Is faith exercised by obedience...

[shnarkle]

Can we switch the means with the ends? Does it matter?

Does one exercise faith by odedience, or does one exercise obedience by faith? Is it obedience that allows us to exercise faith, or is it faith that allows us to exercise obedience?

Most understand that the Old Covenant stipulated that the children of Israel were entering into an agreement that allowed them a choice to follow God's law and receive blessing, or ignore it and receive malediction. It was their choice, and it was dependant upon their ability. The New Covenant is dependant upon the grace of God, through the faith of Christ. This is what produces fruit, and those who produce fruit are justified. Paul and James refer to this fruit as "works". So works are produced by faith.

However, under the old covenant, is it possible for works to produce faith? If one is obedient, wouldn't it be possible to see how following God's law makes sense, and wouldn't this reinforce one's belief in the wisdom and benevolence of God? Wouldn't one then be able to have their faith built up, and reinforced by seeing God's blessings in their life? Isn't this effected by their obedience?

If one follows God's commands regarding finances, and commercial endeavors, and this leads to financial independance and economic prosperity, wouldn't this lead one to believe that God's laws are not only beneficial, but also reinforce one's faith in God as well?

If one follows the cleaniliness laws, for whatever reason; and discovers that they're healthier than they were before they began to keep them, wouldn't this reinforce one's faith in God?

Self absorbed, self centered people tend to be a bit testy. They don't like anyone impinging or imposing on them, but God's law says to make accommodations for those who need help. People who help others tend to have a more positive level of self esteem, or at least feel better about themselves and their fellow human beings. They see that they have something to contribute to society rather than being a burden on society. Aren't these improved feelings due to their obedience to God's law? Or are they rather the product of faith exercised in order to be obedient?

Can obedience be the means to exercising faith? Is it possible for works to produce faith?

I think Paul has an answer to this last question. I think he would show that this isn't the case under the old testament or the new, but I can't recall where he addresses this issue.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

Faith is a leap in the dark.

Don't you mean that faith is what allows you to take a leap in the dark?

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. Why is it that you must create a straw man rather than deal with what I stated quite clearly?


Tcg

Because what you quite clearly stated makes no sense. A leap in the dark isn't necessarily synonymous with faith. One can take a leap in the dark for any number of reasons other than faith, and at no time would they ever equate that leap in the dark as faith.

That is why most people will say it was "A leap OF faith" Your articulation is quite simply nonsense. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're perfectly within your right to make pointless and irrelevant comments in this thread.

It's not a Strawman either as I wasn't claiming you made a comment you didn't make. I simply asked a question.

If you'd care to back up your assertions with some argument, we'd be delighted to hear how your articulation makes sense to you.

Better yet, how about addressing the point of the OP rather than supplying us with your definitions of faith and miscellaneous conclusions which have nothing to do with this thread?

[PinSeeker]

I never used the word, "wish."

Agreed, but because of how you stated it, that's in effect what you're making Biblical faith out to be, albeit possibly inadvertently.

Yet another straw man used to avoid addressing what I actually stated.

No, it's not a "straw man" at all. You may not mean to insinuate that, and if so, then great. But if that's the case, then you're contradicting yourself.

[PinSeeker]

When you say, "we show our faith by our works.", is this saying the same thing as "we exercise faith by our works"? Do you think people could interpret these two articulations as synonymous? If not, why not?

Those are excellent questions. I may not be understanding you completely when you speak of "exercising our faith." My internal reaction to that is, we can't exercise our faith, thereby making it stronger. That's why, in my mind, "we show our faith by our works" and "we exercise faith by our works" are not synonymous, and I think many would agree with me on that. Many, however, would just dismiss it as mere semantics. But words, even specific words, are very important.

I think the crux of the matter revolves around the reasons why we say it. Paul is referring to the fact that salvation comes by faith apart from works. He's talking about the origin of salvation, whereas James isn't talking to people about where salvation originates, but pointing out that if there are no works, then it is a sure sign that one has no faith. To apply James' line of reasoning to Paul's argument is to become a Pharisee.

