Total Depravity...

[JDale]

Forgive me for not keeping up with every post -- Mondays are LONG days.

In an earlier post, I believe it was ALLAN (Though I could be wrong) who is quoted as saying "belief and faith are the same in my book." Er, what book is that?

It is true that Calvinists often do equate these two concepts. As Helen illustrated from the logical perspective with the "Chair analogy," it is problematic to equate faith to belief.

The bigger problem is to Biblically equate the two. Scripture clearly declares, "You believe in one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" (James 2:19). For the Calvinist to equate belief -- even correct or proper belief -- with saving faith, is to say that these demons are, well, saved.

Belief is intellectual assent, agreement. Faith is TRUSTING it that which one has believed. Faith is indeed in the heart of all men, as Romans 12:3 states -- but man's will is not freed to believe until (and unless) God through His prevenient grace enables one to believe.

Just my observations....

JDale

 

[MB]

More on faith as a possession - I just wanted to recognize that many theologians, including Calvinists, do not hold to my emphasis of faith as a possession.

Saving faith is a gift and the only way to have it is to believe from your heart. It isn't our belief that saves. it isn't righteous nor can it ever be righteous. Christ has righteous faith and we wear it like a robe. Lot's of people can believe and not be saved. It takes complete surrender of our will to His.

Many see faith as a human quality that is already residing in every person, but that depraved man can not exercise his faith unto salvation unless his faith is supernatually awakened to Christ through regeneration. Classical Arminians also believe that faith must be awakened by God, but that it is universally accomplished, but some people are able to resist the exercise of that awakened faith.

I disagree no matter what we will never save our selves. We are saved by the faith of Christ or else we could boast.
The same verse I just gave RB;

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Who's faith is it that justifies? The faith of Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Rom 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Who did Christ die for? The unGodly He didn't come to save the saved.
MB

 

[Pastor Larry]

The bigger problem is to Biblically equate the two. Scripture clearly declares, "You believe in one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" (James 2:19). For the Calvinist to equate belief -- even correct or proper belief -- with saving faith, is to say that these demons are, well, saved.

Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief? And how? The word the Bible uses is the same word. The word is pisteuo and the verb form is translated believe, and the noun is usually translated faith.

The Bible makes no distinction.

If you read James 2, the issue there is not whether demons have faith. It is whether the demons have saving faith. They do not. They have faith, but it is not saving faith.

Whatever else we can say about faith and belief, we must say that they are the same biblically speaking. The word is the same word.

 

[webdog]

The Bible makes no distinction.

If you read James 2, the issue there is not whether demons have faith. It is whether the demons have saving faith. They do not. They have faith, but it is not saving faith.

What the Bible doesn't make a distinction on is faith and saving faith.

What do demons have faith in? Faith is the substance of what is hoped for and not seen. What do demons hope for...and what haven't they seen?

James 2 clearly shows a distinction between faith and belief. From Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, there was a scene where Indy had to cross a huge expanse. The map he had said there was a bridge. Even though he couldn't see the bridge he believed there was a bridge and took a step of faith onto a bridge that was blended perfectly into the background. Clearly two separate acts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't follow your first statement. I am sure I am missign something, but it doesn't seem clear to me.

As to the second, you must follow the context. James' point is about the nature of saving faith. He is pointing out that saving faith involves more than mental assent to the facts; it is commitment. The demons have mental assent that God exists, but have not committed themselves to him. Therefore, their faith is not saving faith.

I turn the question back to you that I asked above: Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief? And how? If faith and belief are different, why does the Bible use the same word? In fact, why do we hardly ever see "belief" in our English translations? We see "believe" as the translation of the verb form of pisteuo and we see "faith" as the translation of the noun form pistis. Why did the apostles uses the same word to describe this, if in fact it was different?

 

[webdog]

I don't follow your first statement. I am sure I am missign something, but it doesn't seem clear to me.

