I don't post here wrongly believing that anyone cares what I believe. Of course Psalm 139 is not talking about despising babies. David and God did not mean that passage to suggest they despise babies. That passage means David and God despised those that despised God.
Is believing/faith a work ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Calvin was a murderer who misunderstood certain scriptures causing him to have a disrespectful picture of God.
O
OK.
I'm attacking no such straw man. You're trying to argue that Calvin's doctrine as described in his books isn't Calvinism and that simply isn't the case. Calvin's doctrine is Calvinism from the horse's own mouth.
And it has nothing to do with "whatever I think I understand", either. I have not only quoted Calvin at sufficient length to provide context but I've also given citation of where those quotes come from so that there can be no possible way for anyone to rightly accuse me of taking something out of context or misunderstanding something. Not only that but I have shown all of the quotes that I typically present here to dozens of Calvinists here on TOL, at other forums, including ones that are overtly Calvinist, and in person and not a single Calvinist that I've ever encountered denies believing those doctrines as Calvin stated them. I have yet to find one who would even want to state them differently. In fact, most profess to believing "every syllable" of those quotes.
So, you might be able to trick some other fool who doesn't know any better but I happen to know FOR A FACT (i.e. it is not a mere opinion) that Calvin's doctrine, as stated in Institutes of the Christian Religion or in his biblical commentaries, is Calvinism, which anyone who knows what they're talking about wouldn't ever challenge anyway because everyone knows that the Westminster Standards are based primarily on Calvin's writings, which is why its called "Calvinism" and not "Westminsterism".
Right Divider
Body part
It's crazy that some people cannot see or understand that simple fact.
If that were true you'd not post your mere opinions as though your having stated them proves them true.
The point is that I'm trying to get you to make an actual argument that supports your claims. That's the whole point of being here. Your personal opinions, in and of themselves, are a waste of bandwidth and convince no one of anything.
Okay, so connect the dots, Marke!
So says you. Maybe you're right, maybe not. Maybe its relevant to the discussion at hand, maybe it isn't.
One thing's for sure...
SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!
If you don't want to make an argument where you provide some sort of substance behind your personal opinions, don't bother responding at all. It's a boring waste of time.
The truth has no defense against the fool who is determined to believe a lie.
(That's a quote of someone. I forget who.)
You show a depth of ignorance and bad judgment by accusing me of error for posting my opinions while assuming you cannot possibly be guilty yourself, whether I am guilty or not.
Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
12 Point about Calvin’s Murder of Servetus
1. Heresy was never established as a crime in Geneva. The crime of Blasphemy (not to be confused with Heresy) had always been punished with exile in Geneva. 2. Calvin, when the Catholics had power,…
godisopen.com
You're ridiculous.
The occasional opinion peppered here and there is nothing that anyone has any problem with but you consistently fail to make any sort of argument even when your accusing me of being a hypocrite! Do you actually believe that the fact that you've shown up here to call me a hypocrite somehow even qualifies as evidence against me? Your showing up here to make a proclamation of whatever it is you think you believe does NOT make what you say true, Marke! NO ONE has to take your word for it - ever! No one comes here to find out what your opinions are. That isn't what this website is about. The expression "iron sharpens iron" only works when someone swing their sword! It doesn't work at all when you say you have a sword made of iron but never pull it out of its scabbard. You have to bring some kind so substance to the discussion! The argumentation is the iron that your sword is made of. No argument equals no iron and makes for a wet noodle of a sword.
Last edited:
Now see! That's called "citing your source" and is a terrific step in the right direction! It would have been better both for you and for those who are participating here if you had taken the time to spell out at least some of the specifics yourself, but something's better than nothing.12 Point about Calvin’s Murder of Servetus
1. Heresy was never established as a crime in Geneva. The crime of Blasphemy (not to be confused with Heresy) had always been punished with exile in Geneva. 2. Calvin, when the Catholics had power,…
Let's take it another step...
How is Calvin's alleged murderous activities relevant to the discussion at hand?
