Originally posted by moonbusIt is FAITH in Christ that will be tested, for even the demons believe God exist and tremble.
Rather than try to estimate who is right or wrong (which, if I am not mistaken, would come perilously close to the sin of presumption), I should like to shift the ground of the discussion by asking you a question. It is honestly meant--not a trick to lure you into possibly contradicting yourself.
Do you believe that it will be your [b]beliefs which wi ...[text shortened]... s a given for you)? Specifically, the truth or falsity, rightness or wrongness, of your beliefs?[/b]
James 2:19
New King James Version (NKJV)
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
Originally posted by RJHindsThank you. That was the answer I was looking for and did not get from GB. Are we also in agreement that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms? E.g., faith is not belief that certain propositions are true (even if they are true). Since, as you say, the devil can believe that the same propositions are true and yet have no faith.
It is FAITH in Christ that will be tested.
09 Feb 14
Originally posted by moonbusYes, I can agree that faith is a lot more than mere belief.
Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for and did not get from GB. Are we also in agreement that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms? E.g., faith is not belief that certain propositions are true (even if they are true). Since, as you say, the devil can believe that the same propositions are true and yet have no faith.
09 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneSplendid. I begin to hope that a discussion can take place here, rather than polemic or cant.
Yes, I can agree that faith is a lot more than mere belief.
I suggest as a preliminary working definition of "faith" a line from Tolstoi, that faith is "that which men live by." [Taking "men" to mean mankind as a species, without prejudice to gender.]
I think that at least part of the idea behind Tolstoi's line is that the term "faith" must include the rustic and uneducated, those who have little or no acquaintance with ecclesiastic doctrine. (Edit: Precisely the people to whom Jesus appeared.)
Is this an acceptably preliminary, if incomplete, definition?
09 Feb 14
Originally posted by moonbusI would be less inclined to turn any definition of "faith" into a doctrine, or maybe even a dogma. I suspect that many people from varied backgrounds might "define" faith differently. This seems especially true, the more one has to describe 'the idea behind' the definition.
Splendid. I begin to hope that a discussion can take place here, rather than polemic or cant.
I suggest as a preliminary working definition of "faith" a line from Tolstoi, that faith is "that which men live by." [Taking "men" to mean mankind as a species, without prejudice to gender.]
I think that at least part of the idea behind Tolstoi's line is that ...[text shortened]... people to whom Jesus appeared.)
Is this an acceptably preliminary, if incomplete, definition?
I am, in a general sense, agreeing with you. But there may always be others who don't. Any definition of 'faith' must draw on the complete human experience of faith, which is hard to confine to a nutshell.
09 Feb 14
1 edit
"Any definition of 'faith' must draw on the complete human experience of faith, which is hard to confine to a nutshell."
I agree that any definition of "faith" is open to any number of objections by different people, especially where emotions run high.
What I'm trying to get at is this: there seem to be several issues (such as whether evolution really happened or is "just a theory" ) about which both Christians and non-christians have vehement and vehemently expressed opinions. But I for one don't see what evolution, to name only one such issue, has to do with faith (or lack of it). Whether evolution really happened is, so far as I can see, a matter of belief (which is cognitive), whereas "that which men live by" is non-cognitive and therefore to some extent immune to objections and (counter-)evidence which would normally be applicable to beliefs.
This was the point of my previous question, whether any practising Christian believes that it will be his BELIEFS for which he must answer. If not, then why make such a stink over the question whether evolution really happened, for example. There isn't going to be a quiz about what one believed; God is not going to ask whether you believed the Earth was round or flat; so it can't be that sort of thing which constitutes "faith". Whatever it is that constitutes faith, it isn't belief in a set of propositions (or truths, if that is how Christians want to express it). Whatever "faith" may consist in, it isn't THAT.
Are we in agreement about that, at least?
(PS I am well aware that there are practising Christians for whom evolution is accepted, and acceptable, as fact, as well as other practising Christians for whom it is a non-issue.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneFaith is one of those words which has multiple different meanings.
