A Good Work?

[_Steve]

Hello Friend,
I agree with what Sean has written here. Also I believe a longer answer to your concerns can be found in my previous post in this thread, dated March 10th, beginning at about the 13th paragraph.

[Guest]

Question to those who know:

I have seen this stated about Eph 2:8-9;

"...in reference to Eph 2:8, it is claimed that the neuter demonstrative pronoun cannot refer to faith because faith is feminine. Not true. Feminine abstract nouns frequently take the neuter in these constructions."

Is this correct?

[Guest]

I think that the doctrine of original sin states that we enter this life guilty of our sin in Adam. IN that state, we are already emenies of God, who will choose as soon as possible to deny the knowledge of God that is obvious from the creation.

We are in the image of God, and the image of Adam. Adam made a choice, and so can we. Not only do all sin, but all can allow or "kick against the goads" of the Spirit as Jesus said to Saul/Paul. The ability to make to choice is not made in a vacuum, as stated in my previous post.

>> Dead in sin does not mean unable to make choices.

But is a man who is dead in sin able to choose God on his own? Does God just make the offer, and some accept and some not? Upon what basis does one man decide to choose God, and another decide to refuse the offer? What is it that allows one man to choose God?

Do I understand correctly that you consider the saving grace of God to be merely the delivery of the Gospel to a man, and not some work that God does in a man's heart to enable him to desire God?

Christ draws all men unto himself, man doesn't draw himself to God.

What basis does God elect some and condemn others? Man's faith in Christ?

God does work on man, but doesn't make him an unwilling participant in the Church. Man can appose God's will, it's been done since Adam. Man can also rest from his own works and have faith in God.

[Guest]

>> We are in the image of God, and the image of Adam. Adam made a choice, and so can we.

g> Made in the image of Adam? I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that man was in any changed by the Fall?

>> Not only do all sin, but all can allow or "kick against the goads" of the Spirit as Jesus said to Saul/Paul. The ability to make to choice is not made in a vacuum, as stated in my previous post.

g> Yes, that is the general call of the scripture. But how was Paul able to respond positively to God?

g> As Paul says in Romans 8:6, "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." Paul is reminding his Christian readers that, in contrast to Christians, unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe.

g> This is the doctrine of total depravity. As a result of the Fall, man became unable to choose God. This should come as no surprise tpo you, if you a member of any orthodox Christian denomination, all of which accept the doctrine of original sin and the corruption of man.

g> Likewise, God has to apply a grace to a man before he can look with any favor upon God. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Faith is a gift of God, not a work of man, and grace is an unmerited act of God, who freely chooses which men He will save from their sins.

g> The only substantive question between Calvinism and Arminianisn is the order of salvation, or the process by which God applies this grace to the unbeliever. Without an act of God's grace, none can be saved.

>> What basis does God elect some and condemn others? Man's faith in Christ?

g> God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation for His own reason, and not based on the merit of the individual man. All of us receive the unmerited gift of life in this world. None of us deserves that gift, but God gives it anyway. Since He is the Potter, & we are the jars of clay, who are we to object if He does not choose to save everyone from their just punishment?

>> God does work on man, but doesn't make him an unwilling participant in the Church. Man can appose God's will, it's been done since Adam.

g> Nobody said anything about making a man an unwilling participant. Instead, God opens the eyes of the elect to His excellencies, and then the man eagerly chooses God.

g> What makes you think that a man can oppose God's will? Are you saying that God's arm is too short to save? Or that a man can stand aginst God? In the final analysis, that makes the power of the creature not incomparable with the power of God.

g> No. That is absurd. God is all-powerful. Your understanding of sovereignty is deffective, which I can demonstrate if you are curious.

>> Man can also rest from his own works and have faith in God.

g> So, what makes one man choose God, and another man not? Is it because the one man is morally superior to the other? If the one is not morally superior, then why did he choose God, and the other remain in rebellion?

[Guest]

Hi: I think the quote below is non-sense; but if there is a Greek scholar out there who will bear this out: I am (in brotherly love).
Jude

Another friend who is learning Greek pointed out a potential error with this assumption. He commented that the Greek word for “faith” in this passage, pisteos, is feminine in gender, and the pronoun translated, “that” (touto) is neuter in gender. If Paul had wanted to clearly reference “faith” with this pronoun, he should have used the feminine pronoun, haute. So what is “that” gift from God? Well, the word for “grace” is also feminine–wouldn’t be referring to that. My friend then pointed out that it must be referring to salvation. Salvation by faith is a gift from God, not of works.

