Is believing/faith a work ?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Calvinists do not believe Christians are chosen in Christ from the beginning based upon God's foreknowledge from the beginning of all things that will ever occur and every decision they will make in or outside of His will. Yet that is what I believe, proving I am not a Calvinist.
Stunningly unresponsive.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
It says "for if you do X then you shall be saved." Meaning, at the point you do X, you are saved, and not a moment before. Greek verb tenses are what tell us this, which are a bit more than "is," "was," "will be" etc for English.

If it said "for if you X, then you are saved," B57 would have a leg to stand on, because it could be interpreted that doing X is just an indicator that one is already saved.



Uh, no. Ordo Salutis (the logical order of salvation) is, when the message is preached, the sinner hears, then he believes, then he calls, and then he is saved. (Romans 10:13-14) Water baptism is a work. Paul teaches "not of works," but "by grace are you saved through faith."

Paul writes, comparing works (what Israel had to "DO" (including baptisms)) with faith:

For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above )or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” - Romans 10:5-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans10:5-15&version=NKJV

Do you see?

The righteousness which is of the law (doing good works to attain salvation (for under the law, faith was a required work)) is different than the righteousness which is of faith, in this way:

The righteousness which is of the law is achieved by the man who does things and lives by them. But the righteousness which is of faith is that one believes unto righteousness and makes confession unto salvation.

Not even the Baptists teach that calling is done at a water baptism. I know, because I used to be Baptist.



Still reading other people's mail, are you?
"You shall be saved."
NOT "You are saved."

Yes, I am reading other people's mail.
Just today I read from the Romans' and Galatians' mail.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"You shall be saved."
NOT "You are saved."

Duh. That's what I said. Please pay attention. Did you even bother reading past the first few words?

Yes, I am reading other people's mail.
Just today I read from the Romans' and Galatians' mail.

Except that Romans and Galatians are addressed to the members of the Body of Christ. You keep reading letters addressed to the nation of Israel, and addressed to a future generation, specifically of Israel, and claim that they are written to you.
 

marke

Well-known member
I guess that you missed my point.
My point was that what you posted was both wrong and was very much exactly what a Calvinist would say.

Did you read the article? It's pretty short and addresses this issue very clearly.
I don't agree with you that Romans 9 must be translated in the only way you have translated it without any other applications.
 

marke

Well-known member
Nope. God never hated Esau in the sense you mean it here. The use of the term "hated" is a Hebrew idiom (figure of speech) that means "less favored".


No, it doesn't mean that at all. God is just. He is not arbitrary and does not despise unborn babies - ever - period.


Correct. If it did, it would be proof that the bible is fantasy.


They do indeed err, but not because they fail to read the bible. They simply love Aristole more than they love God's word. It would be a good place to use the Hebrew idiom mentioned above. Calvinists "hate" the bible in the same sense God "hated" Esau.


Exactly.

Ever ask a Calvinist whether God completed the first vessel He intended to make?

If you do, you'll get silence for an answer.
I believe God hated Esau for his rejection of God.

Psalm 139.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
How about John Calvin himself?
John Calvin isn't canonical Calvinism though.

These people ...

... created three works ...

... which are canonical Calvinism. These are my sources for what constitutes Calvinism, and even if John Calvin himself contradicts any their contents ... Calvin is wrong.

iow the Westminster standards are the steel man (opp. of straw man) Calvinism, so if you're going to attack Calvinism use the Westminster standards, and not John Calvin himself.

SO WHAT?! It means that there are NO ALTERNATIVES! It PRECLUDES the very notion of "CHOICE"!
No it doesn't. I told you to watch the movie, you just scoffed and dismissed it. It's a fictional story but it's not illogical, and it's not contrary, let alone contradictory, to genuine free will.

By the way, in case it wasn't extremely obvious, I am most definitely not a Calvinist.
lol yes.

God only intervenes for those whom He has elected, according to Calvinism.
But never unjustly and never to our detriment and never against our free will. His intervention is borderline miraculous, so the accurate word here is that His intervention is providential. If He doesn't intervene nobody will be saved.

This is called a Tu Quoque fallacy.

It's also false.
It's not false. The only school of theology, which adequately addresses theodicy, is Catholicism. And even there, it's extremely vague and expansive. It's hard to believe, unless and until you believe in Catholicism.

This isn't the same problem the Calvinists have.