Jesus said "your faith has healed you"..."your faith has made you whole", etc. There is never a distinction between the faith inherently within and another kind of faith that is being labeled here "saving faith". There is faith that saves, but it is still the same faith we use in everyday life. the difference is the object of that faith.

As to the second, you must follow the context. James' point is about the nature of saving faith. He is pointing out that saving faith involves more than mental assent to the facts; it is commitment.

Doesn't this involve faith in general? What faith doesn't take a commitment?

I turn the question back to you that I asked above: Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief?

James 2
Eve believing in the serpent...then exercising faith in what was told her.
Noah believing God...then exercising faith in following through with building the ark.
Abraham believing God would provide a sacrifice...then exercising faith by putting Isaac on the altar.
Many more...
Faith always follows belief, but belief doesn't always lead to faith.

If faith and belief are different, why does the Bible use the same word? In fact, why do we hardly ever see "belief" in our English translations? We see "believe" as the translation of the verb form of pisteuo and we see "faith" as the translation of the noun form pistis. Why did the apostles uses the same word to describe this, if in fact it was different?

This same line of thinking can be used for word "dead". The Bible uses this same word to describe physical death as well as spiritual death.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There is never a distinction between the faith inherently within and another kind of faith that is being labeled here "saving faith". There is faith that saves, but it is still the same faith we use in everyday life. the difference is the object of that faith.

The distinction is seen in James 2 where teh faith of devils is different than the faith of believers. It is seen in 1 Cor 15 where some had faith in vain, but not all did. So the distinction between saving faith and a non-saving faith is well testified to in Scripture.

Doesn't this involve faith in general? What faith doesn't take a commitment?

If you have not committed to Christ, you may have mental assent, but you don't have saving faith. Again, you have to follow the context. In v. 14 he talks of a man who says he has faith but no works. James asks, "Can that faith save?" His answer is no. And he proceeds to contrast a "dead faith" with a "living faith."

James 2
Eve believing in the serpent...then exercising faith in what was told her.
Noah believing God...then exercising faith in following through with building the ark.
Abraham believing God would provide a sacrifice...then exercising faith by putting Isaac on the altar.

But see in each case you added a verb: exercised. I agree with all of that and it proves my point. The issue is that they had a kind of belief that led to action. The action is distinct from faith, but inseparable from it.

Faith always follows belief, but belief doesn't always lead to faith.

You haven't shown this though. What you ahve shown is that action follows belief.

This same line of thinking can be used for word "dead". The Bible uses this same word to describe physical death as well as spiritual death.

Yes, but that's a wholly different kind of comparison.

I think you have proven yourself wrong by virtue of having to add a verb to "believe." The Bible simply does not make this distinction.

 

[JDale]

Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief? And how? The word the Bible uses is the same word. The word is pisteuo and the verb form is translated believe, and the noun is usually translated faith.

The Bible makes no distinction.

If you read James 2, the issue there is not whether demons have faith. It is whether the demons have saving faith. They do not. They have faith, but it is not saving faith.

Whatever else we can say about faith and belief, we must say that they are the same biblically speaking. The word is the same word.

But wait...? You've just said that the demons have "faith," but not "saving faith." You yourself are drawing a distinction -- though not the distinction James drew. To say that the demons have "faith" is to imply that they are leaning on -- or depending on -- that which they have believed. Quite the contrary, as James says, the "tremble" at the truth!

This passage makes very clear where the distinction is. One who "believes," as the demons do, knows, acknowledges and/or gives intellectual assent. One who has FAITH is TRUSTING in that which they believe. This is not a distinction I draw -- it is made clear right here by James himself.

JDale

 

[webdog]

The distinction is seen in James 2 where teh faith of devils is different than the faith of believers. It is seen in 1 Cor 15 where some had faith in vain, but not all did. So the distinction between saving faith and a non-saving faith is well testified to in Scripture.