Last edited:
I'll accept the apology of any penitent who falsely accused me of lying for saying Calvin was a murderer.
Right Divider
Body part
You're very dense.
"Strong" might be a better word.
Right Divider
Body part
Illogical would probably be better.
I never suggested you were either wrong or right about the accusation. If you thought I did, its because you were too busy being offended to think clearly.
The entire point I was making is that Calvin was not a murderer because you showed up here to call him one. Do you think you're the first person to point out that particular aspect of Calvin's history? I've seen it brought up at least a dozen different times over the years and I never bothered to spend the effort to determine whether or not there was any substance to the claim or not. I have no reason to believe its a lie but I have an equal amount of evidence that it's true and, more importantly, I have exactly no reason to believe that it has any relevance whatsoever to his doctrine.
At the end of the day, Calvinism is only named after Calvin because he happened to be the one who wrote the doctrines down in a systematic way. It's not as if he invented the doctrines (most of them anyway). In fact, Calvinism is little more than "reformed" Augustinianism and had Calvin not written them down in a systematic way during the reformation period, then someone else would have and the system would have a different name and Calvin's criminal behavior (or lack thereof) would have the same relevance to the doctrines that they have right now, which is none at all. Pointing out Calvin's crimes, whatever they may be, amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem. It doesn't serve to advance your position against Calvinism, in any capacity whatsoever.
Perhaps, you're intelligent enough to understand that intuitively. That would go some distance down the road of explaining why you never bother to make an argument connected to the accusation because there isn't any argument to make. All you're doing by making the accusation is an attempt to poison the well by assaulting Calvin's character rather than attacking the lack of substance underlying his doctrines as apposed to the rational veracity of your own.
The bottom line being that I believe that you can do better and I want for you to do better both for the betterment of TOL and, more importantly, for your own sake!
beloved57
Well-known member
I found this article on the internetnad its something I have said for years:
Let’s start off by simply looking at the definition of what a “work” is. Here is how a “work” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
Moreover, believing is a commandment which is pleasing to God. If you asked the average free-willer if a person gets to heaven by commandment-keeping, they would emphatically deny this, yet believing is categorized as exactly that:
Whenever this perspective is brought up, there will inevitably be several texts of scripture that will be brought up contrasting faith with works. I will probably address these in later posts, Lord willing. For now I simply want to point out what should be rather obvious from Scripture. If we are just going by the dictionary definition, believing is a work.
sinnersaved.medium.com
Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?
My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by Paul included the idea of doing something in exchange for a reward. The Arminian idea of justification by faith, therefore, necessarily leads to justification by works. In today’s post I’d like to look at and explore another reason, and a rather simple one, as to why Arminianism constitutes salvation by works: Faith is a work. More specifically, the activity of faith, which is believing, is a work. Hearing such a thing might sound like nails on a chalkboard even to many “Reformed” and “Sovereign Grace” folks. I have seen individuals from these backgrounds spinning their wheels trying to explain why faith somehow is and is not a work, and it seems to me that there is just as much confusion among sovereign grace affirming believers as there is among Arminians on this issue.Let’s start off by simply looking at the definition of what a “work” is. Here is how a “work” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
Chambers’ is another reputible English Dictionary which gives nearly identical definitions:
Mounce’s Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament gives this as the first definition for the Greek word for “work”:
So a “work” by definition is simply that which someone does, whether physically or mentally. It is really just that simple. Let us now go to the Scriptures to see how faith is categorized:
The Son of God directly, in no uncertain terms, categorizes faith as a work in this verse. It is something that a person does. Let’s look at another text:
Paul was asked directly by the jailor what he must do to be saved. Paul could have said “You don’t have to do anything!”, but that’s not what he said. He said that the jailor needed to do something, namely, believe. A work is something that is done, therefore believing is a work.