That seemed to make sense, but not being a Greek scholar, I did a little reading to check up on this. It seems that he is right

[Guest]

Dear Jude,
This is a common view among Calvinists but the Bible makes a distinction between good works and belief so they cannot be the same. (for instance:Ephesians 2:8-10) In other words belief is not a subspecies of a category called good works rather good works are a fruit of belief. Without faith our works are dead works and not good (Hebrews 6:1,2).
Sincerely
JOHN BARBOUR

[Guest]

>> We are in the image of God, and the image of Adam. Adam made a choice, and so can we.

g> Made in the image of Adam? I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that man was in any changed by the Fall?

Because of Adam's sin, God pronounced a curse. I don't recall the curse including the inability to make choices since God repeatedly asks Israel to repent. Even fallen we are still in the likeness of God (James 3:9)

>> Not only do all sin, but all can allow or "kick against the goads" of the Spirit as Jesus said to Saul/Paul. The ability to make to choice is not made in a vacuum, as stated in my previous post.

g> Yes, that is the general call of the scripture. But how was Paul able to respond positively to God?

How was he able to "Kick against the goads"? In Acts 7:51 Stephen says "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." Apparently they resisted.

g> As Paul says in Romans 8:6, "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." Paul is reminding his Christian readers that, in contrast to Christians, unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe.

I didn't know that belief was a work of the law. Paul spends the entire chapter 4 of Romans explaining this is not the case:

"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness"

g> This is the doctrine of total depravity. As a result of the Fall, man became unable to choose God. This should come as no surprise tpo you, if you a member of any orthodox Christian denomination, all of which accept the doctrine of original sin and the corruption of man.

Man is able to believe in God (Acts 17:24-30)

You mean of all those who accept Calvin's view of God? Why should I put my faith in mans definition of God? Certainly, man made definitions are always going to be lacking. I was baptized into the name of Christ, so I follow Him.

g> Likewise, God has to apply a grace to a man before he can look with any favor upon God. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Faith is a gift of God, not a work of man, and grace is an unmerited act of God, who freely chooses which men He will save from their sins.

Grace is applied in the spreading and hearing of the Gospel. But man must believe in what he has heard. (Rom 10:14-17)
Yes, He saves those who believe in His Son. Man must have faith in the Gospel preached to him for it to save. Please read Hebrews 4:1-4

g> The only substantive question between Calvinism and Arminianisn is the order of salvation, or the process by which God applies this grace to the unbeliever. Without an act of God's grace, none can be saved.

Please read Rom 10:13-17 & 11:17-21

>> What basis does God elect some and condemn others? Man's faith in Christ?

g> God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation for His own reason, and not based on the merit of the individual man. All of us receive the unmerited gift of life in this world. None of us deserves that gift, but God gives it anyway. Since He is the Potter, & we are the jars of clay, who are we to object if He does not choose to save everyone from their just punishment?

Like I said, it's based on man's faith in Christ. (Rom 11:20-21). Since when is faith a merit? Again, Romans 4 removes the notion that having faith is a "meritorious work". Are you saying that there are saved Christians walking around that don't believe in Christ and have no faith?


You should really read Jeremiah 18;
18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 "Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, "Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good."

>> God does work on man, but doesn't make him an unwilling participant in the Church. Man can appose God's will, it's been done since Adam.

g> Nobody said anything about making a man an unwilling participant. Instead, God opens the eyes of the elect to His excellencies, and then the man eagerly chooses God.

So man, in an unregenerate God hating state is "changed" by God so that now man's will toward God is different and positive toward God. This would be an example of God forcing people to love Him against their otherwise God hating will.

g> What makes you think that a man can oppose God's will? Are you saying that God's arm is too short to save? Or that a man can stand aginst God? In the final analysis, that makes the power of the creature not incomparable with the power of God.

Luke 7:29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God.

g> No. That is absurd. God is all-powerful. Your understanding of sovereignty is deffective, which I can demonstrate if you are curious.