The object of ones faith is what determines saving faith or not. Faith in myself is not saving faith, but faith in Christ is. Same faith, different objects...not two different faiths.

If you have not committed to Christ, you may have mental assent, but you don't have saving faith. Again, you have to follow the context. In v. 14 he talks of a man who says he has faith but no works. James asks, "Can that faith save?" His answer is no. And he proceeds to contrast a "dead faith" with a "living faith."

James was simply showing the difference between head knowledge and true faith, not different faiths.

But see in each case you added a verb: exercised. I agree with all of that and it proves my point. The issue is that they had a kind of belief that led to action. The action is distinct from faith, but inseparable from it.

But I believe the "action" that results from belief is what is defined as faith. Faith is the substance (result) of what is hoped for and not seen. What you hope for that is unseen is a result of believing whether that which is unseen is true or not.

You haven't shown this though. What you ahve shown is that action follows belief.

I believe I have. What you are defining as simply "action", I believe to be faith.

I think you have proven yourself wrong by virtue of having to add a verb to "believe." The Bible simply does not make this distinction.

I think I have proven myself correct in what you are ascribing to "action" as a result of belief, I ascribe to that action being faith. I haven't added a verb to believe, and I have stated prior that there are instances in Scripture where believe is used to describe faith.

 

[JDale]

Saving faith is a gift and the only way to have it is to believe from your heart. It isn't our belief that saves. it isn't righteous nor can it ever be righteous. Christ has righteous faith and we wear it like a robe. Lot's of people can believe and not be saved. It takes complete surrender of our will to His.

I disagree no matter what we will never save our selves. We are saved by the faith of Christ or else we could boast.
The same verse I just gave RB;

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Who's faith is it that justifies? The faith of Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Rom 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Who did Christ die for? The unGodly He didn't come to save the saved.
MB

I don't disagree that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves -- if we understand that God has given us (humans) that faith and made us the custodians of that faith.

To conclude that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves in the sense that Jesus believes FOR US, that our "belief means nothing," would then imply several problematic conclusions:

(1) Universalism. Scripture clearly teaches that "whosoever believeth in Him," (John 3:16), and that "God is not willing that any should perish..." (II Peter 3:9). If Jesus believes FOR US, then He believes FOR ALL. Of cours, this gets into the pet doctrine of Calvinists regarding limited atonement...

(2) No need for repentance. Everywhere, Scripture tells us that coming to Christ begins with repentance. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That's why Jesus and John began their messages in the Gospels at the very beginning of their ministries with, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Hevaen is at hand!" That's why the writer of Hebrews (Paul, BTW :-D ) tells us that among the "elementary principles of the Gospel" are "repentance from dead works, and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1).

(3) No personal responsibility. If Christ believes for us, then we have no responsibility to live as Christ desires. If following this train of thought to a logical conclusion, Jesus believes for us, so it's up to Him to produce a holy life in us -- but, what if we don't WANT to live a holy life? What if we WANT to sin? What if we RESIST His will? Or, is this where "irresistible grace" kicks in?

To insist on this tortured interpretation of so many Scriptures renders them meaningless -- unless you are one of the "elect" god has chosen and you are thereby smarter than the rest of the pathetic losers God has predestined for hell. To me, this denies logic, defies Scripture and de-emphasizes God's love for ALL mankind, whom He desires to save -- IF they believe -- which He has graciously given them the abiltiy to do.

And in advance, forgive the hyperbole -- I am making a point, not being hostile in ANY way!

Blessings,

JDale

 

[Pastor Larry]

But wait...? You've just said that the demons have "faith," but not "saving faith." You yourself are drawing a distinction -- though not the distinction James drew. To say that the demons have "faith" is to imply that they are leaning on -- or depending on -- that which they have believed. Quite the contrary, as James says, the "tremble" at the truth!

Incorrect. The distinction I make is the same one James makes. Notice the recurrence of the pistis words in the passage. That is the key. You want to assign different meanings to this word. I don’t.

