scriptures, is one of those means, so for him to say THESE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS must be SPIRITUAL DISCERNED, could very well mean that HE, a spiritually inspired author, needs to explain them to the church, just like he explained the milk of the gospel to them earlier.

The preceding context is a denial that the gospel power can be attributed to the rhetorical ability or any other ability of the preacher. Instead, the power is attributed to the Person of the Holy Spirit. This is precisely the distinction Paul draws in 1 Thes. 1:4-5 by the words "word only" in contrast to the three prepositional phrases "in power" "in the Spirit" and "in much assurance."

The natural born man and the carnal nature in the supernatural born man has no ability to discern truth because it is "spiritually" discerned. Hence, the lost man cannot understand it at all and the carnal nature of the saved man cannot understand it either. All truth is by revelation by the Spirit of God.

Rom. 8:7: I'm not sure what men's inability to submit to God law has to do with their ability as enemies to respond to his Holy Spirit wrought Gospel appeal to be reconciled.

You are not sure what the explicitly stated inability of the natural condition of man has to do with understanding spiritual things? Is it not self-evident by this very statement? It seems you are attempting to turn this verse upon its end and repudiate exactly what it says.

 

[MB]

Is Faith a gift by grace that only certain people can accept and who are these certain people and why? People in this scenario believe that faith is a gift which means by grace.

Is Faith a gift for everyone to have and only those who accept it are saved by grace as in their debt they owe is paid for and why them?

Please be peaceful I beg you, or I will ask for this thread to be closed my self, that is if it goes any where at all? I do not see anyone able to boast on nothing but Christ in both scenario's

For me as I see it Faith is or was a gift for me. The Spirit didn't have to convince me of the gospel which gives me faith in Christ. Of course this gift is for anyone who will listen and we can all do that.
MB

 

[Skandelon]

There is more to saving faith than mere intellectual understanding. Intellectual understanding is sufficient to condemn them but not sufficient to save them (Rom. 1:19-20; Jn. 3:18).

I agree that one can understand and reject (refuse to believe) the truth of the gospel (i.e. have an intellectual understanding); but what do these verses say to support the idea that they are unable to humble themselves and to believe what they have come to intellectually understand? Are you saying they can intellectually understand God's appeal, which states, 'humble yourselves and you will be exalted" but not believe it and actually choose to do it? Why?

The parables of "the kingdom" were hidden but the gospel was preached since the foundation of the world (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Jn. 14:6; Rom. 10:16 with Isaiah 53; Romans 4:4-12 with Galatians 3:6-17).

The mysteries of the gospel were just being made fully manifest that this time in history. Even the disciples didn't fully understand that Christ's death was for atonement and that the gospel was for all men (even the unclean Gentiles) until after his resurrection and Peter's dream and Paul's conversion/calling.

So, yes, the law and the prophets "testified" to this gospel of righteousness through faith for all, but it was just NOW being made manifest (Rom 3:21ff). And it wasn't sent to call all men to reconciliation UNTIL after HE was raised up. This is why he taught that after he was raised up he would "draw all men to himself." (Jn 12)

The preceding context is a denial that the gospel power can be attributed to the rhetorical ability or any other ability of the preacher.

I agree, but why can't the power be attributed to the preacher, is the real question. Is it because God must secretly and irresistibly work within the lives of select audience members to make it powerful, as Calvinism seems to presume upon this text? OR could it be that all power is attributed to the Holy Spirit because the preacher is not preaching his own words, but the words given to him by inspiration? Remember Paul is unique in that he is writing these very words UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT. So what he is writing are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED TRUTHS that would have been unknown to the church had God not spoke them in human language through Him, his appointed messenger.

So, we both affirm that there are secret mysteries in the mind of God (vs. 10), right? How does God make those mysteries know to the world?

Let's pick which one is the biblical answer:
1) He inwardly regenerates a select number of people throughout the history of mankind who his supernaturally gives spiritual understanding about these thoughts and mysteries only known to him.

