For By Grace Are Ye Saved

Faith is not a good work.

 

You make a connection between believing faith and "none that doeth good, no not one" but these as it seems you have compared and concluded to mean one things actually does not it is a disconnect. It has not been established in the statement that such a statement disproves the ability of the lost to have faith. Also, it cannot be proven from Scripture anywhere that "faith" is a work. It can be proven that faith is clearly associated as coming from man who is created in the image of God, "your faith" "their faith" "his faith" etc. One must disregard the meaning of simple language to make a claim that faith does not come from the person and as well to support that this faith is work. The opposite is true. This same faith believing faith is contrasted with works.

t

 

Are you denying it's through faith, since you conveniently left it off the title of the OP and your entire post?

 

Why didn't you highlight "together" and "with Christ"?

 

"saving faith" is a misnomer, as faith doesn't save, God does. Faith leads to salvation, and is a human trait, not an "elect" trait.

 

It seemed as you were implying that. I apologize if I was wrong.

 

Nice, a non sequitur and argument from silence balled into one

 

...and has been the case for centuries, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is some kind of different faith. Not holding my breath...
My statements were completely consistent. God saves...faith doesn't. Salvation is through faith. What is inconsistent about that

 

...and as is a normal occurrence, you are wrong about me being wrong

 

j

Where is saving faith called the gift of God and Eph 2:8 does not say that "having been saved" is the antecedent of touto, this. :thumbs:

 

Sounds completely illogical to me. That is like saying that the reason that the sky is blue is because it is blue. It is a tautology that does not explain anything. If man is the final arbiter of his salvation choice, then it is possible for man to explain himself. You are simply stating effects here. An effect is not a cause; an effect is the result of a cause. For one to have free will, that person has to make choices from a motivation.

Libertarian Free Will is completely illogical. It states that for every action performed, all things being what they are, the agent could have done otherwise. However, if an action has a motivation or reason, then the alternative action could not have been performed under the same pretense, because the motivation of the will would have to be to perform that action as well.

If I desire to kill someone and make a decision to pull the trigger on a gun, Libertarian Free Will logically dictates that I could have chosen, with everything being what it is, including the desires and motivations, I could have chosen not to pull the trigger. In other words, if pulling the trigger and not pulling the trigger are equal alternative choices, then the motivation to kill would have to be the logical stimulus both for and against pulling the trigger. That premise is illogical on its face.

People advocate Libertarian Free Will because they somehow believe that someone cannot truly be responsible for actions unless he has the libertarian freedom and ability to choose among several equal actions. However, if all choices are equal, and one has true libertarian freedom of the will, choices reduce to mere arbitration; motivation and desire cannot be the determining factor for choices. Once motivation and desire are eliminated as the cause of choices, one has the grounds to plead insanity. Responsibility for actions does not hinge on libertarian freedom of the will (which is irreducible illogical), but on motivation and desire.

Compatibilist Free Will (or "soft determinism") maximizes free will by linking all choices to desire and motivation. Every person makes choices based upon his desires and motivations. Each person does exactly what he most wants to do in every situation; therefore, he is completely responsible for all actions and cannot claim to be a victim of statistics and probability).

If the answer to the arbitration of salvation lies in man, then man can explain himself. If the answer lies in God, then man has no obligation to explain an outside agent--God's reasoning.

Who is ultimately responsible for his willful sin and rejecting of the Gospel by his own nature, free will, and motivation, and thereby destining himself for hell? MAN! Every man without exception!

Who is ultimately credible for saving someone and bringing to pass his regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification in heaven? GOD!

Man gets ALL the credit whereby he deserves and goes to hell.
God gets ALL the credit in anything that has to do with anyone actually going to heaven.

 

Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Now, the means by which God gives us faith, is that he simply frees us from Satan, opens our eyes so that we can see and appreciate the truth, and then we hear the word, and this causes to have faith. I do not believe faith is some kind of mystical force that God zaps us with, but rather something that He "gives" us via our free choice.

 

You (or others here) claim that everyone has "faith" and that "saving faith" is a misnomer. You (or others) say that faith unto salvation is the same "faith" where one flips a light switch and anticipates that the light will turn on. That is not really "faith" in the Biblical sense, because this so-called "faith" is based upon the intuitive expectation that visible circuitry should function as it is designed. If a short occurs this "faith" is not misplaced; it is just that all the knowledge of what happened behind the walls (but still possible to see at any time) was not available to make an informed expectation.

It is true that the Bible doesn't use the term "saving faith" just as it does not use the term "Trinity." However, Scriptures make it clear that the faith that has to do with salvation is not some "peanut butter" spread that everyone has and exercises, but just has to place it somehow in the right place.

It does not say that all people have faith (unto salvation) but just have not placed it in the right object. If this is the same "faith" for relying upon a chair to hold one up or expecting a light switch to make the room brighter, then it would be strange that "wicked men" were incapable of trusting a chair or a light. This faith is different from the alleged "faith" of everyday intuitive actions, and this verse says that not everyone has "faith." Obviously this "faith" is "saving faith" or faith that has to do with salvation, the Gospel, and the grace of God, because it is contrasting those who "have not faith" to believers.

Now, since we established that "wicked men" or unregenerates or lost people do not have faith, who does have it and how did they get it?

This verse is talking about believers and the fact that as believers, God has allotted, assigned, dealt, or given faith to them. One should not think himself more highly than another because they are all believers and have all received this faith from God. If God has given faith to someone, that person believes the Gospel.

To re-cap, not everyone has faith. Those who do not have faith are the ones who are not saved. For those who are saved, God has given them a measure of faith.

 

"Whether I like it or not" Oh my! What will I do? Who should I believe 1) a Calvinist or 2) the Bible. I will just have to :sleeping_2: on it and pick number 2 in the morning.