This passage makes very clear where the distinction is. One who "believes," as the demons do, knows, acknowledges and/or gives intellectual assent. One who has FAITH is TRUSTING in that which they believe. This is not a distinction I draw -- it is made clear right here by James himself.

You are partially correct. The demons “have faith.” That is the word pisteuo. It is the same word in the first half of the verse. It is the same word in v. 23 that Abram did and was credited as righteous.

All through this passage, James is distinguishing two kinds of faith: dead faith and living faith, or saving faith. The fact that he uses the same word time and time again makes that clear.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The object of ones faith is what determines saving faith or not. Faith in myself is not saving faith, but faith in Christ is. Same faith, different objects...not two different faiths.

The nature of faith is the point in James 2:14: Can “that faith” save him? James is posing a question about the nature of saving faith.

James was simply showing the difference between head knowledge and true faith, not different faiths.

But strangely, he uses the same word for both. Your view cannot explain that. Mine can. If God inspired both to be called faith in this passage, I dare not make a difference between them.

But I believe the "action" that results from belief is what is defined as faith.

I know. But the Bible will not help you out. Faith and belief are the same thing in Scripture. James 2 shows that actions flow from real faith. The actions are not faith. They are, in the words of James, “works.”

What you are defining as simply "action", I believe to be faith.

Again, this is not what the James says. James distinguishes faith and works. What you call “faith,” James calls “works,” it seems to me.

I think I have proven myself correct in what you are ascribing to "action" as a result of belief, I ascribe to that action being faith. I haven't added a verb to believe, and I have stated prior that there are instances in Scripture where believe is used to describe faith.

You have not proven yourself correct. You have yet to explain why the same word is used for all these things. You have yet to explain why James himself, in the passage under discussion, does not make the distinction you do. So there are huge holes in your position. And you did add a verb. You took the word “pistis” and said one “exercises pistis” and that is different from “pisteuo.” That makes no exegetical sense, though.

 

[Allan]

No, a man cannot choose to believe something (or someone) he does not believe.

Scripturally he can.

Your faith in a chair comes through a natural process. You have "faith" in it because you've come to expect it to hold you up through experience.

By what natural process can you convince an unbeliever to believe? He's already seen the sky and stars and the order of the Universe and all that; and he's heard the gospel too, and yet he is not convinced. How will you now convince him?

There is NO natural process through which we can convince an ANYONE and is the reason any spiritual knowledge is something revealed by God and not discovered by man. The convincing OF man comes from the Holy SPirits conviction of revealed truth TO man.

However, we know we (by oursleves) can not convince anyone but are the instruments of God that He uses as part of His means to convince, via the Word which we speak and the lives we live. We see this in many verses.

1Cr 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save [thy] husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save [thy] wife?

And Peter in preaching...

Act 2:40 ¶ And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

and many others by which the Apostles and Jesus Himself beseeched men to believe, repent, come, and be ye reconsiled.

 

[Allan]

As to the second, you must follow the context. James' point is about the nature of saving faith. He is pointing out that saving faith involves more than mental assent to the facts; it is commitment. The demons have mental assent that God exists, but have not committed themselves to him. Therefore, their faith is not saving faith.

I would say the demons have no faith (as in 'No faith in God'). Scripture does not differentiate between differing types of faith. Though we know it is a saving faith because of its work, however it is really the same faith that man has or puts in anything else. Faith is faith but not all faith saves. So faith does not actually save but it is the object of whom we place our faith in that saves due to our submission to truth. Faith is part of how we are saved.

I turn the question back to you that I asked above: Can you tell us where the Bible distinguishes faith from belief? And how? If faith and belief are different, why does the Bible use the same word? In fact, why do we hardly ever see "belief" in our English translations? We see "believe" as the translation of the verb form of pisteuo and we see "faith" as the translation of the noun form pistis. Why did the apostles uses the same word to describe this, if in fact it was different?