Yes, God is all powerful. He even has the ability to make man in His own image, able to make free moral choices and with much help and pricking from God, can believe in His Son. Is this too hard for God to do?

>> Man can also rest from his own works and have faith in God.

g> So, what makes one man choose God, and another man not? Is it because the one man is morally superior to the other? If the one is not morally superior, then why did he choose God, and the other remain in rebellion?

Again, you are mixing up moral behavior with faith which is not a work (Rom 4). Grace is through faith, not works, lest any man should boast.
Hebrews chapters 3-4 should help with what I mean by man resting from works and believing God. This does not make one man better than another. Paul even referred to himself as "cheif" sinner. He was no better than any other man. We are not saved by merit, but faith. Since faith is not a meritorious work, it cannot be compared against others like you could do with "works".

[_Steve]

Well put, Sean!

[Guest]

I am going to handle this one separately.

>>g> This is the doctrine of total depravity. As a result of the Fall, man became unable to choose God. This should come as no surprise to you, if you a member of any orthodox Christian denomination, all of which accept the doctrine of original sin and the corruption of man.

>> <snip> You mean of all those who accept Calvin's view of God? Why should I put my faith in mans definition of God? Certainly, man made definitions are always going to be lacking. I was baptized into the name of Christ, so I follow Him.

It is important that you think about something while you are rejecting the past 4000 or so years of the theology of God's people. You are saying that you do not need the accumulated wisdom of the Church in order to understand God, because you can figure things out yourself from the Bible.

Let me lay out a couple of basic definitions. Natural science is the study of God's works in the natural realm. Scientists study the source materials (the universe) and seek to understand the source material through thought, experimentation, and the accumulated work of those scientists who have gone before them.

Theology is the science of God. The source material is the Bible. Theologians seek to understand God through study of the source materials (the bible), thought experimentation, and the accumulated work of those theologians who have gone before them.

When I need an operation, it is important to me that the medical scientist (doctor) take full advantage of the accumulation of medical science. I don't want him relying on _his_ study of particular drugs on his patients, and the experiments that he has done on people. Likewise, I expect our military commanders to have studied the art of war, not just rely on what they can think up without study.

I'm not particularly interested in flying in a plane that was designed without using the engineering disciplines that have been developed in the history of engineering.

I don't have any use for a lawyer that is ignorant of relevent case law. In all professions where being right is of great importance, it is malfeasance to neglect the study of the field

So why would God be honored by a Christian who turns his back on thousands of years of theological thought, and arrogantly assumes that his single life of thinking about the bible is on a par with the accumulated wisdom of the giants of theology? Why would anyone not avail himself of the treasures of theological though of our forefathers in the faith? Why would anyone not eagerly read Acquinas & Augustine, the political, philosophical, and theological history of the church, the sharpening of theology through successive Church councils, and the interplay between the philosophies of society and heresy?

Why would a Christian not dive into Systematic Theology with gusto? Why would they not seek to worship God with all of their mind with the same intelligence, wisdom, and fervor with which scientists persure His work in the natural world?

Why would a Christian choose to live in ignorance?

*

So tell me the nature of the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and why God included these books in the bible?

Ecc 1:12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven.

Ecclesiastes is the accumulation of Solomon's wisdom. Gee, I wonder why it is in the bible?

Likewise, Proverbs.
1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young—
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Apparently God values wisdom enough to make it mandatory reading!!

[Guest]

It is important that you think about something while you are rejecting the past 4000 or so years of the theology of God's people. You are saying that you do not need the accumulated wisdom of the Church in order to understand God, because you can figure things out yourself from the Bible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You did not handle one Bible quote I used. Instead you try to answer with philosophy and history? What comes first, the word of God or man's personal interpretation of it written in history books? We need to rely on a few historic writers opinions (leaning on the flesh) instead of the inspired word of God (the Bible) and His Holy Spirit to help us "understand" it? The problem is, there are many writings from Church fathers that are not "Augustinian". So what about those? And we know were Augustine got his idea of God's sovereignty. It's from mythology mixed with Christianity. And it's not a view that he always held.

This kind of view of God was not taught before Augustine. Calvin and Luther picked up on this view and made it a main tenant in their Reformation teaching and admitted so.

It seems that history is against, not for Calvinism.