Is believing/faith a work ?

[Kermos]

Obviously you cannot show your view as actually apostolic. You twist scripture, mostly out of context and even Church Fathers to the contrary.
Since you made your assertion that all Christians over the last 2000 years held the view of what you all a "bonded will" show any historical statement to that effect prior to Calvinism. Also note that the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem declared Calvinism a heresy in 1672.

Christ is the exclusive founder of every single Christian; in other words Christ sovereignly reigns in the affairs of men, but you say that men reign sovereignly in the affairs of God, yet the Christ says this clearly:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15 , the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

Christ defines and makes us Christians.

The Apostle Paul wrote that a Christian's will is bound to God Almighty with "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13), and this is a wonderful blessing!

The Apostle Peter wrote "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10), and this Apostolic testimony contains both wonderful blessing for we godly but terror for free-willian self-willed unrighteous persons.

You may want to run to voices other than the voice of Christ, but as for me, I am sticking with the voice of Christ. You ran to (not) the voice of Ignatius when you ignorantly implement an ignominious Ignatius quotation as support for free-willian philosophy, yet after the modern editorial content is removed - only leaving Ignatius' writing - the result is that Ignatius declared the depravity of man and the exclusive Sovereignty of God in man's salvation THUS EXPOSING YOUR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST IGNATIUS THAT YOU THEN EXPAND INTO YOUR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD BEING IN CONTROL OF MAN'S SALVATION, so your 2,000 years of no sovereignty of God is demonstrably a lie. This post also shows where your heart's treasure adulterates the Word of God wherein God exclusively chooses every single child of God in all time causing salvation from the wrath of God (John 15:16, John 15:19, Mark 13:37)!

 

[Rightglory]

Christ is the exclusive founder of every single Christian; in other words Christ sovereignly reigns in the affairs of men, but you say that men reign sovereignly in the affairs of God, yet the Christ says this clearly:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15 , the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

Christ defines and makes us Christians.

The Apostle Paul wrote that a Christian's will is bound to God Almighty with "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13), and this is a wonderful blessing!

The Apostle Peter wrote "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10), and this Apostolic testimony contains both wonderful blessing for we godly but terror for free-willian self-willed unrighteous persons.

You may want to run to voices other than the voice of Christ, but as for me, I am sticking with the voice of Christ. You ran to (not) the voice of Ignatius when you ignorantly implement an ignominious Ignatius quotation as support for free-willian philosophy, yet after the modern editorial content is removed - only leaving Ignatius' writing - the result is that Ignatius declared the depravity of man and the exclusive Sovereignty of God in man's salvation THUS EXPOSING YOUR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST IGNATIUS THAT YOU THEN EXPAND INTO YOUR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD BEING IN CONTROL OF MAN'S SALVATION, so your 2,000 years of no sovereignty of God is demonstrably a lie. This post also shows where your heart's treasure adulterates the Word of God wherein God exclusively chooses every single child of God in all time causing salvation from the wrath of God (John 15:16, John 15:19, Mark 13:37)!

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

You keep repeating your theory. All I can see is Calvinism. Which is a man made theory who had no understanding of God's sovereignty, foreknowledge and how they are scripturally understood. You say you are following Christ's words, yet you cannot show any evidence that it is apostolic. Actually you don't even recognize the origin of your view. Maybe you claim it actually of your own which might even be worse. Calvin was wrong and every single person who tried to develop a personal theory of some meaning of scripture was declared a heretic.
You don't even understand the Church Fathers, including Ignatius because you insert your own Calvinistic bias into his writings. The Church has always understood the relationship of God with man. Calvin is the first who developed a theory on predestination (unconditional election), total depravity, perseverance of the saints which applies to your understanding of Calvin. You would also be incorrect with limited atonement, irresistible grace, since they cannot be separated from the others.
Did you read the "Confessions of Dositheus" of the Synod of Jerusalem 1672?

 

[Kermos]

Not a single verse you cite says man is born a sinner. David did not say he was born a sinner, Jeremiah did not say men are born wicked...you assumed that into the verse. Paul says in Rom 3:12
"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Paul did NOT sat men are BORN out of the way, he did not say men are BORN unprovitable. But all are born innocent and then later go out of the way, become unprfitable. Going out of the way, becoming unprofitable shows perosnal culpability of one's OWN sinful actions and not passively inheriting and being accountable for another person's sinful actions.

Paul says in Rom 4:15 "for where no law is, there is no transgression".

John says sin is transgression of the law, 1 Jn 3:4

Romans 7:8-9 shows infants are not even accountable to God's law for they are "without the law".