Agreed.

 

[Allan]

The object of ones faith is what determines saving faith or not. Faith in myself is not saving faith, but faith in Christ is. Same faith, different objects...not two different faiths.

James was simply showing the difference between head knowledge and true faith, not different faiths.

Agreed here. No question.

But I believe the "action" that results from belief is what is defined as faith. Faith is the substance (result) of what is hoped for and not seen. What you hope for that is unseen is a result of believing whether that which is unseen is true or not.

Here though we need to take another look at something.
Faith (verb - the act of believing a fact or statement is true) is the substance (foundation - NOT result) of things hoped (expecting) for, the evidence (judicial proof) of things not seen.

Your action on truth is the foundation of those things you are expecting. It is why you do it. That action is proof to everyone else who does not see there must be something to it.

 

[Allan]

The nature of faith is the point in James 2:14: Can “that faith” save him? James is posing a question about the nature of saving faith.

But strangely, he uses the same word for both. Your view cannot explain that. Mine can. If God inspired both to be called faith in this passage, I dare not make a difference between them.

I know. But the Bible will not help you out. Faith and belief are the same thing in Scripture. James 2 shows that actions flow from real faith. The actions are not faith. They are, in the words of James, “works.”

Again, this is not what the James says. James distinguishes faith and works. What you call “faith,” James calls “works,” it seems to me.

You have not proven yourself correct. You have yet to explain why the same word is used for all these things. You have yet to explain why James himself, in the passage under discussion, does not make the distinction you do. So there are huge holes in your position. And you did add a verb. You took the word “pistis” and said one “exercises pistis” and that is different from “pisteuo.” That makes no exegetical sense, though.

I think I see better what you are saying but I don't follow your 'nature of faith' set forth as you accert. James is showing a distinction in true faith. It is the same discription or definition that can and is applied to ALL forms of faith. (from a chair to Muslim and Christian) It is the same faith we excersize daily, yet it is the object to which that faith is applied which is saving and that which is not. As I said earlier...Faith is faith but not all faith saves. So faith does not actually save but it is the object of whom we place our faith in that which saves due to our submission to truth.

 

[Allan]

Eph 4:17-19; Rom 3:10-23; 2 Cor 4:1-6; etc.

Eph 4 is a parallel of Roms 1 and 2 Thes of which establish NOT that man is blind in first but that man's rejection of truth results in blinding. It uses the same phrases in its discriptions.

Eph 4:17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

Can you not see they are almost perfect parallels. And they all state mans heart became blinded AFTER man rejected the truth and it was FOR THIS CAUSE God gave them over, and sent a strong delusion (blinding) to believe a lie.

Romans 3 speaks specifically to man without God can not do anything to please God nor can he know anything spiritual through natural means due to mans corruption. The sin nature itself is a knid of blinder but only outside of spiritual truth. And in this portion of scripture you address it reveals man is outside of any spiritual truth he may obtain by himself regarding natural means. But that does not state anything about WHEN GOD GIVES truth to man via His grace, but speaks to man as outside of God with no aide of Grace.

And 2 Cor 4 speaks to the same principles I have already adddressed.
And if our gospel be hid it is hid to those who are lost.
Is not all mankind lost?
I have heard some say ONLY the elect are lost and the rest are reprobates.
But that can not be in light of this verse since the lost are apparently the damned.

It also says the god of this world has blinded them who believe not. In light of the verse I have already given, we know that they were blinded after God gave them over and sent forth a delusion to believe a lie since they reject the truth that COULD HAVE saved.

I never said it was logical. I do believe it is theological. I am not against logic, and ultiamtely I believe there is perfect logic in it. I do recognize that our minds are limited in understanding the infinite God. There are some things we must believe simply because they are said. If we don't understand them, that is a testament to the way that sin has corrupted our minds. The hardening is to increase judicial punishment.

