Is faith a work?

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Frogman;
I see I should have let the Bible answer for me hehehe. This verse somehow seems appropriate;

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Clearly what I had learned of the scriptures even though I didn't want to was that seed that was planted within me. That seed came from hearing the scriptures. It had a profound effect on me after I had heard it long enough. Yes It was an influence, but it didn't make that decision for me. From as far back as I can remember my parents taught me about Jesus.
This is why I surrenderd.
Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
As I got older hating the idea of being a Christian. It occured to me that without surrender that I would be lost. That I was fighting against the very thing I needed most I made a decision for Christ. We all do or we are lost.

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT
Why did Christ teach in parables?

I don't understand why you can't answer this question. If you don't want to answer it then I must asume that it's not something you want to acknowledge.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Yelsew2]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Faith is not a work, it is a gift of God.

Is your Declaration based upon Ephesians 2:8,9? or do you make the assumption that man has nothing unless God gives it to him?

If Ephesians, then all I can repeat to you is that you are missreading that scripture, because the context Ephesians 2:1-10 is speaking of Salvation, and not faith, grace or anything else.

If the "assumption", then you've swallowed the false doctrine hook, line, and sinker!

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Brother Mike (ILUVLIGHT)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT
Why did Christ teach in parables?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand why you can't answer this question. If you don't want to answer it then I must asume that it's not something you want to acknowledge.
May God Bless You;
Mike

Dear Brother Mike,
First let me say forgive me for leaving this question out of my reply.

Then let me say that even in providing a Biblical answer your refer the source of your acknowledgement to be found in scripture. Remember your earlier post how you specifically made your hatred of the gospel personal? You said (and I agree, I have the same experience) 'I hated the gospel'. Yes brother we do hate the gospel when we are unregenerate. We have this reaction because the gospel preached in power brings us before the Holy Spirit of God. This Spirit as you know is the Spirit of Holiness by which Christ was raised again from the grave (Rom 1.4).

Being put in the presence of this Spirit, by visitation (or conviction) through the preached gospel we first deny our position. We are not the cause of our separation of God (note we nor atheists truly deny the existence of God, we and even atheists are only without God) becomes our focus. I had never committed murder, adultery, etc. But I had lied, cheated my siblings, etc. So, the problem becomes what degree of sin do we recognize as having power to bring forth the wages of sin? To us we think of the big ones. To God any sin is enough to require this of us.

Now you quoted: 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Look up at vs. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.

To whom is Paul referring to here?
Himself?
The Holy Spirit?

If you say himself, then why does he make the same statement found in 1.12. this passage here shows the order of the events as I believe the Bible will bear out: These are Regeneration/belief (repentance will not be separated from these, but is mandated because the lost person has believed as you say (he/she will be lost without forgiveness)and this is the condemnation brought upon us through the effectual working of the Holy Spirit, (visitation/conviction) knowing without doubt of the surety of these things shows we have a belief the gospel message is true. That we repent and profess shows that we have passed from death unto life.

Paul brings this back down to Galatians 3.8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

so that this is in line there according to the order. This scripture is life; life is quickening/regeneration. When the lost person hears the gospel by the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit.

you previously stated and point out to me my ommission of:

Why did Christ teach in parables?

Why did Christ teach in parables?
When even the disciples didn't understand what he was teaching. They had to ask Christ to explain what they meant.

Weren't the disciples regenerated yet? They were already following Him.

I already know that it was partially to fulfill prophecy. It's just that all prophecy has a purpose other than the prophecy it self.

What kind of understanding are you expecting? The disciples were certainly regenerated, or else we have no warrant to withold baptism except to those making profession of faith having exhibited fruit of repentance. This, remember was the restriction placed upon all who came to John (Lk. 3.8; Mk. 1.4 & 5; Matt. 3.1, 8). The disciples were chosen from this number. Certainly they were regenerated. Pardon me for what I am about to say, but it is your perspective of the flesh that is making you to look toward their misunderstanding as a lack of evidence for their regeneration. What you are considering here is conversion and not regeneration.

So, the better question is were they yet converted? I would say no. however, this is meant to say that they remained not in unbelief concerning him but had been blinded by a failure of Israel to recognize the nature of the suffering servant and so too were the disciples they were focusing on the expected messiah as king to deliver Israel from the rule of Rome.

Remember, Jesus said: Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: (Mk. 4.11).

He continues to say that if others were able to see and to hear they would be converted (turn again).

There is nothing found in the discourse to lead us to beleive it was necessary for these who were outside to be hardened. What is said is the ability to understand these parables was with held from them. But it does not say that Christ (operating according to the will of God) hardened them. So, there is evidence that the present condition of these was sufficiently 'hardened' such they could not of themselves (unless it be given for them to know and understand) know and understand the parables.

The idea of conversion, imho, has been focused upon erroneously as the 'process' by which man is said to receive eternal life. This process is described at john 3.8 and is unseen among men but known in the heart of the person experiencing it (Rom. 8.16). Conversion on the other hand is seen by men and is given in accordance to John's preaching and viewed by fruits of repentance and belief. (Always remember John preached his message in Israel to the people of God, it is to 'His' people Christ came and they received him not.)

So, then Christ answers your question here the reason he taught in parables was that those of the nation of Israel would realize the truth of these things, remember the passage doesn't say that these people are not possessors of the heavenly calling. It says they are not converted and their sins are not forgiven them, but not that they are not regenerated. So, in asking why he had to teach in parables is assuming that conversion is regeneration. The first is to be brought back again, the latter is the act of imparting life.

Thanks for the discussion.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew2:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
Faith is not a work, it is a gift of God.

