Featured Semi Pelagianism

The resurrection is regeneration, see
Matthew 19:28

It would appear that you're not able to distinguish between the inner man and outer man, spirit and body.

But that wouldn't be surprising (if that's the case). It seems like the whole of Christianity has lost sight of this important biblical distinction.

Paul's great exposition on the resurrection very plainly says that we are planted in the ground corruptible, mortal, dishonorable, and "natural". Every single one of these words in the Greek is related to sin in various scriptures. In short, our body is sin-wrecked.

But in the resurrection, we'll be raised
"not sin-wrecked" - incorruptible, immortal, glorious, and "spiritual".

Sin causes death. We'll be raised with no sin in our body. And this is only because Jesus died. And He was raised as the first fruits of all

And unless you want to deny plain scripture because you're appalled, Paul's great treatise on the resurrection of all men includes unbelievers.

Well, unless all doesn't mean all. That's one of the cries of Arminians, isn't it? That Calvinists keep trying to say all doesn't mean all ?

 

umm, no I'm not. And I'm not sure why or how you came to that conclusion or why it should matter.

Faith is a condition of becoming or being fully assured. And that's not something you can decide to be or become.

God turns on the proverbial light bulb. The truth becomes evident to us and we believe. Now, that's what I mentioned along with my quote of Romans 4:4-5

and I've gotta say I have a hard time appreciating the backhanded, straw man approach. The only reason I engaged in this discussion is because it looked as though you were being reasonably objective...

Becoming convinced of truth isn't a response. Jesus said this truth is revealed to us. Paul said it is light being shone in our hearts. It's not us doing anything.

you alluded to it with your "response" doctrine.

..

If you think Romans 9 is in the context of conversion, you must admit that opening your mouth and talking is a work.

Biggest problem is that Romans 9 isn't talking about being saved from hell, it's eschatological in nature....smh

That only addresses the merit.

if it's a response, then it actually is working at not resisting.

 

That depends on what you mean. The offense isn't gone,

But the state of death will be abolished

 

Now this is a good post with plenty of good questions.

Call on - Greek epikaleo (epikalesetai)
I'm firmly convinced that it should be rendered "call upon himself" or "is called by"
Like a woman who gets married and is known by her husband's last name. Mary Jones marries John Smith, she's now Mary Smith.

Same root, and very similar as 2Chron 7:14 - if My people, who are "called by" My Name...

And Acts 15:17 - even all the Gentiles, over whom My Name "has been called"

 

Exactly. In Romans 10:13 the man would make himself known as a follower of Christ. Same as "if you confess Me before men..." which Paul mentions in 10:9-10

Acts 15:17 God puts His Name on us. Like 2Chron 7:14

Either way, it's not a prayer recited or a response in the context of conversion.

 

The whole concept of belief being a work confuses me. If my employees came in to work, spent their whole day at their desk, but told me that they believed everything would get done...well, they would be getting fired.

But with my horrible analogy out of tbe way, are there any other verses or available word studies I should be looking at?

 

As TCassidy said, believe/belief is a noun and verb - what it is and the action. But I don't think that's the end of the issue.

There's no consensus on what faith is, and that has to be ironed out before anyone could determine how it works.

And there are several views which equate to works, at least as I see it.

One example is the typical Reformed view. With the root/fruit elements, the inevitability of works following faith, I've asked numerous times, what is faith?

Well, TCassidy has given the most open definition I've ever seen from that perspective - faith is intellectual/mental assent, and inevitably leads to faithfulness. In other words, facts + action.
But I'm curious about that view. I've asked before, on which side do we find trust? The easy answer is on the side of action. We can know things about Christ, but unless it leads to action it's not really faith. Well, which side do we find hope? Is hope an intellectual assent to facts? Hardly
Is hope a faithful action? I don't see that either. But there's also the works element. Faith = facts + action. In other words, knowledge and works. Considering scripture says a man is justified by faith "apart from" works, I absolutely cannot subscribe to the notion that works are an aspect of faith.

Then there's what I've heard from Arminians, how God has given everyone a measure of faith. I'm supposing it's a reference to Romans 12:3 - In this view, faith is an innate aspect of our soul (maybe?), and each person is able to decide whether or not to excercise it. I have likened it to God giving each of us a spiritual water gun, then we make a decision to point it and shoot. It is my opinion that this view does not posit faith itself as a work. Instead, the work is in msking the choice and pulling the trigger. In other words, the response. I cannot subscribe to this view because scripture clearly says that we are not born of God by the will of the flesh, nor the will of man.

 

Thank you both for the responses. I think I had a handle on belief and believing. I was more confused with the classification of believing as work.

When I think of works, I conjure up images of helping the proverbial old lady across the street, or plopping down a fistful of gold coins into the collection plate. Good deeds, if you will.

Belief or the act of believing seems different, to me. If it requires zero horsepower to believe (is that still the standard unit of work?), then how is belief a work?