Faith and TRUE Faith... What's the Difference?

[itsjustdave1988]

Singinbeauty,

You might also consider studying the word “receive” and “believe” as it is used in Scripture.

John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

John 3:36 o pisteuwn eiV ton uion ecei zwhn aiwnion o de apeiqwn tw uiw ouk oyetai zwhn all h orgh tou qeou menei ep auton

apeiqwn (“apeitheo”) means “not believing” but also means “disobey”

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, et. al, (abridged edition):

***apeitheo. ***This word means “to be disobedient” and is a significant term in the LXX for disobedience to God. In the NT it is used of the wilderness generation in Heb 3:18, that of the flood in 1 Pet. 3:20, all sinners in Rom. 2:8, and Gentiles in Heb 11:13; Rom. 11:30. “To believe” is the opposite in Acts 14:1-2, and unbelief is parallel.

So you can see that “to believe” so as to attain eternal life includes obedience.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Singinbeauty:

Ahhhhhhhh… I see where you are coming from now. Sorry for the confusion… My reasoning behind my though process is this… God IS Love. To have faith in Him void of Love is almost like you have a faith that is void of Him. You cannot have it both ways. Maybe this is why Jesus said that there will be those who cast out demons in His name but He will claim to never know them.

Thanks for explaining that. In light of the scripture that specifically states that we CAN have ALL faith yet NOT love, on what scripture do you base your idea?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Singinbeauty]

It doesn’t have any Greek work that translates “kind” of faith. Just faith.

Young’s Literal Translation states:

“What [is] the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?”

It also says, in Young’s Literal Translation, “…is THAT faith able to save him?” Specifying that there are different types of faith. It doesn’t say, in the translation you provided, “…does faith save him?” it says “is THAT faith able to save him?”

In light of the scripture that specifically states that we CAN have ALL faith yet NOT love, on what scripture do you base your idea?

I thought catholics believed that not everything is, what’s that phrase again, Sola Scriptura (or whatever it is)?
Anyways… I never said that faith is faith. I said that there are different TYPES of faith. And the saving Faith is the Faith that encompasses ALL of the ingredients. Including LOVE. Consider…

Galations 5:22-23 (*King James Version) *Does this appease you? I don’t want to make you uncomfortable by using a version you freak out about so I used the KJV. I hope you aren’t offended…
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

I really shrink away from the word ‘religion’ because of the negative conotations attached to it. So I refer to my ‘religion’ as my Faith. So my TRUE Faith (or my religion I still cringe at this word) is described by Galations 5:22-23. Maybe this is where we are getting caught up. I really didn’t know this would make someone so crabby. What were you trying to prove by proving me wrong, as you saw it in your world ? That you can have faith without love? Why would you choose to focus on that?

As shown in Galations the fruit of the Spirit contains both faith and love. If it is from God (the Spirit) then you can’t have faith without love because both of those are included as being fruits of It.

 

[djrakowski]

Singinbeauty:

I really shrink away from the word ‘religion’ because of the negative conotations attached to it.

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit-inspired writers of Scripture don’t share your distate of the word religion (see 1 Tim. 5:4, James 1:27). You’re allowing the evangelical subculture to apply negative meanings to words that are really quite positive (and Scriptural). I’ve heard it a million times from the pulpit of my former Baptist church - “we don’t have religion, we have a relationship.” Ugh, I cringe every time I hear someone say that!

 

[E.E.N.S]

Singinbeauty:

It also says, in Young’s Literal Translation, “…is THAT faith able to save him?” Specifying that there are different types of faith. It doesn’t say, in the translation you provided, “…does faith save him?” it says “is THAT faith able to save him?”

I thought catholics believed that not everything is, what’s that phrase again, Sola Scriptura (or whatever it is)?
Anyways… I never said that faith is faith. I said that there are different TYPES of faith. And the saving Faith is the Faith that encompasses ALL of the ingredients. Including LOVE. Consider…

I really shrink away from the word ‘religion’ because of the negative conotations attached to it. So I refer to my ‘religion’ as my Faith. So my TRUE Faith (or my religion I still cringe at this word) is described by Galations 5:22-23. Maybe this is where we are getting caught up. I really didn’t know this would make someone so crabby. What were you trying to prove by proving me wrong, as you saw it in your world ? That you can have faith without love? Why would you choose to focus on that?

As shown in Galations the fruit of the Spirit contains both faith and love. If it is from God (the Spirit) then you can’t have faith without love because both of those are included as being fruits of It.

It doesn’t matter what type of faith it is; it says faith without works is dead, and that we are saved by works and not by faith alone.

(I do understand what you are trying to get at, but you are at the same time mixing different ingredients and calling it “one” ingredient.)

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Singinbeauty:

It also says, in Young’s Literal Translation, “…is THAT faith able to save him?” Specifying that there are different types of faith. It doesn’t say, in the translation you provided, “…does faith save him?” it says “is THAT faith able to save him?”

I thought catholics believed that not everything is, what’s that phrase again, Sola Scriptura (or whatever it is)?
Anyways… I never said that faith is faith. I said that there are different TYPES of faith. And the saving Faith is the Faith that encompasses ALL of the ingredients. Including LOVE. Consider…

I really shrink away from the word ‘religion’ because of the negative conotations attached to it. So I refer to my ‘religion’ as my Faith. So my TRUE Faith (or my religion I still cringe at this word) is described by Galations 5:22-23. Maybe this is where we are getting caught up. I really didn’t know this would make someone so crabby. What were you trying to prove by proving me wrong, as you saw it in your world ? That you can have faith without love? Why would you choose to focus on that?

As shown in Galations the fruit of the Spirit contains both faith and love. If it is from God (the Spirit) then you can’t have faith without love because both of those are included as being fruits of It.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Singinbeauty:

It also says, in Young’s Literal Translation, “…is THAT faith able to save him?” Specifying that there are different types of faith. It doesn’t say, in the translation you provided, “…does faith save him?” it says “is THAT faith able to save him?”

The only “types” of faith specificed in God’s word are living and dead faith. Anything else is adding to the word of God.

I thought catholics believed that not everything is, what’s that phrase again, Sola Scriptura (or whatever it is)?

Yes, we do, but you don’t which is why you’re obligated to provide scripture for everything you claim.

I really didn’t know this would make someone so crabby.

How funny that you would say this as I always put a “” at the end of every post as an indication of my goodwill. I guess tone can easily be misread when you can’t hear someone’s voice.

What were you trying to prove by proving me wrong, as you saw it in your world ? That you can have faith without love? Why would you choose to focus on that?

I wasn’t trying to prove you wrong, simply pointing out that something claimed was contrary to the clear words in scripture.

As shown in Galations the fruit of the Spirit contains both faith and love. If it is from God (the Spirit) then you can’t have faith without love because both of those are included as being fruits of It

If one cannot have one fruit without having them all then EVERYONE with faith, without exception, would ALSO be joyful and peaceful and gentle and patient and kind and generous and have fabulous self-control. In short, they’d be sinless. Common experience seems to suggest this isn’t necessarily the case. “Fruits” being “fruits” necessarily grow. These aren’t all and instantaeously ours when we have faith. We may display them and we may not and we may have some more than others. But to suggest that we’ll all have them all simply because we have the holy spirit is contrary to scripture and human experience.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

djrakowski:

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit-inspired writers of Scripture don’t share your distate of the word religion (see 1 Tim. 5:4, James 1:27). You’re allowing the evangelical subculture to apply negative meanings to words that are really quite positive (and Scriptural). I’ve heard it a million times from the pulpit of my former Baptist church - “we don’t have religion, we have a relationship.” Ugh, I cringe every time I hear someone say that!

What’s the point of re-defining words? As someone pointed out certain groups re-defining words (and then presupposing that everyone goes by their re-definition) makes dialogue very difficult sometimes, if not impossible.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Singinbeauty]

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

It says the FRUIT (not fruitS) of the Spirit IS (not are as it would be if it were plural) love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance…

It doesn’t even suggest in that list that there is an AND or an OR. All of those together is the FRUIT of the Holy Spirit abiding in you. It doesn’t say you have one or the other but I will admit it doesn’t say that you have it all at once. BUT if it is the Holy Spirit living within you, you WILL have all of them.

 

[djrakowski]

Catholic4aReasn:

What’s the point of re-defining words? As someone pointed out certain groups re-defining words (and then presupposing that everyone goes by their re-definition) makes dialogue very difficult sometimes, if not impossible.

Not that you don’t know already, but pparently, some non-Catholics feel the need to re-define terminology to fit their theologies, all the while refusing to allow Catholics to use them as they always have. They work hard toward redefining the argument to establish the upper hand.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Singinbeauty:

It doesn’t even suggest in that list that there is an AND or an OR. All of those together is the FRUIT of the Holy Spirit abiding in you. It doesn’t say you have one or the other but I will admit it doesn’t say that you have it all at once. BUT if it is the Holy Spirit living within you, you WILL have all of them.

Spiritual fruit are like muscles. They must be excercised in order to grow. If they aren’t excercised they will wither. To suggest that everyone filled with the holy Spirit WILL be joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, generous, faithful, gentle and self-controlled is being a bit naive. Experience proves otherwise.

For example, you are, presumabley, filled with the holy Spirit which, according to your argument, means you WILL be patient, kind and self-controlled. However, your sarcastic remarks to me in past posts shows that, in that circumstance, you were NOT patient, kind, or self-controlled. That doesn’t mean that you weren’t joyful, peaceful, generous or faithful. One can display some fruits without displaying them all.

The fruits are what are available to us through the holy Spirit, not necessarily things we will automatically be.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

djrakowski:

Not that you don’t know already, but pparently, some non-Catholics feel the need to re-define terminology to fit their theologies, all the while refusing to allow Catholics to use them as they always have. They work hard toward redefining the argument to establish the upper hand.

Terms are re-defined and then, over time, those who have become accustomed to using that re-definition come to the erroneous conclusion that the re-definition is the origianl definition and that the original definition is the re-definition. I think it’s one of Satan’s tricks to keep Christians separated.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Bishopite]

I often speak of TRUE Faith in many of my posts because I believe that there is FAITH then there is TRUE FAITH.

You can have Faith that God exists, as the pharisees did, but TRUE FAITH means that you have to swallow EVERYTHING that God commands. That Jesus is God and died for our sins, which the pharisees did not believe, this is what I mean by TRUE Faith. There is no such thing as cafateria faith. You can’t just pick and choose what you are going to have faith in and what you aren’t. As evident when Jesus let those disciples walk away when they could not accept what He was teaching.

What do you think?

What you have termed “TRUE FAITH” is known more formally in Catholic theology as fide formata (latin for formed faith).

Unformed faith (like that of the Pharisees) is known as fide informis (faith unformed by charity) i.e, James 2:19 “you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.”**

**The demons believe but don’t have obedience nor charity (love) and therefore don’t have “true faith” in God. **

You mentioned that “you have to SWALLOW everything God commands” and this is true also. Obedience is what God asks for i.e. Luke 9:23 "Then he [Jesus] said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

What truth God has revealed to a person they must follow or they aren’t showing true love for God (fide formata).

**The Pharisees had unformed charity in that they expected and obligated God to save them simply because of what they did and who they were, not because of what they couldn’t do and how they needed Him. They essentially put their hands out and told God He owed them for what they did; but God doesn’t owe anyone anything! And their uncharitable faith (fide informis) couldn’t save them and can’t save us; God knows the hearts of men. **

Jesus addresses the kind of heart we have to have, the kind of charity we have to have in Luke 18:9-14:

**“Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. *I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ *But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, *‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ *I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” **

A great article to read about what is and isn’t true faith or formed and unformed faith was written by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers @ cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

pax christi

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Bishopite:

I often speak of TRUE Faith in many of my posts because I believe that there is FAITH then there is TRUE FAITH.

You can have Faith that God exists, as the pharisees did, but TRUE FAITH means that you have to swallow EVERYTHING that God commands. That Jesus is God and died for our sins, which the pharisees did not believe, this is what I mean by TRUE Faith. There is no such thing as cafateria faith. You can’t just pick and choose what you are going to have faith in and what you aren’t. As evident when Jesus let those disciples walk away when they could not accept what He was teaching.

What do you think?

EXCELLENT article!! That seems to put to rest the discussion between singinbeauty and me! Roger that singinbeauty???

In Christ,
Nancy

What you have termed “TRUE FAITH” is known more formally in Catholic theology as fide formata (latin for formed faith).

Unformed faith (like that of the Pharisees) is known as fide informis** (faith unformed by charity) i.e, James 2:19 “you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.”

**The demons believe but don’t have obedience nor charity (love) and therefore don’t have “true faith” in God. **

You mentioned that “you have to SWALLOW everything God commands” and this is true also. Obedience is what God asks for i.e. Luke 9:23 "Then he [Jesus] said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

What truth God has revealed to a person they must follow or they aren’t showing true love for God (fide formata).

**The Pharisees had unformed charity in that they expected and obligated God to save them simply because of what they did and who they were, not because of what they couldn’t do and how they needed Him. They essentially put their hands out and told God He owed them for what they did; but God doesn’t owe anyone anything! And their uncharitable faith (fide informis) couldn’t save them and can’t save us; God knows the hearts of men. **

Jesus addresses the kind of heart we have to have, the kind of charity we have to have in Luke 18:9-14:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. *I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ *But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, *‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ *I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

A great article to read about what is and isn’t true faith or formed and unformed faith was written by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers @ cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

pax christi

 

[Malachi4U]

Matt16_18:

True faith is believing everything the Catholic Church infallibly teaches regarding faith and morals. Anything that is less than this is a faith that is defective.

I’ll drink to that!