Is believing/faith a work ?

Presenting yourself to someone involves using your will. Start with Romans 6:11 and notice:

"Reckon ye yourselves also to be dead unto sin".
Verse 12. "Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body".
Verse 13 "Neither yield yourselves as instruments of unrighteousness....but yield yourselves unto God....as THOSE THAT ARE ALIVE FROM THE DEAD".

I added the capitals. I'm just trying to say that we can never get away from using our wills. The key is the person in verse 13 hopefully has a new will. If you always hammer people for saying they are acting according to their will you just infuriate them - even though I think your basic point - that salvation is all of God, is right.

 

At what point will you acknowledge that Romans 6 is written to believing Christians and not to dead in sins pagans?

Second, I am not saying that we don't make decisions. I am saying that our wills are not free. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Within those confines we make our decisions. What we cannot do and never even had the capacity to do, was to decide to free ourselves from one slaveholder to the other slaveholder. We don't have that freedom, just like we will never have the freedom to flap our arms and fly to the moon. It just cannot happen.

 

That would be the point where I quoted the verse in all capitals and said that it was talking about someone with a new will. (Post no. 21)

No, it's not the same. Sproul goes into this in a lot of detail. Our problem is not that we cannot flap our arms and fly to the moon. That would be a true, actual inability. Our problem is what we WANT to do with our own free will. It's moral inability. That is the reason God can hold us guilty for our sinning. If he demanded that we fly to the moon it would be perfectly right to say to God "I can't do that and you can't blame me". But our problem is that we voluntarily choose to sin over and over again. You see why I don't want you to totally demolish the concept of free will? You confuse the dickens out of people on here with the way you attack free will. I actually agree with the overall theme of what you are trying to say - at least I think I do.

 

All this to say "faith" is according to grace and not works (plural). We all know Calvinists routinely deny Romans 4:16:

For this reason the promise to Abraham's descendants is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,​

The false claim, faith must be an instilled gift, otherwise salvation is falsely claimed to be of "works" has been regurgitated on this BB for years and years. There is never acknowledgment of its blatant falsity.

 

Van, post no. 3 of this thread I specifically said that faith by definition cannot be a work. I do however think that our human will on it's own is not capable of coming up with a saving faith without direct action of the Holy Spirit. Now, I want you to be specific - how do you get saving faith?

 

Agreed, with the understanding that all the while we are slaves to sin, meaning we will not do anything outside of our enslaved compound.

 

1) Putting our faith in Christ, or in ourselves, or in none of the above is one of our God given abilities as humans.
2) To put our faith in something, we must be exposed to the information about the something. For example we cannot put our faith in Christ if we have not heard or otherwise learned of Christ.
3) Scripture tells us (John 6:44-45) that those who put their faith in Christ were "drawn" (attracted by the lovingkindness of God) and that they also "learned" which indicates they accepted, trusted, believed in that gospel message of love.
4) Does any of the above suggest those whose faith God credits as righteousness believed all the right things with all the right sincerity? Nope! So "saving faith" is faith God credits, despite how flawed it may be. Thus salvation does not depend upon the person who wills or does things to be saved, but upon God alone. (Romans 9:16)
5) The concept of "direct action of the Holy Spirit" refers, if based on scripture, to the revelatory grace of God's Word, the direct action of the Holy Spirit in inspiriting the authors of God's word. Not to mention Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit such that His actions authenticated His message by way of miracles, accomplished with the power of the Holy Spirit.
6) All these indirect suggestions of total spiritual inability unless altered by supernatural enablement are hogwash.

 

Van. Thanks for taking the time and really answering my question. Most of the time on here folks talk right past each other but you didn't. Thanks again.

 

This is a great discussion. I do have a question. How does Matthew 16:13-17 come into the discussion here? Can we believe who Christ is without the Father revealing it to us? Also does Ephesians 2:1-10 help to reveal more on this discussion? Or doesn't it? Thanks.

