Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 143516 | ||
Hi, Hank... Belief can be defined as "embracing as true and relying upon." Belief in the gospel is an act of obedience (Romans 10:16, 1 Peter 2:7). This means it is part of our salvation. Yet we are not saved by obedience (a work) but by grace through faith (Ephesian 2:8). In its simplest sense, faith is a reliance by a person on the truthfulness and power of another person. Of course, like many things in scripture, words have spiritual meanings over and above their basic meaning. In fact, definitions are difficult, which is why we have so much discussion about them. Most of the Reformation creeds and confessions, though, were based along the lines of the following: "Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion) Finally, we know that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Clearly belief and knowledge are components of saving faith -- so they ARE related. Anyway, that's why I said belief and faith could not be interchangeable. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 143523 | ||
Doc, while I agree by and large with the definitions of faith set forth in your post, I do not agree with your statement that "belief and faith could not be interchangeable." I'm keenly aware that in common English usage belief and faith are often used interchangeably, but I'm also knowledgeable of a certain distinction between belief and faith: Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer whereas faith always does. But this is not to say that Scripture never uses the word 'belief' in such a way that it cannot be interchanged with 'faith' without corrupting the meaning of certain passages. As two cases in point, I submit the verb form of belief (believe) in John 3:16. The 'belief' spoken of in this passage is no less than saving 'faith.' A second example of the same argument comes from Acts 16:31, in Paul's and Silas' answer to the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." ...... Our English word "faith" comes from the Latin "fides." In Middle English "faith" replaced a word that eventually evolved into "belief." The verb form of "faith" dropped out of English usage toward the end of the 16th century. "Faith" came to mean loyalty to a person by whom one is bound by promise or duty. Faith was fidelity. "Belief" came to be distinguished from faith as an intellectual process having to do with acceptance of a proposition. ....... It is worthy to note that the Greek noun pistis (faith) is related to the verb pisteuo (I have faith, trust, believe). The noun and verb are found virtually everywhere in the New Testament. In the two passages that I have cited (and there are a number of others), there is no meaningful difference between belief and faith and hence the context renders them interchangeable. ..... Calvin, may he rest in peace, was, in the interest of striving for precise diction, particularly fond of parsing words and locutions until they squealed for mercy. He left behind a legacy of this proclivity to certain of his disciples who, along with Calvin, even until the present day, are known to parse their way in the vineyard of letters so vigorously that they at times make obscure and arcane what they had hoped to amplify. ..... Incidentally, I make it a practice to keep a book or two written by a couple of my pet hyper-Calvinists by my nightstand. In all the world I know of no better soporific than these. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 143580 | ||
Hank, great post! I'm still sick, so what I posted to you was a little less voluminous than it might have been -- otherwise I might have said a few of things that you pointed out, or at least touched on them. There seem to be different levels of discussion here. There is the level of common English parlance on one side, and theological jargon on the other. Thank you, by the way, for the interesting information on the etymology of these words. Those sorts of things always fascinate me. I also agree with "precise diction" you mentioned. I am not sure, but I think this must characterize any discipline of study. At least that has been my experience in a number of fields. I can hardly imagine it being any other way in our study of the precious gift of the Word. Our love of God obligates us to be as careful as possible(2 Tim 2:15), especially with any discussion of salvation (Gal 1:8-9). After all, most of the cults are based on the re-definition of words (2 Pet 3:16). It is interesting that you mention hyper-Calvinism. I have a dear friend who did his doctoral thesis on hyper-Calvinism while in Scotland. He writes that Calvinism is a kind of fulcrum: On one side is an unbiblical Arminianism on the other an unbiblical hyper-Calvinism. Analysis shows that the watershed issue has to do with the responsibility of man. Arminianism elevates the responsibility of man as the most important ingredient of our salvation. Hyper-Calvinism removes the responsibility of man entirely from the equation. Calvinism makes a balance with the antinomy that man is responsible, but salvation is of the Lord. Anyway, you're right about sleep-inducing works of men. :-) I dearly love Jonathan Edwards, but reading the things he wrote can be difficult. Interestingly, I find that not to be the case with his sermons. I suspect that part of this has to do with the audience. When these guys wrote, they were discussing questions of theology on an academic level. One of my pastors says that theology is important for everyone, but the less it becomes a matter of "where the rubber meets the road" instead, becoming a study for its own sake, the less value it has. In other words, our studies must always result in a closer walk with the Lord, otherwise they are just intellectual exercises. In Him, Doc PS I sure wish I could just sit down and talk with you, Hank. You always teach me something new! |
||||||
4 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 143595 | ||
Greetings Doc! I just called my mother the other day, and she is very sick as well. It seems to be going around my friend. I don't want to get into a discussion about C and A. However, I did want to make one comment about one of your comments. You wrote: "Arminianism elevates the responsibility of man as the most important ingredient of our salvation." This simply isn't an accurate portrayal of what Arminian's believe. The most important ingredient to our salvation is God's timeless decision to send His Son to die for our sins. The most important ingredient to our salvation is God's decision to extend His grace to a fallen creation. No Arminian would argue that man's responsibility is the most important ingredient. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 143609 | ||
Hi, brother Tim... I am sorry for your mother... this is difficult stuff. So, if I respond, will I be debating? May it never be so! The following are observations only: Monergism leaves all the glory to God. Synergism gives man veto power... When two have a vote, but only one has veto power, then the one has power over the other. If they vote the same, then the glory is necessarily shared. In the interests of careful compliance with the explicit direction of the forum guidelines, I shall exercise restraint by avoiding further discussion in this thread on this topic. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||