Or

2) He selects messengers, like Paul, who He inspires to write HIS actual words in human language making known (spiritually discerning) the secrets of God to his church through the scriptures. He has being doing it this way all along through prophets, priests and kings since the beginning.

Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit and life." Spiritual truths are discerned to man through words given by the Spirit.

Hence, the lost man cannot understand it at all

But earlier you said he could intellectually understand it... So, you really mean he can't accept or believe what he has intellectual understood, right?

You are not sure what the explicitly stated inability of the natural condition of man has to do with understanding spiritual things? Is it not self-evident by this very statement? It seems you are attempting to turn this verse upon its end and repudiate exactly what it says.

First, the verse says that men are enemies of God. We agree. But why would that in any way even imply that a message sent for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to God's enemies could not accomplish that purpose?

Second, the verse says men can't submit to God's law. We agree. Men can't attain righteousness through pursuit of the law, but why does that in any way even imply that they can't attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law once and for all?

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that one can understand and reject (refuse to believe) the truth of the gospel (i.e. have an intellectual understanding); but what do these verses say to support the idea that they are unable to humble themselves and to believe what they have come to intellectually understand? Are you saying they can intellectually understand God's appeal, which states, 'humble yourselves and you will be exalted" but not believe it and actually choose to do it? Why?

I believe Jesus deals with this in John 3:18-20. There is a predisposition of the heart that exists in distinction from mere mental or intellectual understanding that must change before one can come to Christ in faith.

This predisposition has to do with your love/hate condition of the heart. Jesus said that a person who "hates" the light will not "come" to the light and the person who "loves" the light does "come" to the light. Hence, this predisposition of the heart toward light determines whether or not one "comes" does not come to the light - not merely his understanding of what the facts are with his mind. This necessary predispositional change is noted by God in Deuteronomy 29:4 with Ezek. 36:26-27.

The mysteries of the gospel were just being made fully manifest that this time in history. Even the disciples didn't fully understand that Christ's death was for atonement and that the gospel was for all men (even the unclean Gentiles) until after his resurrection and Peter's dream and Paul's conversion/calling.

I believe you are confusing the essentials of the gospel with progressive revelation of other details of the gospel. The essentials are spelled out in Acts 10:43 and there is no death, burial and resurrection spelled out in that text - however, there is nothing in the essentials of that text forbidding those details as the further revelation. Furthermore, the essential gospel in Genesis 3:15 was given further revelation book by book in the Old Testament until you reach Mark 1:1. In Mark 1:1 the anticipated and prophetic Gospel previously preached and proclaimed by "all the prophets" now began to be realized in actual time and place in the life and death of Jesus Christ.

 

[freeatlast]

So is faith a gift, no not in the truest sense of the term. Faith is a result.
Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

 

[Skandelon]

I believe Jesus deals with this in John 3:18-20. There is a predisposition of the heart that exists in distinction from mere mental or intellectual understanding that must change before one can come to Christ in faith.

Ok, let's look at that:

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."​

Ok, where in this passage does it teach that men (who intellectually understand the light) can't live by the truth of that which they intellectually understand and thus 'come into the light?" I don't see how this supports your claims unless you read something into the text, which is evidence in what you write next...

This predisposition has to do with your love/hate condition of the heart.

This presumes love is not a choice, which is to beg the question up for debate... Having been married now for well over a decade I have come to understand that love is most certainly a daily choice I must make.

Jesus said that a person who "hates" the light will not "come" to the light

Right. Notice it says, 'will not,' not "can not." And notice it even tells us WHY they 'will not.' Because they don't want their shame to be exposed to everyone. Can that change when one reaches their 'pig sty' of life? Humble yourself and you will be exalted. Sometimes circumstances help that process, but either way, it is still a matter of "will." Now, we can debate the "freedom" of that will once exposed to the powerful truths of God (intellectual understood truths), but this passage no more supports your view than mine considering what it actually says rather than what is read into it.

