Freewill and OSAS

HP: Here you try and separate faith from belief. Explain to us the difference. How can you be certain that belief is not a gift from God just as you say faith is? Do we have to exercise our wills by the formation of an intent in order to believe? Is belief something we do or is it the mere coerced results of a gift from God?

 

HP: How did I misquote you when I quoted you verbatim? In this statement you say that all we need to do is believe. You speak of faith, not grace, in this quote. It is a bit silly for you to attempt to sidestep the issue with such fancy footwork. The object of your quote is faith, not grace. If it is grace you are addressing, it is news to the reader. Are you now denying that faith is a gift from God?

When one has faith, is it a gift from God that simply coerces the will, or is the will active in forming an intent to believe? You say all we need to do is believe. What is the difference or distinction between belief and faith as you see it?

 

HP: The whole reason I am responding to your post is due to this remark.

HP: I am trying to get to the bottom of why you see faith as not a work, saying that “if it was we would have something to boast about,” yet you obviously see belief as something we “do” as you emphasis by placing in bold letters. If it something we “do” is it a work or not? Possibly you could define what constitutes a work to help shed light upon the matter. I see anything that involves an act of the will as a work in some sense. I see faith and or belief as something we must exercise with our own wills as opposed to God coercing us into either of them. What makes them NOT a work is 'in the sense of' something done 'for the sake of' salvation, or that they are done as 'the grounds of' salvation. Nothing we do is a work in that sense, yet both faith and belief are indeed works in the sense of 'not without which.' They are both formed by intents of the will and God calls upon man to ‘do’ them in order to be saved. Man is NOT passive in faith or belief as many would indicate by trying to separate faith and belief from a ‘work’ in a sense of something man must 'do.'

I see your remarks as trying to divorce mans will from the process of faith, saying that if faith was a work man would have something to boast about, while engaging or involving mans will on the other hand through ‘belief’ and somehow not seeing belief as a work. It appears to me that you say if mans will is involved in faith it constitutes a work, but if man mans will is involved in belief it is not a work, while claiming that faith and belief are basically one in the same. (“TrustitL: As I look back at my words it appears that I say faith and belief are the same.” ) that you are confusing the listener as to the part mans will MUST play in faith and belief.

A ‘work’ is nothing more or less than something we do and that our wills are active in doing. A work can be thought of in two senses, ‘that for the sake of’ and ‘not without which.’ Faith and belief are indeed works in one sense and yet are not works in the other sense. Faith and belief are indeed works that man must do in order to be saved, yet they are not works ‘in the sense of’ ‘that for the sake of,’ nor are they the grounds of our salvation. Our involvement in faith and belief, as they affect salvation, are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ We are NOT saved for the sake of faith or belief, but neither will we be saved apart from our wills involvement of faith and belief. Faith and belief are separated from the works ONLY IF the sense being spoken of is speaking of the grounds of our salvation. Certainly our faith and belief are NOT the grounds of our salvation, but that does not negate the fact they are works in another sense and that indeed our wills are active in the formation of faith and belief, ‘without which’ salvation will not be the end result.

HP: I clearly understand and accept your statement, but I see your remarks as inconsistent when you imply faith and belief are one in the same, yet if we believe that faith is a work(something we must do) we are of necessity claming we have something to boast about, yet our wills can be active in belief(which you imply is basically the same as faith) yet no boasting is necessitated. If faith and belief are basically the same, and ‘doing’ something constitutes salvation by works and the right to boast, one could not be required to do either. You try to have us necessitated to ‘do’ one (belief) yet not the other (faith). Again, I see that as simply inconsistent and confusing.

 

HP: I like your statement Gekko! :thumbs: It is when we start eliminating ‘possibilities’ that our theology so often runs amuck.

 

HP: You should know that I sincerely appreciate your responses. You have MUCH to offer.:thumbs:

Your post gives me much fodder to consider. I agree with most of what you present. Take for instance the sentence in the quote you offer. “No other work but Yours, no other blood will do;” I agree with this 100% IF one is speaking to the grounds of salvation, which I believe the author is speaking about. Just the same, there are acts of the will that are required for salvation, although NOT thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ ;repentance, faith and or belief, and obedience until the end. We are NOT saved by any of these things, but neither will we be saved ‘apart from’ 'doing' these things. They are NOT the grounds of salvation, and are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

Not to be condescending or anything like that, but just asking, does this distinction make any sense to you? Can you see how that we indeed have to ‘do’ some things to be saved, yet our salvation is NOT based upon, nor are they the grounds of, our salvation? Can you see how even faith is seen, in a sense, as something our wills must do, something our wills must formulate by the forming of an intent, and 'in that sense' a work we must do in order to be saved? Bear in mind that ALL works men are required to do are NOT, I repeat, NOT meritorious in nature, and again are thought of only in the sense of ‘not without which’ and NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

Have you read the prisoner illustration that I have given concerning a pardon? If so, does it help to set forth the distinction I am trying to make in that works can be thought of in two senses?