 

Mikoo. I think the verses you mentioned do indicate that in order to come to saving faith there is a direct action on you by the Holy Spirit. You will see, on this thread for instance, that some folks, who are very serious Calvinists, believe that this action is best described almost as God throwing a switch and saving faith can best be described as the response of such a regenerated person. Others, as Van posted above, believe that the work of the Spirit is more tied in with God's word and the hearing of the gospel and as he said in point 6 post 27 we have all been given by God sufficient ability to come to Christ by faith. Then there is the argument that some Calvinists use, that if faith is not given to you then it must be classified as a work.

 

Van, are you aware what promise Paul is referring to? Hint: It isn't salvation and it isn't believing.

Go back and read Romans 1-3 to get the answer.

 

I highlighted the important disagreement I have.
You emphasize "our faith", thus making it a human work, not God's gift of faith. You double down, calling "our faith"... "saving faith", which doubly emphasizes man doing the work. Then you tell us that "our faith", our "saving faith" causes God to credit it as righteousness.

Can you not see how your claims read to any discerning person?

Now, perhaps I have missed this phrase in the Bible, but where is the term "saving faith" found in scripture, especially as opposed to non-saving faith?

Finally, Paul's argument in Romans 1-11 is about being justified by faith alone. He's not talking about salvation. Salvation is by grace alone.

 

I will not seek to browbeat anyone with scripture, but, my friend, you are Biblically Correct. My Faith is a gift, directly from My Master.

 

He wrote:
"no ... it's a gift we all have available to us."
Now, please show us where faith is available to all humanity, past, present and future.

 

The term "saving faith" is used to differentiate between faith that God approves of in our justification and other types of faith that could be false. In the book of James "can that faith save him"? As opposed to a saving faith that will result in good works. Or it could be faith that only lasts a while like in the parable of the sower. "Saving faith" is a very common term in Puritan literature and if you have ever read A.W. Pink he used the term a lot and even wrote a booklet with that term in the title. By the way Austin, do you happen to know if the argument that faith if it is not considered a direct gift from God, has to be considered a work, is in any of the older Calvinist literature? If you have any references I would appreciate it. I know it is in the newer stuff - I saw it on Ligonier's site but the concept is sort of new to me as an argument for monergism.

 

I don't read the puritans nor calvinist books. I read the Bible and observe what it says.
It seems that the term "saving faith" is similar to "accept Jesus into your heart." They are both flawed phrases created by well meaning people without much biblical merit.

 

Well Austin, thanks for your honesty. I would think you would really like A.W. Pink. You can read stuff like that for free on line. By the way, regarding earlier discussion on free will, I came across this and it explains pretty well what I was trying to say. "That is, grace acted on the will before the will acted and set the will free to do according to it's inclination. The will has been given a new propensity - a new principle. Irresistible grace does not compel the will, nor debase the nature of man." And further on: "It's irresistible work therefore frees the will - infallibly determining it in it's free acts." From "A Puritan Theology" pg 476, talking about John Owens view of regeneration and the will.

So I hope you can see why I cringe a little at some of the Calvinist views on here that I think over simplify the gift of faith or regeneration as a magic wand type of thing. The actions of the Holy Spirit in saving someone and bringing them to faith are way more involved than that. Yet, I do believe that the Holy Spirit actually does something to you - not just provides information or even persuasion. No one born since Adam will on their own come to faith in my view.

 

We find agreement in your last sentence.

I have read a few things from Pink. "The Attributes of God" and "The 7 Sayings of the Savior on the Cross." That was a number of years back. Over the past decade I have mostly stuck to just reading and re-reading scripture while listening to sermons from Scottish Pastors like Eric Alexander, Sinclair Ferguson and Alistair Begg. Toss in a bit of John Piper as well. Oh, I suppose a bit of Martin Lloyd Jones. But I listen to their expository sermons, not their Thematic preaching. I did start listening to RC Sproul on Hebrews, but he died after preaching in Hebrews 2 so I have no idea what his thoughts were for the rest of the letter.