According to the BIble, for one to be a sinner there must be a law and that law must be transgressed by an accountable person. Therefore how the BIble defines sins makes the man made idea of original sin impossible.

Furthermore you cite the new birth of Jn 3 where Jesus says one must be born AGAIN. The word AGAIN implies one must be born before (physical birth) in order for one to be born AGAIN (spiritual birth). When one is physically born into this world he is born without sin. Yet when one is born AGAIN spiritually his sins are taken away by God (Col 2:11-13) and he once AGAIN becomes without sin as he was when he was physically born. If men were born sinners, the the new birth would have one AGAIN returning back to that sinful state in which he was physically born. Yet the new birth has one returning AGAIN back to that sinless state in which one was physically born.

physically born > no sin
born again > no sin

You opening two sentences are DECEPTION because you distort and deny the sayings of David and Jeremiah. Your thoughts fail to match the Word of God as is visible by comparing your post to the following five quotations from the Bible.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psalm 58:3).

You lied. The following scripture was proclaimed to you in the post to which you replied, but in your self-will, you neglected or ignored the scripture.

Let's just ponder your two posts, even your prior post's last paragraph's first sentence, in contrast to the prophet Jeremiah's words of "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

Even your thoughts contrasted against the Lord Jesus Christ's words "No one is good except God alone " (Mark 10:18), so the only state of being for people is evil - and He includes being born evil because He gives no exception.

In a reviling self-willed shout (2 Peter 2:9-10), you say "No one is good except man and God alone" (the word of Ernest T. Bass) thus adulterating the Word of God such that it is no longer the Word of God but the mere word of man.

Further exemplifing your heart's written antimony toward the Word of God is your ignorance of where He says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3); therefore, you cannot properly perceive King Jesus of the Kingdom of God unless God causes you to be born again. See here that a person not born again fails to perceive King Jesus in Righteousness, so the default condition of men is the state of evil - in other words - depraved (see Romans chapter 1).

 

[Gottservant]

See Faith is in contrast to works only when its viewed correctly in Gods Salvation package,
[...]

You are right there. I am starting with the assumption that God has saved me.

I am just not denying myself the fruit of the spirit, on that account.

You edify your soul, by clinging to the message of the Gospel, I just wonder whether you could do moreso "wisely".

Do I need to recount the meaning of my faith, while I am working? Or does work remind me that I need to return to recounting the meaning of my faith?

(I leave that to you, to question).

 

[brightfame52]

I found this article on the internet and its something I have said for years:

Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?​

My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by Paul included the idea of doing something in exchange for a reward. The Arminian idea of justification by faith, therefore, necessarily leads to justification by works. In today’s post I’d like to look at and explore another reason, and a rather simple one, as to why Arminianism constitutes salvation by works: Faith is a work. More specifically, the activity of faith, which is believing, is a work. Hearing such a thing might sound like nails on a chalkboard even to many “Reformed” and “Sovereign Grace” folks. I have seen individuals from these backgrounds spinning their wheels trying to explain why faith somehow is and is not a work, and it seems to me that there is just as much confusion among sovereign grace affirming believers as there is among Arminians on this issue.
Let’s start off by simply looking at the definition of what a “work” is. Here is how a “work” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

1.
a. Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something
3.
a. Something that one is doing, making, or performing, especially as an occupation or undertaking; a duty or task

Chambers’ is another reputible English Dictionary which gives nearly identical definitions:

1 physical or mental effort made in order to achieve or make something
8 anything done, managed, made or achieved, etc;

Mounce’s Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament gives this as the first definition for the Greek word for “work”:

ἔργον
ergon
anything done or to be done;

So a “work” by definition is simply that which someone does, whether physically or mentally. It is really just that simple. Let us now go to the Scriptures to see how faith is categorized:

John 6:28–29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The Son of God directly, in no uncertain terms, categorizes faith as a work in this verse. It is something that a person does. Let’s look at another text:

Acts 16:30–31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Paul was asked directly by the jailor what he must do to be saved. Paul could have said “You don’t have to do anything!”, but that’s not what he said. He said that the jailor needed to do something, namely, believe. A work is something that is done, therefore believing is a work.
Moreover, believing is a commandment which is pleasing to God. If you asked the average free-willer if a person gets to heaven by commandment-keeping, they would emphatically deny this, yet believing is categorized as exactly that:

1 John 3:22–23 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. (23) And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Now, some will object that faith is a gift of God, and therefore is not a work. This is partially correct. I will explain. Faith is a God-given capacity which is implanted within the elect sinner upon regeneration. Historically theologians have referred to this as the habit or “seed” of faith. Elect, regenerate infants possess the habit or capacity of faith. What they do not possess is the activity of faith, i.e believing. Believing is what the sinner does, and is therefore his/her own, and is a work. This is why historically Arminianism was condemned all around by Reformed, Presbyterian and Particular Baptists as nothing short of works salvation. Because Arminians posited that a man was saved on the basis of his act of believing. Thus while it is true that the habit or capacity of faith is a gift of God, the act of faith is man’s act, not God’s. In other words, man believes, God does not believe for man, and therefore believing is a man’s doing, or work. It is that simple.
Whenever this perspective is brought up, there will inevitably be several texts of scripture that will be brought up contrasting faith with works. I will probably address these in later posts, Lord willing. For now I simply want to point out what should be rather obvious from Scripture. If we are just going by the dictionary definition, believing is a work.

Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?

 

[Kermos]

The yoke of bondage refers to the OT law of Moses. That law required the Jew to keep all of it perfectly in order to be justified by it, therefore it made the Jew a slave to that law. They were not able to bear that slavery showing none could keep it perfectly. This does not in anyway prove lnability on man's part to keep God's laws. I never said man could keep God's law perfectly and God never required sinless law keeping from man to justify man but just a faithul obedience which is possible.

Rom 7:7 the law showed what sin is, therefore law is not a bad thing for learning the law Paul found out what sin is which is a good thing. Again, learning what sin is does not in anyway prove any inability on the part of man to have a faithful obedience to God.

You wrote "They were not able to bear that slavery showing none could keep it perfectly" about the Apostle saying "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (the Apostle Peter, Acts 15:10), so see that you wrote "they were not able" which means they were unable to keep the law - James wrote "whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (James 2:10), yet you nullify the need for the Savior and the precious Blood of Christ shed on the cross by you saying that man can obediently keep the law, so you preach contrary to Apostolic testimony.

Back to the fact that commands do not convey ability unless explicitly laid out in the command of God.

You wrote that "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands", yet specifically Romans 7:7 shows that the law does make sense even when men are not able to obey the law.

You seem to have skipped that point in your post.

When you wrote "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands" then you contradict Apostolic testimony again because the Apostle gives a sensible explanation for God giving commands "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'” (The Apostle Paul, Romans 7:7) - God had me quote this verse to you in the post to which you replied. In essence, you adulterated Paul's writing into "If the law had not been, I would have known sin for it is senseless for God to issue the Law. For I would have known with the ability to obey what it is to not covet when the law had said, “You shall not covet.'" (the word of Ernest T. Bass).

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You wrote "They were not able to bear that slavery showing none could keep it perfectly" about the Apostle saying "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (the Apostle Peter, Acts 15:10), so see that you wrote "they were not able" which means they were unable to keep the law - James wrote "whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (James 2:10), yet you nullify the need for the Savior and the precious Blood of Christ shed on the cross by you saying that man can obediently keep the law, so you preach contrary to Apostolic testimony.

Back to the fact that commands do not convey ability unless explicitly laid out in the command of God.

You wrote that "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands", yet specifically Romans 7:7 shows that the law does make sense even when men are not able to obey the law.

You seem to have skipped that point in your post.

When you wrote "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands" then you contradict Apostolic testimony again because the Apostle gives a sensible explanation for God giving commands "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'” (The Apostle Paul, Romans 7:7) - God had me quote this verse to you in the post to which you replied. In essence, you adulterated Paul's writing into "If the law had not been, I would have known sin for it is senseless for God to issue the Law. For I would have known with the ability to obey what it is to not covet when the law had said, “You shall not covet.'" (the word of Ernest T. Bass).

Rom 7:7 says nothing about men being unable to obey God for we have many examples in the Bible of men obeying God's commands.

Verse 7, the OT law required perfect, abosloute perfection in keeping the law to be justified by it and Paul is pointing out that Jews and Gentiles needed to be released from that perfect, absolute demand of the law. Though the Jew could not keep the OT law absolutely perfectly the law is not a bad thing for it gave knowledge to man of what sin is which is a good thing.

The issue therefore is not man's inability to obey at all but inability to keep the law perfectly. God never required sinless perfection from man in order to justify man but all God requires is a faithful obedience which man is able to do. As John says, God's commands are not grievous, burdensome. But if God gave commands that were totally impossible for man to obey that would be grievous, it makes God sadistic and evil.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You opening two sentences are DECEPTION because you distort and deny the sayings of David and Jeremiah. Your thoughts fail to match the Word of God as is visible by comparing your post to the following five quotations from the Bible.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psalm 58:3).