I would be less inclined to turn any definition of "faith" into a doctrine, or maybe even a dogma. I suspect that many people from varied backgrounds might "define" faith differently. This seems especially true, the more one has to describe 'the idea behind' the definition.
I am, in a general sense, agreeing with you. But there may always be others wh ...[text shortened]... th' must draw on the complete human experience of faith, which is hard to confine to a nutshell.
And none of those meanings is more correct than any other.
Having a faith usually means having a religious belief, with faith being synonymous with religion.
However having faith could mean something like trusting something, or belief without evidence.
And it's perfectly possible for someone to use more than one meaning in the same
sentence let alone the same post... which can be confusing.
For that reason I try to only ever use one meaning, [something along the lines of...]
"Belief in a proposition that has no supporting evidence or has contradictory evidence".
So when I say that something is believed on by faith, then that is the meaning I intend.
It doesn't mean that other meanings of the word don't exist, or are wrong.
But that's the meaning I intend when I use the word... And as long as it's clear the meaning
intended in any given point/post then we don't need some universal singular meaning.
EDIT:
And none of those meanings is more correct than any other.
Actually that's not true. In different circumstances and context some meanings can
indeed be more correct than others... But my intended meaning was that there is no
one singular correct meaning in all circumstances.
09 Feb 14
Originally posted by moonbusI believe (heh) that belief is a part of faith. A minor part, to be sure, but still a part. It seems that Jesus was not always concerned with the details, either. No, the details will not save you, nor will they make you free, but if you want to be 'effective' in your faith, then you better have some beliefs you can defend. I doubt you'll be an effective 'fisher of men', for example, if you profess a belief that the Earth is merely 'God's navel'.
"Any definition of 'faith' must draw on the complete human experience of faith, which is hard to confine to a nutshell."
I agree that any definition of "faith" is open to any number of objections by different people, especially where emotions run high.
What I'm trying to get at is this: there seem to be several issues (such as whether evolution really ...[text shortened]... ed, and acceptable, as fact, as well as other practising Christians for whom it is a non-issue.)
I guess I can agree with you, within reason.
09 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusYes, one can believe things that are true or false. Having faith in that which is true, I call true faith. The devil can believe things that are true and things that are false just like us. The devil has chosen to put faith in something else he believes to be true, but is false. That is what I call false faith.
Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for and did not get from GB. Are we also in agreement that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms? E.g., faith is not belief that certain propositions are true (even if they are true). Since, as you say, the devil can believe that the same propositions are true and yet have no faith.
So I believe having faith is the willingness to put one's belief into action to test whether the belief is true or false. If one has no faith, he is unwilling to put the belief into action. The devil has chosen to put his faith in his belief that he can be like God into action.
10 Feb 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThere were times when people believed the Earth was flat, at the centre of the universe, and immovable; they put that belief into action and burned people at the stake for saying anything which contradicted that belief. That belief was false. So, are you saying that all people (including bishops, popes, Ecumenical Councils, and saints) who believed the Earth was flat, immovable, etc. had false faith (since what they took to be faith and acted upon rested on false belief)?
Yes, one can believe things that are true or false. Having faith in that which is true, I call true faith. The devil can believe things that are true and things that are false just like us. The devil has chosen to put faith in something else he believes to be true, but is false. That is what I call false faith.
So I believe having faith is the willing ...[text shortened]... ction. The devil has chosen to put his faith in his belief that he can be like God into action.
10 Feb 14
Originally posted by moonbusYes, you seem to understand it correctly as I see it. In the googlefudge definintion of faith, he seems to be setting up faith to be most likely a false faith. So obviously he would not want to put his trust in it.
There were times when people believed the Earth was flat, at the centre of the universe, and immovable; they put that belief into action and burned people at the stake for saying anything which contradicted that belief. That belief was false. So, are you saying that all people (including bishops, popes, Ecumenical Councils, and saints) who believed the Earth ...[text shortened]... , etc. had false faith (since what they took to be faith and acted upon rested on false belief)?
10 Feb 14
Originally posted by moonbusOriginally posted by moonbus
Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for and did not get from GB. Are we also in agreement that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms? E.g., faith is not belief that certain propositions are true (even if they are true). Since, as you say, the devil can believe that the same propositions are true and yet have no faith.