I believe you are confusing the essentials of the gospel with progressive revelation of other details of the gospel. The essentials are spelled out in Acts 10:43 and there is no death, burial and resurrection spelled out in that text

Enough said. When the death, burial and resurrection is not in full view then the gospel's essentials are not in full view and that was the the point I was making.

The gospel wasn't being sent to draw (invite) men to reconciliation with God while Christ was still on earth. We see that come after his resurrection and he tells his disciples to go into all the world...then the Holy Spirit comes down like fire. That is the ENABLING/DRAWING power referred to in John 6, not some secret supernatural inward force.

 

[Tom Butler]

Paul, writing to the congregation at Philippi:

1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

The context is Paul's writing about his suffering for Christ's sake, and he is pointing out that this is the heritage of the Philippian believers as well. It almost appears that Paul just sorta threw in the phrase "not only to believe in Him."

But on reflection, it seems to me that Paul wrote that phrase the way he did because it is something the Philippian believers already knew. They already believed that the faith they had placed in the Lord Jesus had been given to them. This was nothing new for them.

The new thing was that their suffering and opposition went with being a believer. In fact, Paul is saying in essence that God has given them the privilege of suffering for Christ's sake, just as he is suffering for the same Christ.

 

[freeatlast]

Paul, writing to the congregation at Philippi:
The context is Paul's writing about his suffering for Christ's sake, and he is pointing out that this is the heritage of the Philippian believers as well. It almost appears that Paul just sorta threw in the phrase "not only to believe in Him."

But on reflection, it seems to me that Paul wrote that phrase the way he did because it is something the Philippian believers already knew. They already believed that the faith they had placed in the Lord Jesus had been given to them. This was nothing new for them.

The new thing was that their suffering and opposition went with being a believer. In fact, Paul is saying in essence that God has given them the privilege of suffering for Christ's sake, just as he is suffering for the same Christ.

Now let's look at this. Are you saying that suffering is also a gift? I ask that because the same word you are trying to use as meaning a gift for faith is also modifying suffering.
According to my bible faith is a result of something and that is hearing the word of God. So would being allowed to hear the word be a gift also?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, let's look at that:

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."​

First, let me say I enjoy discussing the Word of God with you and I hope we can come to agree or agree to disagree agreeably.

Notice they are "condemned already." This condemnation rests upon the fact that they "believe not." They recognized it as "light" but they "loved" darkness "rather than light." Hence, this is not an intellectual problem but a heart problem. Their refusal to beleive was not inability to intellectually comprehend it was "light" but their refusal was based upon love of darkness and their hatred of light. It is this predisposition of the heart that preventing them from coming to the light - which is a metaphor for beleiving in Christ.

The true inability of men is not that they do not have a free will but rather that they by nature freely choose to reject the light because they hate the light. It is their hate that disables them from coming to the light. This predispositon of hatred of the light and LOVE for darkness must be changed or else they cannot because they will not.

In contrast anyone who does not hate light but loves light their coming to the light manifests that this change of predisposition originates with God not man.

 

[Skandelon]

First, let me say I enjoy discussing the Word of God with you and I hope we can come to agree or agree to disagree agreeably.

Me 2 :thumbsup:

I think you will find that I will remain cordial even if I completely disagree with your conclusions...

Notice they are "condemned already."

But why?

This condemnation rests upon the fact that they "believe not."

Exactly. We agree so far... Notice they are not condemned already because God didn't love them, or didn't choose them, or didn't provide for them, or didn't invite them, or didn't mean the light to be for them, or didn't regenerate them. It is because they did not believe. I agree with the scholar who wrote, "As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

That means all legal obstacles have been removed by the work of Christ. Justice has been satisfied and the ONLY reason anyone remains condemned is for unbelief alone.

They recognized it as "light" but they "loved" darkness "rather than light." Hence, this is not an intellectual problem but a heart problem.

I agree but to presume the heart can and is only changed by an irresistible inward working of God is something you must read into this text. I agree it is a heart problem and that the heart must change and even that God must work to change that heart...I just disagree that the means God has chosen for this purpose are 'irresistible.' This is why the scripture warns not to allow your heart to grow hard. Its not born hard, it only becomes so after continually resisting the revelation of God.

Their refusal to beleive was not inability to intellectually comprehend it was "light" but their refusal was based upon love of darkness and their hatred of light. It is this predisposition of the heart that preventing them from coming to the light - which is a metaphor for beleiving in Christ.

And which part of this texts suggests that disposition can't change once confronted by the powerful (albeit not irresistible) working of God?

The true inability of men is not that they do not have a free will but rather that they by nature freely choose to reject the light because they hate the light.

Well, this goes to the definition of what one considers 'free.' To claim free simply because its 'voluntary' or 'according to what one wants' doesn't mean that much in a system where that which one wants is also determined by God. This view of freedom seems more in line with animal instinct than it does free moral agency. After all, a lion is doing what he wants when he chooses to eat a steak rather than a salad, does that make that a 'free' choice too?

 

[The Biblicist]

Just about to go out the door to town so I will give a quick response before taking off.

Me 2 :thumbsup:

:thumbs:

And which part of this texts suggests that disposition can't change once confronted by the powerful (albeit not irresistible) working of God?

They are condemned because they believe not, they believe not because of their heart values. Coming to Christ is synonmous with believing in Christ.

It is their heart condition that determines whether they come or do not come to Christ. This is exactly what Romans 8:7 says by the word "enmity." it is this "enmity" that makes them unable ("indeed neither indeed CAN be") to come, that is to believe in Christ.

Hate and love are the conditions of the heart. The conditions of the lost man's heart make it impossible for him to embrace the gospel (Deut. 29:4). The very implication of Deuteronomy 29:4 is that this spiritual inability is due to the fact of the heart they come with and the only other way to reverse this condition is for God to GIVE them another heart and that is exactly what Ezekiel 36:26-27 defines as inclusive of the new covenant.

However, your position does not need a NEW heart in order to function in those things listed in Deuteronomy 29:4 but rather that present heart is capable of functioning in those things if simply HELPED by God rather than REPLACED by God. Deuteronomy 29:4 and Ezekiel 36:27 both attribute the CAUSE for heart obedience to God giving the new heart not to the heart in possession by the person or simply helping the person change their own heart.

Well, this goes to the definition of what one considers 'free.' To claim free simply because its 'voluntary' or 'according to what one wants' doesn't mean that much in a system where that which one wants is also determined by God. This view of freedom seems more in line with animal instinct than it does free moral agency. After all, a lion is doing what he wants when he chooses to eat a steak rather than a salad, does that make that a 'free' choice too?

It is the DESIRES that characterize the heart that keep a person from freely choosing to come to Christ. Nothing keeps a person from coming to Christ but what he loves and hates as this love and hate condition ultimately determines all his choices as well as all his motives.

 

[psalms109:31]

Acts 8:
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”
25 After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

The new heart to me is a heart no longer seperated from the Holy Spirit given to believers.

 

[Winman]

Faith is a natural ability that all men have. Even animals have faith, my kids own a cat that is very afraid of strangers, but confidently comes to us.

Spurgeon wrote;

for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend.

The only difference between saving faith and ordinary common faith is that saving faith is placed in Jesus alone to save us.

Spurgeon also wrote;

You cannot turn anywhere in life without seeing faith in operation between man and man, or between man and natural law. Now, just as we trust in daily life, even so we are to trust in God as revealed in Christ Jesus.

Again, Spurgeon compares saving faith to ordinary common faith which all men possess and exercise daily, only saving faith is placed upon Jesus only to save us.