You lied. The following scripture was proclaimed to you in the post to which you replied, but in your self-will, you neglected or ignored the scripture.

Let's just ponder your two posts, even your prior post's last paragraph's first sentence, in contrast to the prophet Jeremiah's words of "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

Even your thoughts contrasted against the Lord Jesus Christ's words "No one is good except God alone " (Mark 10:18), so the only state of being for people is evil - and He includes being born evil because He gives no exception.

In a reviling self-willed shout (2 Peter 2:9-10), you say "No one is good except man and God alone" (the word of Ernest T. Bass) thus adulterating the Word of God such that it is no longer the Word of God but the mere word of man.

Further exemplifing your heart's written antimony toward the Word of God is your ignorance of where He says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3); therefore, you cannot properly perceive King Jesus of the Kingdom of God unless God causes you to be born again. See here that a person not born again fails to perceive King Jesus in Righteousness, so the default condition of men is the state of evil - in other words - depraved (see Romans chapter 1).

Not one of the verses you cite say man is born a sinner. Jeremiah does state man is deveitful and wicked but he does NOT state HOW man got that way, He dos NOT say man is innately, unconditionally born wicked and sinful. You read your ideas into the verses. No verse states infants are born deceitful and wicked but they can with intellectual maturity of learning bwtween right and wrong BECOME deceitful and wicked.

If one accepts the BIble's teaching on sin then one must reject the heresy of original sin. The Bible teaches if there where no law there would be no transgression (Rom 4:15) and John says sin is transgression of the law. Therefore the only way for one to BECOME a sinner is by CONDITIONALLY transgressing God's law. Original sin falsely tries to make one a sinner who has not transgressed God's law.

3 Jn 1:11; James 4:17; 1 Pet 3:11 man can "do good" but no man can do good in doing absolute, sinless perfection as God Who is perfectly good, Mk 10:18.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I found this article on the internet and its something I have said for years:

Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?​

My last post explained why the Arminian view of salvation ultimately is salvation by works. I explained that a “work” as conceptualized by Paul included the idea of doing something in exchange for a reward. The Arminian idea of justification by faith, therefore, necessarily leads to justification by works. In today’s post I’d like to look at and explore another reason, and a rather simple one, as to why Arminianism constitutes salvation by works: Faith is a work. More specifically, the activity of faith, which is believing, is a work. Hearing such a thing might sound like nails on a chalkboard even to many “Reformed” and “Sovereign Grace” folks. I have seen individuals from these backgrounds spinning their wheels trying to explain why faith somehow is and is not a work, and it seems to me that there is just as much confusion among sovereign grace affirming believers as there is among Arminians on this issue.
Let’s start off by simply looking at the definition of what a “work” is. Here is how a “work” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

Chambers’ is another reputible English Dictionary which gives nearly identical definitions:

Mounce’s Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament gives this as the first definition for the Greek word for “work”:

So a “work” by definition is simply that which someone does, whether physically or mentally. It is really just that simple. Let us now go to the Scriptures to see how faith is categorized:

The Son of God directly, in no uncertain terms, categorizes faith as a work in this verse. It is something that a person does. Let’s look at another text:

Paul was asked directly by the jailor what he must do to be saved. Paul could have said “You don’t have to do anything!”, but that’s not what he said. He said that the jailor needed to do something, namely, believe. A work is something that is done, therefore believing is a work.
Moreover, believing is a commandment which is pleasing to God. If you asked the average free-willer if a person gets to heaven by commandment-keeping, they would emphatically deny this, yet believing is categorized as exactly that:

Now, some will object that faith is a gift of God, and therefore is not a work. This is partially correct. I will explain. Faith is a God-given capacity which is implanted within the elect sinner upon regeneration. Historically theologians have referred to this as the habit or “seed” of faith. Elect, regenerate infants possess the habit or capacity of faith. What they do not possess is the activity of faith, i.e believing. Believing is what the sinner does, and is therefore his/her own, and is a work. This is why historically Arminianism was condemned all around by Reformed, Presbyterian and Particular Baptists as nothing short of works salvation. Because Arminians posited that a man was saved on the basis of his act of believing. Thus while it is true that the habit or capacity of faith is a gift of God, the act of faith is man’s act, not God’s. In other words, man believes, God does not believe for man, and therefore believing is a man’s doing, or work. It is that simple.
Whenever this perspective is brought up, there will inevitably be several texts of scripture that will be brought up contrasting faith with works. I will probably address these in later posts, Lord willing. For now I simply want to point out what should be rather obvious from Scripture. If we are just going by the dictionary definition, believing is a work.