Rather than try to estimate who is right or wrong (which, if I am not mistaken, would come perilously close to the sin of presumption), I should like to shift the ground of the discussion by asking you a question. It is honestly meant--not a trick to lure you into possibly contradicting yourself.
Do you believe that it will be your beliefs which will be tested on judgment day (I assume that that is a given for you)? Specifically, the truth or falsity, rightness or wrongness, of your beliefs?
________________________________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
If by "judgment day" you refer to the Great White Throne Judgment of those who have declined/rejected God's Grace Gift of Eternal Life by faith alone in Christ alone and a personal relationship in time and eternity, yours truly won't be there.
Thread 157295
________________________________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15 NASB)
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15*
"This is the saddest and most sobering passage in all of Scripture. Remember our Lord wept over death (John 11:35; Luke 19:41) - both physical death and especially the spiritual death (the second death) of all the unsaved, of all those who reject Him and His saving love offered at the cross. "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!" (Ezek. 33:11) Thus no man should be able to read or teach this passage without sorrow in his heart, if not tears in his eyes. The reason Jesus spoke about hell more than anyone else did is because He wanted no one to go there. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9; also see John 3:16) Yet, we see here and throughout the Bible, both the reality of hell, eternal torment, and the justice of hell.
"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them." The next scene John saw was the great white throne with the Lord Jesus Christ sitting upon it. This is based on John 5:22: "Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (Also see John 5:22-29 that speaks of the resurrection of the saved and the unrepentant and 2 Tim. 4:1.) At this point in this unfolding revelation, all those saved, Old and New Testament saints, Tribulation saints, and by implication, Millennial saints, have all received their resurrected, glorified bodies and thus belong to the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) as God is about to destroy the old creation, the heavens and the earth (v.11).
"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." (See 2 Peter 3:7-13) "Since the coming of the Lord is in fact the end of the natural universe (2 Pet. 3:10-13), we read that there was found no place for them (v. 11), making way for a new heaven and a new earth to occupy the place left vacant by their dismissal" (21:1).Gregg, Steve: Revelation, Four Views : A Parallel Commentary. Nashville , Tenn. : T. Nelson Publishers, 1997. Satan and his demons have defiled the heavens (Eph. 6:12) and the earth is polluted and sin-soaked with the evil of fallen man. God's new creation will not just be a renovation and renewal as seen in the Millennium but an entirely new heaven and new earth. Science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed but God does both as seen here and in Genesis 1.
"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life." What a scary and awe-filled scene like the one Daniel describes in his vision (Dan. 7: 9-10). It seems that all unsaved people from Cain to the last rebel we see in the Millennium are all together standing before the Lord Jesus ready to be judged based on their works (and books were opened) and sentenced by the Judge of all. Scripture says no one is righteous, no one keeps the law and no one is saved by works of righteousness (e.g., See Rom. 3-4) because even our best deeds are as filthy rags [menstrual rags] compared to the pure white perfect righteousness of God (Isa. 64:6). The righteousness that God requires for a person to be saved is the perfect righteousness a righteous God is required to require. (Matt. 5:48) Thus the only way to be saved is by grace (God's undeserved forgiveness and favor) through faith (in what God in Christ did for us on the cross when He took the punishment for all of our sins and credited us with His perfect righteousness), and not by works (Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:21)."
http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/teaching_letters/lens_mens_fellowship/6640
* "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." It grieves me to realize there's the possibility that some of my acquaintances and friends who contribute to this forum may be among them. -Bob
________________________________________
"... judgment day" [The Great White Throne] is reserved for all who have rejected God's Grace Gift purchased by Christ's substitutionary spiritual death which satisfied the justice and righteousness of God the Father and depend on good works.
10 Feb 14
"purchased by Christ's substitutionary spiritual death which satisfied the justice and righteousness of God the Father."
Can someone explain to me why a "purchase" through death was required? Why didn't God simply forgive man's sinfulness? It was in His power to do so, to show mercy without retribution or sacrifice, just as any mortal father can forgive his children's faults.