In other words, if we are going to document our salvation, it cannot be by pointing out that we exercise faith by our works because we are using our works to prove we're saved. There is no effective difference between that, and claiming our works are what save us. The reason being that legalists have plenty of good works, and they're not saved. One doesn't need faith to produce good works, but one cannot have faith without good works.

One cannot document their salvation by looking at their works. If this is one's only measure, then they obviously don't have the Spirit witnessing with their spirit.

So back to the question. If one exercises their faith by obedience, what are they doing? Do the works produced through obedience produce faith, or is this simply a means to exercise one's faith?

Likewise, we know that if there are no works, then there is no faith, but we do not show our faith by our obedience except when it is in relation to those who have no works yet believe they have faith.

Ultimately it seems that one exercises their obedience by their faith since it is the faith they've received which allows them to be obedient, but not just in producing works. Obedience that is systemic, and produces the fruit of salvation.

No offense, but this is very, um, wordy...

I mean, anybody can do anything, right, shnarkle? Good works are not necessarily evidence of our faith, either to others or to ourselves. Doing what Christians should do is not necessarily indicative of a regenerate heart. We find that out very early on in the case of Cain. But they can be an assurance of our faith to us personally, which is what both Paul and James -- maybe more so James, but Paul also none the less -- are saying.

I don't really disagree with anything you say, here, shnarkle. I just think you're talking in circles. If you have saving faith, which is a gift of God, act on it. Not out of compulsion, but out of the heart. Otherwise, you're fooling/deceiving yourself.

What is for sure synonymous in the Bible are works and love. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Similarly, we could say we serve/work because He declared us -- because of His sovereign choice and for His good pleasure -- justified in our sin. This was made possible by Jesus's work of atonement for and redemption from our sin on cross. And then at the appointed time, He gave us new life and is even now working in us by His Spirit. We serve/work not merely because it's a compulsory duty, but because we love Him and because of the gratitude that we have for receiving something so undeserved -- from the heart -- even salvation, eternal life... Jesus Himself.

LOL... maybe that's a bit wordy.

Again, grace and peace to you.

[shnarkle]

Good works are not necessarily evidence of our faith, either to others or to ourselves.

Glad you agree with that point.

Doing what Christians should do is not necessarily indicative of a regenerate heart.

Again, I see that you agree with that point as well.

We find that out very early on in the case of Cain. But they can be an assurance of our faith to us personally,

The assurance comes from the faith of Christ implanted and dwelling within the new creation. The evidence doesn't assure us of anything. Only those who may be doubting their salvation might use that as an assurance, and how is that effectively any different than those who point to their works to document their salvation?

If you have saving faith, which is a gift of God, act on it.

If you have saving faith, it is God who is the actor, not you.

Not out of compulsion, but out of the heart. Otherwise, you're fooling/deceiving yourself.

Yep.

What is for sure synonymous in the Bible are works and love. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Similarly, we could say we serve/work because He declared us -- because of His sovereign choice and for His good pleasure -- justified in our sin. This was made possible by Jesus's work of atonement for and redemption from our sin on cross. And then at the appointed time, He gave us new life and is even now working in us by His Spirit.

Couldn't agree more.

We serve/work not merely because it's a compulsory duty,...

Whoa, now you're talking like a Pharisee. Those are the words of one who has decided to accept God's commands and see's that they not only have an obligation to carry them out, but they carry them out because they should, not because they're a new creation created for good works. See the difference? It's not a two way street, and it's not a street that allows more than one vehicle at a time. Take your pick.

... but because we love Him and because of the gratitude that we have for receiving something so undeserved -- from the heart -- even salvation, eternal life... Jesus Himself.

Seems to be a fragmented salvation. It's as if you've got one foot in the grave, and one kicking on the door of the kingdom.

[PinSeeker]

Good works are not necessarily evidence of our faith, either to others or to ourselves.

Glad you agree with that point.

Never disagreed.

Doing what Christians should do is not necessarily indicative of a regenerate heart.

Again, I see that you agree with that point as well.

Never disagreed.