Moreover, believing is a commandment which is pleasing to God. If you asked the average free-willer if a person gets to heaven by commandment-keeping, they would emphatically deny this, yet believing is categorized as exactly that:
Now, some will object that faith is a gift of God, and therefore is not a work. This is partially correct. I will explain. Faith is a God-given capacity which is implanted within the elect sinner upon regeneration. Historically theologians have referred to this as the habit or “seed” of faith. Elect, regenerate infants possess the habit or capacity of faith. What they do not possess is the activity of faith, i.e believing. Believing is what the sinner does, and is therefore his/her own, and is a work. This is why historically Arminianism was condemned all around by Reformed, Presbyterian and Particular Baptists as nothing short of works salvation. Because Arminians posited that a man was saved on the basis of his act of believing. Thus while it is true that the habit or capacity of faith is a gift of God, the act of faith is man’s act, not God’s. In other words, man believes, God does not believe for man, and therefore believing is a man’s doing, or work. It is that simple.
Whenever this perspective is brought up, there will inevitably be several texts of scripture that will be brought up contrasting faith with works. I will probably address these in later posts, Lord willing. For now I simply want to point out what should be rather obvious from Scripture. If we are just going by the dictionary definition, believing is a work.
Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?
My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by…
God has promised to give the gift of life to those who ask.
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Derf
Well-known member
If we're going by the scriptural usage, believing is not a work in the same sense that keeping the law was. Which should we go by, the current dictionary, or scriptural usage?I found this article on the internetnad its something I have said for years:
Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?
My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by Paul included the idea of doing something in exchange for a reward. The Arminian idea of justification by faith, therefore, necessarily leads to justification by works. In today’s post I’d like to look at and explore another reason, and a rather simple one, as to why Arminianism constitutes salvation by works: Faith is a work. More specifically, the activity of faith, which is believing, is a work. Hearing such a thing might sound like nails on a chalkboard even to many “Reformed” and “Sovereign Grace” folks. I have seen individuals from these backgrounds spinning their wheels trying to explain why faith somehow is and is not a work, and it seems to me that there is just as much confusion among sovereign grace affirming believers as there is among Arminians on this issue.
Let’s start off by simply looking at the definition of what a “work” is. Here is how a “work” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
Chambers’ is another reputible English Dictionary which gives nearly identical definitions:
Mounce’s Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament gives this as the first definition for the Greek word for “work”:
So a “work” by definition is simply that which someone does, whether physically or mentally. It is really just that simple. Let us now go to the Scriptures to see how faith is categorized:
The Son of God directly, in no uncertain terms, categorizes faith as a work in this verse. It is something that a person does. Let’s look at another text:
Paul was asked directly by the jailor what he must do to be saved. Paul could have said “You don’t have to do anything!”, but that’s not what he said. He said that the jailor needed to do something, namely, believe. A work is something that is done, therefore believing is a work.
Moreover, believing is a commandment which is pleasing to God. If you asked the average free-willer if a person gets to heaven by commandment-keeping, they would emphatically deny this, yet believing is categorized as exactly that:
Now, some will object that faith is a gift of God, and therefore is not a work. This is partially correct. I will explain. Faith is a God-given capacity which is implanted within the elect sinner upon regeneration. Historically theologians have referred to this as the habit or “seed” of faith. Elect, regenerate infants possess the habit or capacity of faith. What they do not possess is the activity of faith, i.e believing. Believing is what the sinner does, and is therefore his/her own, and is a work. This is why historically Arminianism was condemned all around by Reformed, Presbyterian and Particular Baptists as nothing short of works salvation. Because Arminians posited that a man was saved on the basis of his act of believing. Thus while it is true that the habit or capacity of faith is a gift of God, the act of faith is man’s act, not God’s. In other words, man believes, God does not believe for man, and therefore believing is a man’s doing, or work. It is that simple.
Whenever this perspective is brought up, there will inevitably be several texts of scripture that will be brought up contrasting faith with works. I will probably address these in later posts, Lord willing. For now I simply want to point out what should be rather obvious from Scripture. If we are just going by the dictionary definition, believing is a work.
Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?
My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by…
But we should consider other sources that are closer to the time of the scriptures. Here's the Webster 1828 dictionary, where "thinking" is not considered a work:
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Work
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Work
Last edited: