Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

I randomly sampled three new testament verses to better understand repent.
All three were translated from the Greek metanoeo
3340 metanoéō (from 3326 /metá, "changed after being with" and 3539 /noiéō, "think") – properly, "think differently after," "after a change of mind"; to repent (literally, "think differently afterwards").
Change after being with think.
It's a think change,a rethink.
To be confronted by something that causes you go from not believing to believing
Believing that I was crucified with Christ,buried with him and resurrected with him and that I am dead to sin should cause me to think differently afterwards.

That's the foundation,anything I do after that point is building on the foundation with wood hay bricks or gold.
The foundation is safe no matter what I build whether shakable or unshakable,Jesus the foundation remains.
1 Corinthians 3:12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.
15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

And what of faith? Isn't it also changing what we think? One day we don't know Christ died for or sins, the next day we do. So we change our minds.

If faith is changing how we think, then how is it different from repentance? If it is not different, then is it the same?

 

[Spockrates]

ThisCrossHurts:

I don't want to put you on the spot. So let me try to answer my own question, and please tell me if I'm not speaking the truth.

Repentance is believing in something, and so too is faith. The difference between the two is the object or target or focus of such belief. Faith has God and Christ and the gospel as its object. Repentance has sinful desire and behavior as its object. It either changes its mind that a desire and behavior is wrong, or changes its mind that the desire snd behavior is worth feeling and doing.

Are you thinking this idea might be true?

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

And what of faith? Isn't it also changing what we think? One day we don't know Christ died for or sins, the next day we do. So we change our minds.

If faith is changing how we think, then how is it different from repentance? If it is not different, then is it the same?

Not at all,many things that can be seen can change the way you think without any faith being involved.
Faith does not change the way I think it only provides evidence for things not seen.

Lets use scripture to define faith
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Through faith I am confronted with evidence,if there is overwhelming evidence then there is no faith,only fact.
If the is little evidence then it is fantasy..
It does not take much faith to get up and walk across the room and flip a light switch unless no one has paid the bill for a year.
Just also said we can have little faith or great faith.

Repentance is believing in something, and so too is faith.

You seem to be using some kind of religious concept here that I just don't get.
Can we stick to defining words as close to the original meaning as possible.

Repentance would be to change the way I think.
Faith provides the unseen option.
Belief steps through the door.

The order that it happens is not important because out of time effect can precede cause.
Thats how we were raised with Christ 2000 years ago.

Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment?

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

And what of faith? Isn't it also changing what we think? One day we don't know Christ died for or sins, the next day we do. So we change our minds.

If faith is changing how we think, then how is it different from repentance? If it is not different, then is it the same?

our new member aenon, who i think will probably read this thread, might enjoy my response to you.

the eastern orthodox call the process of salvation "theosis". they do not separate faith, repentance, sanctification, or justification. they say that the one process is a whole and is not divisible into separate units. faith-repentance-sanctification-justification = its all one things working together all at once to bring us to salvation.

 

[Spockrates]

Not at all,many things that can be seen can change the way you think without any faith being involved.
Faith does not change the way I think it only provides evidence for things not seen.

Lets use scripture to define faith
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Through faith I am confronted with evidence,if there is overwhelming evidence then there is no faith,only fact.
If the is little evidence then it is fantasy..
It does not take much faith to get up and walk across the room and flip a light switch unless no one has paid the bill for a year.
Just also said we can have little faith or great faith.

Sounds logical to me.

You seem to be using some kind of religious concept here that I just don't get.
Can we stick to defining words as close to the original meaning as possible.

I apologize. I was actually using what I believed your concept to be when you said this:

It's a think change,a rethink.
To be confronted by something that causes you go from not believing to believing
Believing that I was crucified with Christ,buried with him and resurrected with him and that I am dead to sin should cause me to think differently afterwards.​

I misinterpreted your words to mean repentance is--like faith--belief.

Repentance would be to change the way I think.
Faith provides the unseen option.
Belief steps through the door.

I see belief as a broad category, with faith being a subcategory of it. I can believe something is true, but this is not necessarily faith. When I trust in what I believe is true, that is faith. So faith seems to me to be simply trust.

The order that it happens is not important because out of time effect can precede cause.
Thats how we were raised with Christ 2000 years ago.

Then it seems to me we agree both faith and repentance are required to be saved in the sense of the intended meaning of the word saved in Ephesians 2. True?

Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment?

No.

 

[Spockrates]

our new member aenon, who i think will probably read this thread, might enjoy my response to you.

the eastern orthodox call the process of salvation "theosis". they do not separate faith, repentance, sanctification, or justification. they say that the one process is a whole and is not divisible into separate units. faith-repentance-sanctification-justification = its all one things working together all at once to bring us to salvation.

Yes. So it seems he believes:

Sanctification = salvation

Don't you think?

But even if we disagree and say salvation is an event rather than s process, do you think it still true that faith and repentance are both required to be saved?

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Yes. So it seems he believes:

Sanctification = salvation

Don't you think?

But even if we disagree and say salvation is an event rather than s process, do you think it still true that faith and repentance are both required to be saved?

i would go so far as to say that saving faith is repentance, and repentance is saving faith.

i do not think we can really separate the two. i think in order to look upon Jesus in truth we have to first look away from sinfulness. right?

though the waters are a little bit muddled here i suppose.

the traditional idea has the sequence going like this?

repentance -> faith -> sanctification -> salvation

but in reality i think we often times have faith first, and then a mixture of repentance and sanctification afterwards

 

[Aenon]

I have to smirk at some of the comments here because it shows the hyper-rationalization of the west. Trying to come up with some neat mathmatical formula on how "mystery" must function is very foreign to the eastern world.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Then it seems to me we agree both faith and repentance are required to be saved in the sense of the intended meaning of the word saved in Ephesians 2. True?

How was Saul/Paul saved then,did he need faith to believe?
No ,he believed because he saw.
Because of the grace of God we can see what he saw through the faith given to us by God.
Once confronted with this new information we can chose to accept that foundation which has already been laid.
That is a one time deal.To believe on the one whom God sent.

Our works then is what we build on that foundation.
Christ is the foundation,not my faith,beliefs,repentance or works.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

1 Corinthians 3:12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.
15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

.Please note verse 15, saved does not mean much if it is dependent on works.
I was saved by Jesus 2000 years ago.Grace has offered me the faith to see that.
With seeing I am confronted with a decision to accept or reject what has already been done.

You should check out the double slit experiment on you tube.
I originally mentioned it in connection with another subject
but I believe you will be fascinated.

 

[Spockrates]

i would go so far as to say that saving faith is repentance, and repentance is saving faith.

Neither would I. Though I've met some Christians who have made the attempt to defend that premise, I've found their arguments unconvincing.

i do not think we can really separate the two. i think in order to look upon Jesus in truth we have to first look away from sinfulness. right?

Sounds logical to me.

though the waters are a little bit muddled here i suppose.

I'd say they are clear, or at least as clear as mud!

the traditional idea has the sequence going like this?

repentance -> faith -> sanctification -> salvation

I suppose it depends on the tradition. I've met many an Evangelical and Fundamentalist who sees the sequence as this:

Grace + faith = salvation = heaven with no reward

Salvation -> repentance -> sanctification

Sanctification = reward in heaven

but in reality i think we often times have faith first, and then a mixture of repentance and sanctification afterwards

I guess that depends on what we believe the word repentance means. If we say it means changing our minds about who Jesus is and what he has done, then it seems a mixture of repentance and faith is necessary to receive salvation. If we say it means to change our minds about sinful behavior, then it might be possible to have faith in who Jesus is and what he has done without repenting.

Then again, I'm not so sure that would be a faith that is enough for one to receive salvation. For I think one must change her mind about her need to be forgiven before she may be forgiven, and that would entail changing her mind about the sinfulness of her behavior, which is what repentance is in the second sense of the word! So no matter what way we define it, I don't see how repentance is not required to be saved. Do you?

 

[Spockrates]

I have to smirk at some of the comments here because it shows the hyper-rationalization of the west. Trying to come up with some neat mathmatical formula on how "mystery" must function is very foreign to the eastern world.

Aenon:

Fascinating! I see the east as including Greece, which is the birthplace of Socrates the father of philosophy, and also the birthplace of logic. Logic makes use of algebra, so it depends on mathematics.

But I think that rather than a mathmatical formula, Taylor is drawing a symbolic picture. It's art rather than science--similar to the way people use incorrect spelling and grammar when texting. It's a creative way to more quickly--albeit less carefully--say what one wants to say.

 

[Aenon]

Aenon:

Fascinating! I see the east as including Greece, which is the birthplace of Socrates the father of philosophy, and also the birthplace of logic. Logic makes use of algebra, so it depends on mathematics.

But I think that rather than a mathmatical formula, Taylor is drawing a symbolic picture. It's art rather than science--similar to the way people use incorrect spelling and grammar when texting. It's a creative way to more quickly--albeit less carefully--say what one wants to say.

Having giftings in the arts myself, I must say this is more of a single linear line than a painting:

Grace + faith = salvation = heaven with no reward

Salvation -> repentance -> sanctification

Sanctification = reward in heaven

 

[Spockrates]

Having giftings in the arts myself, I must say this is more of a single linear line than a painting:

OICU <3 2H8! BWWJS?

 

[Spockrates]

BA4M NBD LYLAB! NHF?

 

[Spockrates]

Aenon: Get my meaning?

 

[Spockrates]

KWIM?

 

[Spockrates]

WTM C@GYT?

 

[Spockrates]

IH8WTH!

 

[Aenon]

Don't really know how I'm supposed to respond to that.

 

[Spockrates]

Don't really know how I'm supposed to respond to that.

How were those picking a fight with Christ supposed to respond when he replied with a parable?