Faith: A gift? A work? Something in Between?

The article is wrong. While a work is something we do. Not all that we do is a work.

 

[brightfame52]

The article is wrong. While a work is something we do. Not all that we do is a work.

Sorry but the article nailed it, and I have believed that way for a long while. If you condition your salvation on anything you do, even your believing, you have rejected Salvation by Grace and espouse salvation by your works.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Sorry but the article nailed it, and I have believed that way for a long while. If you condition your salvation on anything you do, even your believing, you have rejected Salvation by Grace and espouse salvation by your works.

Negative. Faith is a qualification for salvation and we are saved by grace because God causes our faith.

 

[brightfame52]

Negative. Faith is a qualification for salvation and we are saved by grace because God causes our faith.

Thats works, may God have mercy on you, at this time you reject Grace Salvation

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thats works, may God have mercy on you, at this time you reject Grace Salvation

Negative. You are purposefully misconstruing what the Biblical authors meant by "works" to suit a false idea of grace.

 

[brightfame52]

Negative. You are purposefully misconstruing what the Biblical authors meant by "works" to suit a false idea of grace.

You make faith/believing a qualification to get saved, thats works, merit even. It means:

a quality, accomplishment, etc., that fits a person for some function, office, or the like, an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute:

You deny grace altogether !

 

[CadyandZoe]

You make faith/believing a qualification to get saved, thats works, merit even. It means:

a quality, accomplishment, etc., that fits a person for some function, office, or the like, an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute:

You deny grace altogether !

You don't understand, if faith is a qualification and God supplies the faith, then salvation is by grace.

 

[brightfame52]

You don't understand, if faith is a qualification and God supplies the faith, then salvation is by grace.

No matter how you spin it, if you condition salvation on your believing, its salvation by your works and apostacy from Grace.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No matter how you spin it, if you condition salvation on your believing, its salvation by your works and apostacy from Grace.

You don't seem to understand. It isn't a question of whether or not I do works, it's a question of whether or not my works merit God's favor.

 

[brightfame52]

You don't seem to understand. It isn't a question of whether or not I do works, it's a question of whether or not my works merit God's favor.

Again, if you condition salvation on something you do, be it believe, repent, be baptized or anything, you promote and believe in salvation by your works, and forfeit Grace !

 

[Kermos]

Rom 7:7 says nothing about men being unable to obey God for we have many examples in the Bible of men obeying God's commands.

Verse 7, the OT law required perfect, abosloute perfection in keeping the law to be justified by it and Paul is pointing out that Jews and Gentiles needed to be released from that perfect, absolute demand of the law. Though the Jew could not keep the OT law absolutely perfectly the law is not a bad thing for it gave knowledge to man of what sin is which is a good thing.

The issue therefore is not man's inability to obey at all but inability to keep the law perfectly. God never required sinless perfection from man in order to justify man but all God requires is a faithful obedience which man is able to do. As John says, God's commands are not grievous, burdensome. But if God gave commands that were totally impossible for man to obey that would be grievous, it makes God sadistic and evil.

Read this very carefully, I am not referring to Romans 7:7 in the sense of whether a person can obey or disobey a command of God, but I am referring to Romans 7:7 in the sense of SENSIBILITY because you wrote "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands".

When you wrote "else it makes NO SENSE in giving commands" then you contradict Apostolic testimony again because the Apostle gives a sensible explanation for God giving commands "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'” (The Apostle Paul, Romans 7:7) - God had me quote this verse to you in the post to which you replied. In essence, you adulterated Paul's writing into "If the law had not been, I would have known sin for it is senseless for God to issue the Law. For I would have known with the ability to obey what it is to not covet when the law had said, “You shall not covet.'" (the word of Ernest T. Bass).

 

[mailmandan]

Negative. Faith is a qualification for salvation and we are saved by grace because God causes our faith.

Although it is our responsibility to choose to believe/place faith in Christ for salvation and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18) saving belief/faith in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us (John 6:44) and enables us (John 6:65) we would NEVER come to believe/place faith in Christ for salvation all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to choose Christ, we must choose Him. The impulse to faith in Christ comes from God.

Two extremes that are out of balance: 1. We conjure up faith in Christ all by ourselves. 2. God fatalistically determines who He will choose to zap with saving faith in Christ and we have absolutely no choice in the matter.