Is your Declaration based upon Ephesians 2:8,9? or do you make the assumption that man has nothing unless God gives it to him?

If Ephesians, then all I can repeat to you is that you are missreading that scripture, because the context Ephesians 2:1-10 is speaking of Salvation, and not faith, grace or anything else.

If the "assumption", then you've swallowed the false doctrine hook, line, and sinker! </font>[/QUOTE]It is found at Ephesians 2.8 & 9 with the context of vss. 1-10 considered. Taken with scripture found elsewhere such as John 3.27 (Notice how your statement "man has nothing unless God gives it to him" is very close to the same thing).

Yelsew2, I promise to continue this when I get home, right now I am at work and I have a splitting headache. Your question has aroused a lot of wonderful thoughts in my heart and mind, read Ephesians 2.1-10 paying particular attention to the before and after condition of the heart and mind, as you say, the topic is of course salvation. This makes salvation a free gift, would you agree (vs.5)?

But look also at vs 6, hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

raised up speaks of resurrection. I do not equate the quickening as a resurrection from the dead to say it is equivalent to bodily resurrection, nor do I count this 'raising up' as an individual completion of the promise of the first resurrection. Neverheless, 'raised up' speaks of resurrection, who has he raised up? "US"; thus I believe it to be a true picture of the resurrection (raising up) of the human spirit which according to vs. 1,2,3 & 5 was previously dead. Being dead is an absence of life, this is speaking of spiritual life and not soul and body.

More later....

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew2]

Faith is not the gift of God unless you are addressing the created man and how God made us. He made us with the faculty to develop and maintain faith, then he placed the requirement on us to have faith in order to have everlasting life. In that case I guess one could say Faith is God given. That however is not how you are arguing. You are saying that saying God gives faith as an afterthought, and not as part of his plan.

 

[Frogman]

I have never said God has done anything as an afterthought.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew2]

Why then would God need to give man anything? He has given man everything man needs. Man is fully equipped for everything God created him for. God does not have to add-on faith, because he already man with the ability to have and hold faith.

 

[Frogman]

It is man that fell into sin and not God.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew2]

Originally posted by Frogman:
It is man that fell into sin and not God.

Bro. Dallas

Falling did not cause a loss of capability! It separated formerly pure and even holy man from absolutely pure and holy God! It did not alter the man that God created. No where in scriptures do you find a reference where the fall caused the loss of any part of creation, except perhaps the garden of Eden, and that too is not a surety.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Hey, Paul used the same form of diatribe in his letters so I have a good precedent.

yes, but in your view was paul trying to win souls or feeding the sheep?

Bro. Dallas

Faith is not a work, it is a gift of God.

We too believe faith is a gift of God. Faith comes by hearing the truth and God gave us the "word of faith" therefore we too can say faith is ultimately from God.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew2:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
It is man that fell into sin and not God.

Bro. Dallas

Falling did not cause a loss of capability! It separated formerly pure and even holy man from absolutely pure and holy God! It did not alter the man that God created. No where in scriptures do you find a reference where the fall caused the loss of any part of creation, except perhaps the garden of Eden, and that too is not a surety. </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad to see you didn't mis-spell 'alter' in accordance with the usage you assigned it in your discussion. I find that I sometimes do this and I try really hard to remember that 'alter' means change.

 

[Yelsew2]

Does your comment indicate that you agree that man has not been altered because of the fall?

 

[Frogman]

No.

 

[Yelsew2]

Thought that was the case!

 

[Frogman]

By simple definition of 'altered' he obviously has been 'changed'.

 

[Yelsew2]

But I said that man was not altered!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
I can already anticipate what you might say.

You might say, "But God did intervene with the teachings of the prophets and the law etc."

But, remember the law is not the power of God unto salvation, the gospel is. And the sending of the Holy Spirit at penetacost is the "Spirit of the Bride" who says to all, "COME."

The law was a tutor for people to reveal their need for a savior. The gospel of grace through faith was the solution to the world's problem. Your doctrine makes that solution obsolete because you claim that man is just as unable to have faith as he is to obey the law and the scripture never teaches us that. It is merely assumed by Calvinists.

Please reconsider your doctrinal system. I am confident it is not correct.

Blessings.

So, what do you do with Phil. 2:13?

For it is God which worketh (energeo = to show forth self, to work efficiently, to do mightily) in you both to will (thelo = to determine, to desire, to choose)and to do (energeo= to be active, to do effectively) of his good pleasure (eudokia = wish, desire, purpose associated with idea of good). (Phil 2:13)

So, who produces the faith in man?

 

[paidagogos]

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
(1 Corinthians 12:3)

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8-10)

So, where does man get his faith? Can he willfully produce it in himself at his own discretion? Can man be saved at the time and place of his own choosing? Did God grant man autonomy in his faith? According to the Scriptures, I think not.

There’s been a lot of balderdash on this thread. Perhaps some would do better to quit wasting their time posting and study their Bibles. Huh?

 

[Yelsew2]

Paidagogos,
We've been all over what you post. The fact is that what is working in man to bring him to faith and to keep him in faith is God's word. It is the word of God heard that produces faith in man.

 

[Me2]

There are two called out groups of people wanting what God is offering today.

One group seek these things by faith in christ freely giving to them.
the other group is attempting to steal Gods free gift by not accepting this free gift. their trying to take it by force from God (without faith) for personal GAIN.

1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Phi 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Phi 3:19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

difference between the two groups is one seeks a spiritual understanding and the other a literal understanding.

one in which the understanding will essentially benifit the whole of Gods creation, or the other, the understanding to gain insight into the knowledge of God for self gratification.

Me2