 

HP: I am reminded of the case of circumcision which has been stated as well to be irrevocable. We can see clearly that any effects of circumcision are made of no affect due to disobedience. In the case of Daniel it is true that the decree itself was not revoked, but as I recall the effects of that decree were indeed revoked by God. Such is the case with salvation. Nothing can change the fact of what has been forgiven, but newly acquired sin, apart from renewed repentance, sets in motion consequences which annul the effects of ones initial pardon from sin. The same is said for one that receives a pardon and then returns to a life of crime. The effects of ones original pardon are made of no effect due to subsequent transgressions. Nothing can disannul the original pardon, but future acts can indeed eliminate all good effects once obtained. Such is the case of the believer, who having been pardoned for sins that are past, returns to his selfish ways once again. In doing so he incurs the wrath and penalty of the law apart from renewed repentance and forsaking of all sin.

 

HP: Absolutely not. That is not what I believe, it is not what Scripture states, nor is it where I am headed.

HP: God has stated conditions to be fulfilled, and continued in, in order for us to see our final redemption. The flesh will not be redeemed, it must and will have to be changed. This flesh and blood will see nothing but corruption. From dust it was formed and to dust it will return.

HP: The litany of Scriptural evidence has been posted more times than I can count. BR has led the charge with his numerous passages that show froth forgiveness revoked, yet to no avail with those that desire to believe otherwise. Warning after warning is given to the believers about remaining firm to the end and as to the certain punishment for sins not repented of, yet those have well have fallen dead on the ears of those believing to the contrary.

If you were new to the list, or honestly had never been exposed to the multitude of passages, I would be very inclined to go over them with you. Such is not the case. Search the Scriptures for yourself. Lay your faith in whatever you so desire. Write off the warnings as if though they are all for someone besides yourself if that is your desire. It is to God and not I that we all will answer. Just remember, it is your very soul at stake. Error on the side of caution is my advice to you.

HP: The problem seems to be that you have a predisposition that all promises of God are unconditional. Such is simply not the case. Even in the OT we find God stating that certain things would happen, such as Nineveh being destroyed, yet upon sincere repentance God stayed His hand and revoked His promise. Often Scripture uses the little word ‘if’ to state a promise. Do a word search on the many times promises are conditioned with an ‘if’ and or a stated condition.

HP: Show me one time I have ever indicated or stated that we are the sole reason we stay saved. What are you speaking about? Without God we cannot and will not do nothing in accordance to benevolence. I am waiting for the reference you speak about.

HP: To what end was the decree of the King? To walk around and rejoice and praise the Most High God in the fire? I think not. The decree was the death sentence…….and it was indeed revoked by God. If God can revoke one decree, and can alter even His own decrees, and does in fact promise us our eternal salvation conditionally upon our repentance, faith and obedience to the end, we all would do well to take heed that while thinking we stand, fall and perish. Does the Holy Spirit testify to your mind of the passage that would indicate such a warning?

 

HP: I am revoking the word ‘fodder.’ It was a compliment. I now simply say, “your posts give me much to consider.”

 

This illustration I believe establishes the distinction between the two senses of the word 'works.'

HP:
A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions as the grounds of his pardon, not could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

HP: Precisely. That was my whole point in raising this issue after you posted. I do not believe Scripture pits works against faith in the sense most understand it. What Scripture maintains is that works are NOT the grounds of our salvation, not that they are not a condition of salvation. I believe Scripture represents repentance, faith, belief, remaining steadfast, etc, all as things we must do, works in a sense, (although NOT in any meritorious way as if by these things we merit salvation, for nothing but the blood is meritorious) that are all our obligation and duty to will intents consistent with God’s commands. God will not do any of these things for us, neither will they come as a gift without our willing in obedience to God's influences. God commands us to do them. They are our duty and obligation, but NOT without the proffered held of God. As we voluntarily yield ourselves in obedience, He grants the strength to obey.

As I have said on many occasions, there is nothing we can do to merit salvation, but there are several things we must do without which we will not see God.