It's a similar problem, but the difference is that God is not inherently unjust for decreeing the murder of millions.
It doesn't matter, it's an existential problem for both you and for Calvinists, canonical or otherwise. And I mean, both your schools of thought threaten the existence of the concept of deity which you both say you believe in. For Catholics, everything is leading to the engulfing of the whole Earth by Catholicism, which will be the culmination of our prayer petition, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Everything that happens is ultimately leading to that end. Neither Dispies nor Clavinists have as satisfying a solution.

imo, of course.

Yes, that is one effect of Calvinism. ...
Agreed. It also can be an effect of Islam, they have a similar concept of exhaustive sovereignty, where every atom is controlled by their concept of deity "Allah." Both Muslims and Calvinists can fall into the pit of what is basically fatalism; agreed.

I hopped into that pit once myself. That's why I freely chose to become Catholic. Fatalism is a dead end, you realize, by God's grace. Then you embrace your freedom of choice, and make one, rather than just go with the flow.

In other words, it's trying to say that A = !A. ...
No: I know you're not going to watch the movie, so all I can say is No; your characterization of the plot is incorrect.

... Your beliefs are irrational, trying to say that which is contradictory is true.
I'm not doing that.

What you describe is not what Calvinism teaches.
You have to go by the Westminster standards linked above.

P.S. By the way, Thank you @Clete for your posts which contain the above quotes from Calvin's Institutes!
I read that book, it was not a fun read, and I realized that it was actually quite a bit less cogent than Calvinist thinkers who lived centuries after Calvin did. It was part my own uncovering that John Calvin was merely a Jed Clampett theologian. The Westminster standards are more like the BP's, the Exxon-Mobil, the Shell's of bubblin crude, Texas Tea. Calvin was just out shootin for some food.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
God knew Esau before he was born and God hated Esau from the beginning.

No, God did not hate Esau.

I don't agree with you that Romans 9 must be translated in the only way you have translated it without any other applications.

Then that makes you wrong. Not because we say so, but because you go against scripture.

Fact: "Love and hate" is a Hebrew idiom that means "to love more and to love," respectively. It means that you love one person or thing over another so much that it's as if you hate the latter.

This idiom is used throughout scripture, even by Jesus Himself, and contextual clues tell us that when it is used, it should NOT be taken woodenly literally, else a contradiction arises, but as the idiom that it is.

God, in writing the Mosaic Law, wrote as one of them, "Honor your father and mother," and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (You can't love your neighbor as yourself if you don't even love yourself.)

Yet Jesus said:
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. - Luke 14:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke14:26&version=NKJV

Was Jesus therefore contradicting Himself? NO!!!!

Jesus was using the idiom "to love and to hate" to show that our love for Him should be so much that it's as if we hate, even forsake everything else, as 14:33 says.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. - Matthew 10:34-39 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:34-39&version=NKJV

Another passage that comes to mind where this idiom is used is with Rachael and Leah, in Genesis 29:31, where it says Leah was "unloved" by Jacob. Jacob loved Rachel more than he loved Leah. It literally says so LITERALLY ONE VERSE PRIOR!

Then Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah. And he served with Laban still another seven years.When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. - Genesis 29:30-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis29:30-31&version=NKJV

Jacob just spent the past seven years working to obtain Rachel, but got Leah, then spent another 7 years working to ACTUALLY obtain Rachel. Do you really think that Jacob hated Leah? Or could it be that Jacob just loved Rachel more than he did Leah?

Likewise, could it be that God simply loved Jacob more than He loved Esau?

And could it be that when God said "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated," He was talking about the two nations, choosing one (Israel) over the other (Edom), and that the older (Edom) shall serve the younger (Israel),

I believe God hated Esau for his rejection of God.

God never hated Esau, let alone before he was even born!

That means you believe false doctrine. You should humble yourself and ask God for wisdom and clarity.

Psalm 139.

What about it?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Duh. That's what I said. Please pay attention. Did you even bother reading past the first few words?
I doubt it.
Except that Romans and Galatians are addressed to the members of the Body of Christ. You keep reading letters addressed to the nation of Israel, and addressed to a future generation, specifically of Israel, and claim that they are written to you.
Again with the nobody but Gentiles are in Christ fable?
I don't believe that for a nanosecond.
God wants all to be saved, and He supplied one way for both Jew and Gentile to walk in order to obtain that salvation.
Thanks be to God !
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
1Cor 1:18 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Amen to that !
And I am hoping I will find my name in the book of life at the last day's judgement.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
No, God did not hate Esau.
Does God hate those that hate God? I think so.

Psalm 139:20-22
King James Version

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.​

 
Top