We find that out very early on in the case of Cain. But they can be an assurance of our faith to us personally,

The assurance comes from the faith of Christ implanted and dwelling within the new creation. The evidence doesn't assure us of anything. Only those who may be doubting their salvation might use that as an assurance, and how is that effectively any different than those who point to their works to document their salvation?

Don't disagree with this, either. All I'm saying is, some, because of who they are, are a little more insecure in themselves, and they doubt. We all do to some extent, actually, because our belief, like everything else about us, is imperfect. Thus, our prayer is like that of the father of the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."

If you have saving faith, which is a gift of God, act on it.

If you have saving faith, it is God who is the actor, not you.

That's both true in a sense and untrue in another. This is why I cited Philippians 2:12-13. Love that passage; look at it closely:

• So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Yes, it is because God is working in us, so what you say here is true in that respect. But those two infinitive phrases ("to will" and "to work") refers to us. God works in us by His Spirit, for sure, but we do the willing and working, so what you say here is untrue in that respect. Not really untrue, but just not the whole story.

In like manner, we say the same thing about the Bible, most of it anyway. There are some direct quotes of God and Jesus in there for sure, but for the most part, the writers of the Bible were writing their own words, experientially speaking. But it was the Spirit superintending the writing, so that in effect, it was -- is -- God's Word.

Not out of compulsion, but out of the heart. Otherwise, you're fooling/deceiving yourself.

Yep.

For sure.

What is for sure synonymous in the Bible are works and love. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Similarly, we could say we serve/work because He declared us -- because of His sovereign choice and for His good pleasure -- justified in our sin. This was made possible by Jesus's work of atonement for and redemption from our sin on cross. And then at the appointed time, He gave us new life and is even now working in us by His Spirit.

Couldn't agree more.

Great!

We serve/work not merely because it's a compulsory duty,...

Whoa, now you're talking like a Pharisee. Those are the words of one who has decided to accept God's commands and see's that they not only have an obligation to carry them out, but they carry them out because they should, not because they're a new creation created for good works. See the difference? It's not a two way street, and it's not a street that allows more than one vehicle at a time. Take your pick.

Oh, but it is a two way street. We are obligated to carry them out. God calls us to do certain things all the time, and we are obligated -- out of love; it's a matter of the heart -- to respond in kind. It's not like we're going to "lose our salvation" or something, but responding to God's call is not optional for the Christian. And failure to respond has consequences.

... but because we love Him and because of the gratitude that we have for receiving something so undeserved -- from the heart -- even salvation, eternal life... Jesus Himself.

Seems to be a fragmented salvation. It's as if you've got one foot in the grave, and one kicking on the door of the kingdom.

Nah. We just have to listen to Peter in his second epistle when he says, "Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble..." And in the same breath, he says, "...for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." In this third part of this compound sentence, Peter is not talking about God's granting entrance into His kingdom or that it's somehow less than what it was when he called us out of darkness; that can never be any less or any more. What Peter is saying, however, is that our spiritual assurance will be made all the more clear to us. It's just a fact that the more we do to serve the Lord, the more we are confident in our security in the Lord -- and it is He doing this in us.

[shnarkle]

Good works are not necessarily evidence of our faith, either to others or to ourselves.

Glad you agree with that point.

Never disagreed.

Why are you posting that you never disagreed? I never suggested you did.

some, because of who they are, are a little more insecure in themselves, and they doubt.

Right, and as you say, that is who they are. In other words, they're not born again. They're not "walking after the Spirit'.

We all do to some extent, actually, because our belief, like everything else about us, is imperfect. Thus, our prayer is like that of the father of the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."

Yep, that's why it really isn't about us at all. It's about Christ. Hence Paul's point that "not me, but Christ in me".

If you have saving faith, it is God who is the actor, not you.

That's both true in a sense and untrue in another.

So why do you assume I'm presenting the untrue sense?

This is why I cited Philippians 2:12-13. Love that passage; look at it closely:

• So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

I had that in mind when I posted my point. Why do you feel this need to ask me to look closely to a passage when it's saying the exact same thing I am?

Yes, it is because God is working in us, so what you say here is true in that respect. But those two infinitive phrases ("to will" and "to work") refers to us.

Not when one has lost their identity in Christ. Not when Paul explicitly points out that it is "not by will or effort" (Rom.9:16)

God works in us by His Spirit, for sure, but we do the willing and working, so what you say here is untrue in that respect.

Not according to Paul. See above.

Not really untrue, but just not the whole story.

Right, but then why recall suckling milk when one is eating solid food?

We are obligated to carry them out. God calls us to do certain things all the time, and we are obligated -- out of love; it's a matter of the heart -- to respond in kind.

Perhaps I'm not using the term correctly. I agree that it is a matter of the heart, but I also agree that when one is head over heals in love, they don't look at doing something for those they love as an obligation, do they? See what my meaning is?

It's not like we're going to "lose our salvation" or something, but responding to God's call is not optional for the Christian. And failure to respond has consequences.

I agree. Yes, but it isn't just the Christian. There are Christians who feel obligated to do God's will, perhaps even grudgingly. Then there is the new covenant which points out that the new creation is created to do God's will, which necessarily means that it is impossible for them to do anything else except God's will. The sole purpose of the new covenant is to keep God's commandments. Unlike the old covenant, trying to keep God's commandments isn't an option.

[brianbbs67]

In my opinion the 2 terms can not be switched. Faith is first. Faith is belief and trust in God. So it begins with faith, which leads to one asking how are we to obey God? Fiath begats obedience and works flows naturally. This process builds faith as well but it all starts with belief and trust(faith).

[PinSeeker]

Why are you posting that you never disagreed?

Because I... never disagreed.

I never suggested you did.

Well... awesome. I didn't suggest you did... suggest... I... disagreed... Wow.

some, because of who they are, are a little more insecure in themselves, and they doubt.

Right, and as you say, that is who they are. In other words, they're not born again. They're not "walking after the Spirit'.

Well, I agree with you, but Christians can be insecure in themselves, too, not fully realizing what it means for their identity to be in Christ. And they can doubt, too. Maybe to a lesser extent than non-Christians. But again, we all doubt to some small degree, because our belief (like I said) is imperfect, just like everything else about us... in this life, anyway.

Yep, that's why it really isn't about us at all. It's about Christ. Hence Paul's point that "not me, but Christ in me".

Sure.

If you have saving faith, it is God who is the actor, not you.

That's both true in a sense and untrue in another.

So why do you assume I'm presenting the untrue sense?

I don't assume anything. I'm just stating a fact. It's not about you. You just said that, right? It's not about you. It's not about me. Why are you taking everything so personally and... I don't know, think I'm being adversarial or something? I don't assume anything; that would be putting words in your mouth, which I would never do. I only said that what you said was incomplete. Which it was.

This is why I cited Philippians 2:12-13. Love that passage; look at it closely:

• So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

I had that in mind when I posted my point. Why do you feel this need to ask me to look closely to a passage when it's saying the exact same thing I am?
LOL! I don't "feel this need..." I think we address this in the next section:

Yes, it is because God is working in us, so what you say here is true in that respect. But those two infinitive phrases ("to will" and "to work") refers to us.

Not when one has lost their identity in Christ. Not when Paul explicitly points out that it is "not by will or effort" (Rom.9:16)

In Romans 9, Paul is talking about God's sovereignty when it comes to salvation... having mercy upon whom he chooses, compassion on whom He will have compassion. Come on, you know that; you just said it.

In Philippians 2, though, Paul is talking about the Christian life -- be like Christ; do all things without grumbling or quarreling; be humble and regard one another as more important than yourselves... and so on. And he ends that little narrative with, God is working in you so that you will and work according to His will and for His good pleasure.

And I'm sure we agree that we can't lose our salvation once God has saved us and regenerated our hearts by His Spirit. We might lose sight of it from time to time, and do, but we cannot lose our identity in Christ. You agree with that, don't you?

God works in us by His Spirit, for sure, but we do the willing and working, so what you say here is untrue in that respect.

Not according to Paul. See above.

Yes, according to Paul. In Philippians 2. See above. In Romans 9, Paul's subject is different. Again, Paul is talking about the Christian life after having been given salvation, whereas in Romans 9, He's talking about God's sovereignty in the act of salvation itself. See above.

Not really untrue, but just not the whole story.

Right, but then why recall suckling milk when one is eating solid food?

Um, just clarifying. It's not about you.

We are obligated to carry them out. God calls us to do certain things all the time, and we are obligated -- out of love; it's a matter of the heart -- to respond in kind.

Perhaps I'm not using the term correctly. I agree that it is a matter of the heart, but I also agree that when one is head over heals in love, they don't look at doing something for those they love as an obligation, do they? See what my meaning is?

Yeah I see your meaning. But hey, consider this. I love my wife with all my heart. But you better believe I feel an obligation to her; God gives me that obligation -- I am to love her as Christ did the church, even as He gave His life for her (for him literally, and for me figuratively, of course). By the same token (on a much larger scale, of course, I love God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength. But you better believe I feel an obligation to Him, to serve Him and to act on His mandate to offer my body as a living sacrifice and to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes again, to do my part in taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth. I mean, in all these cases, they're great obligations... but at the same time, they are great privileges. Labors of love.

It's not like we're going to "lose our salvation" or something, but responding to God's call is not optional for the Christian. And failure to respond has consequences.

I agree. Yes, but it isn't just the Christian.

Sure. Right.

There are Christians who feel obligated to do God's will, perhaps even grudgingly.

Well the "grudgingly" part is sinful. And, if it is grudgingly, it seems those people should question themselves and their true spiritual state.

Then there is the new covenant which points out that the new creation is created to do God's will, which necessarily means that it is impossible for them to do anything else except God's will.

Mmmmm.... If I understand you correctly, I disagree. Technically, nothing happens outside of God's will. But sin -- which everyone is, and even Christians are, guilty of every day, even every minute of every day -- is certainly not God's will. In that sense, we certainly can do things contrary to God's will. But God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. You agree with that, don't you?

The sole purpose of the new covenant is to keep God's commandments. Unlike the old covenant, trying to keep God's commandments isn't an option.

The Covenant is really the same, just now revealed in a better, Final Way. Old Testament believers were called to keep God's Law (the letter of the Law); they fell far short, of course. We are called to keep the law, too, as New Testament believers, but as Jesus taught us, the law is summed up by loving the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving our neighbors (everyone) as ourselves. Well, we fall far short, too. We all need a Redeemer, a Savior. The only difference for Old Testament believers is that they were looking forward to His coming through the Law and the Prophets, and we are looking back on His first coming (and forward to His second) and His life, His crucifixion, and His resurrection (in these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son).

I just don't get the adversarial thing. Or the defensiveness... Or something. What gives?

[PinSeeker]

In my opinion the 2 terms can not be switched. Faith is first. Faith is belief and trust in God. So it begins with faith, which leads to one asking how are we to obey God? Fiath begats obedience and works flows naturally. This process builds faith as well but it all starts with belief and trust(faith).

Well, it starts with God's salvific act of regeneration/new birth and His gift of faith, by His Spirit, to the new believer. But yeah. Agreed.

[brianbbs67]

The sole purpose of the new covenant is to keep God's commandments. Unlike the old covenant, trying to keep God's commandments isn't an option.

The Covenant is really the same, just now revealed in a better, Final Way. Old Testament believers were called to keep God's Law (the letter of the Law); they fell far short, of course. We are called to keep the law, too, as New Testament believers, but as Jesus taught us, the law is summed up by loving the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving our neighbors (everyone) as ourselves. Well, we fall far short, too. We all need a Redeemer, a Savior. The only difference for Old Testament believers is that they were looking forward to His coming through the Law and the Prophets, and we are looking back on His first coming (and forward to His second) and His life, His crucifixion, and His resurrection (in these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son).

I just don't get the adversarial thing. Or the defensiveness... Or something. What gives?[/quote]

The fact that Hillel and Yeshua summed up the law, does not negate it. If that's what you're saying? In other words, the law is still in effect(those that apply with no temple and no theocracy). Yeshua just gave us the same thing God had offered over and over(christ represented God by the indwelling thus negating the marriage to Israel, so that Israel was free to marry again.). Repent and be washed clean as Fleece.