Yes it is, and specifically against those who KNEW the truth that COULD save them but they rejected it.
To whom much is given, much will be required.

I did. To counter your argument with a similar argument, Scripture never says some are blinded.

And I counter again verse for verse and in context the relation of rejection and then a spiritual blinding against the truth they rejected.

Not necessarily, not according to the whole of Scripture. This is where I think you are taking parts of Scripture and building a theology from them rather than the whole of Scripture.

No, I have taken thus far the whole of scripture and established it is biblically theological concerning the full counsil of Gods Word.

Exactly. So if sin is a blinding agent, then all who sinned are blinded. Which is exactly my point. God must reveal truth to man. Again, it seems that you are agreeing with me in this point, though you are trying not to.

Yes, blinded through the natural process where by we understand and learn. I have never stated anything contrary to God is the only person able to reveal spiritual truth to mankind.
But I hold to the scripture that states the unregenerate knows the same truths we knew at our salvation (which God revealed to them as well) but they resisted that grace unto damnation. So we agree in part, but not (apparently) the whole.

I am not sure what you mean by "those are saved but in unbelief." Is that two groups or one? I think they are two groups. Those who are unbelieving have no one to blame but themselves. They refuse to turn to God and be saved.

My bad on that one. I ment to say those who ARE NOT saved but in unbelief... my statement edited:

If all sinners (non-elect) are blind and hardened and only the regenerate (elect) can know God, His glory, Sin, Righteousness, and coming judgment (this concerning the things of salvation). Then why does scripture say over and over that those who are not saved but in unbelief also know these same things and in rejecting this knowledge that they might be saved have damned themselves.

Does that clear the mud??

It is clear there are two types of understanding, though I would not use those words. It could be shown from many places, but I will choose John 8. There, Christ is having a conversation with the Pharisees, proving that the Pharisees could understand his word. Yet Christ says "you do not hear" meaning in context, you do not understand. THat has to be the spiritual import of the words that he is talking about. It is clear they could undestand the words and grammar since they were carrying on a conversation. Yet it is clear that they did not understand the spiritual significance of the words being used.

They did not hear because they had ALREADY rejected who he claimed to be and his message. Even Nichodemous in John 3 states "WE KNOW that you are a man of God, for no man can do the things you do unless God be with Him."
They do not hear because they have rejected HIm and His message and according to what I have dealt with earlier, we see they were given over and bleived their lie. They will not hear because they have already rejected the truth revealed to them before.

 

[skypair]

Pastor Larry, Allan,

I never said it was logical. I do believe it is theological. I am not against logic, and ultiamtely I believe there is perfect logic in it. I do recognize that our minds are limited in understanding the infinite God. There are some things we must believe simply because they are said. If we don't understand them, that is a testament to the way that sin has corrupted our minds. The hardening is to increase judicial punishment.

See, here's what is the problem -- something "theological" doesn't have to be "logical." And then we go cower behind the "infinite God" and His "hidden counsel" rather than try of understand the word that He has given to us!

I'm with Allan. You can't be "hardened" against something you can't "hear."

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

From Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, there was a scene where Indy had to cross a huge expanse. The map he had said there was a bridge. Even though he couldn't see the bridge he believed there was a bridge and took a step of faith onto a bridge that was blended perfectly into the background.

Actually, it was from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, the third and, thus far, final installment. I thought I would do my part in this deep theological discussion. Carry on. :wavey:

 

[JDale]

You are partially correct. The demons “have faith.” That is the word pisteuo. It is the same word in the first half of the verse. It is the same word in v. 23 that Abram did and was credited as righteous.

All through this passage, James is distinguishing two kinds of faith: dead faith and living faith, or saving faith. The fact that he uses the same word time and time again makes that clear.

I don't think I'm "partially correct," but I think we partially agree I understand the point you are making, and I can agree with your (or James) distinction between "living faith" and "dead faith." Perhaps we are arguing semantics on this point, and not substance.

JDale