Spurgeon further writes there is no merit in faith, what merit is there in believeing that which is true? Is it merit to believe the sun will rise tomorrow? So, there is no merit in faith.

 

[JesusFan]

Me 2 :thumbsup:

I think you will find that I will remain cordial even if I completely disagree with your conclusions...

But why?
Exactly. We agree so far... Notice they are not condemned already because God didn't love them, or didn't choose them, or didn't provide for them, or didn't invite them, or didn't mean the light to be for them, or didn't regenerate them. It is because they did not believe. I agree with the scholar who wrote, "As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

ALL are already comdemned, due to the fcat are sinners, NOT due to them rejecting the Lord jesus, as that final act 'seals the deal", but are already guilty before God before their rejection!

That means all legal obstacles have been removed by the work of Christ. Justice has been satisfied and the ONLY reason anyone remains condemned is for unbelief alone.

Wrong! sinners are still in same place before God, guilty as charged, and ONLY when the effectual grace of/from the Cross gets applied towards them is "justice satisfied"

I agree but to presume the heart can and is only changed by an irresistible inward working of God is something you must read into this text. I agree it is a heart problem and that the heart must change and even that God must work to change that heart...I just disagree that the means God has chosen for this purpose are 'irresistible.' This is why the scripture warns not to allow your heart to grow hard. Its not born hard, it only becomes so after continually resisting the revelation of God.

Both the elect and nonelect can and do resisit grace of God, its just there will come a time when God so works in the life of the elect that they will and must come to Cjhrist and be saved, based upon providence of God!

And which part of this texts suggests that disposition can't change once confronted by the powerful (albeit not irresistible) working of God?

Well, this goes to the definition of what one considers 'free.' To claim free simply because its 'voluntary' or 'according to what one wants' doesn't mean that much in a system where that which one wants is also determined by God. This view of freedom seems more in line with animal instinct than it does free moral agency. After all, a lion is doing what he wants when he chooses to eat a steak rather than a salad, does that make that a 'free' choice too?

We do NOT say that God "programmed" us to act as we do, its just that being sinners, we are bound up in our sinful natures, and can freely chose to do things, its just as regarding salvation, will always choose to refuse Christ!

 

[Winman]

We do NOT say that God "programmed" us to act as we do, its just that being sinners, we are bound up in our sinful natures, and can freely chose to do things, its just as regarding salvation, will always choose to refuse Christ!

This is not accurate, all Calvinists believe that only God can alter a man's nature, isn't this so?

Don't you believe that only God can give a man a good heart? Then who gave man an evil heart?

 

[JesusFan]

This is not accurate, all Calvinists believe that only God can alter a man's nature, isn't this so?

Don't you believe that only God can give a man a good heart? Then who gave man an evil heart?

Since God is the One who indeeds bring a sinner to be able to place faith in Christ and get saved, is that a BAD thing?

 

[Winman]

Since God is the One who indeeds bring a sinner to be able to place faith in Christ and get saved, is that a BAD thing?

You didn't answer the question, who gave man an evil nature?

 

[matt wade]

We do NOT say that God "programmed" us to act as we do, its just that being sinners, we are bound up in our sinful natures, and can freely chose to do things, its just as regarding salvation, will always choose to refuse Christ!

So, are you then saying that God programs only the elect? All the non-elect are not robots programmed by God, since they "can freely choose to do things"? The elect are not free to refuse Christ so they must be programmed, right?

[snipped - inflammatory]

 

[Robert Snow]

I know I don't have the theological education of many here. But, as a sit-in-the-pew Christian I look at it perhaps in a more practical way than the theologian does. Sometimes theologians get so involved in dissecting verb tenses and ancient Greek definitions they miss the overall picture. Now I know this doesn't describe anyone here. All our theologians are cream of the crop, but this is how I see it. :love2:

Grace and faith are like inhaling and exhaling. Life requires both. It really doesn't matter which is missing or why. If we don't do both we die.