Faith is not to be accompanied by anything at conversion?

[Marta]

I did not intend "Sight and hearing come to the blind and deaf through those who see and hear." to be taken as an inevitable outcome (though on re-reading, I see that it can easily be so interpreted.)

What I had in mind was τουτο εστιν το εργον του θεου ινα πιστευσητε εις ον απεστειλεν εκεινος "this is the work of God so that you may・can have believed on the one that he sent"

As you have pointed out, no action will be of any effect when people block their ears and shut their eyes.

How Jesus Helped His Disciples Increase Their Faith believe and have faith in Jesus, but I also experience times of doubt that seem to overwhelm me.
Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow....#ixzz4YDQevUfi

[hansgeorg]

Did Jesus misspeak when he said that the centurion, who had merely expressed a belief, had more "pistis" than the people of Israel?

He did not just believe, he believed Christ ought to be obeyed as his men obeyed him ... whether it be the ailing body of his servant or the will of a man created in His image.

Also, we don't know (as far I haven't checked with Patristic comments) that his faith was then and there salvific for his soul.

We can conclude from the remark that Israelites as a people were then and there infidels.

[hansgeorg]

One is not born again through water baptism. One is born again through faith in Christ (1 John 5:1).

You might want to check that one out with John 3 "who is not born again of water and spirit" ....

[hansgeorg]

What notable faithfulness did he demonstrate that was greater than the people of Israel?

They were looking for excuses not to keep the law of God.

[Obsidian]

He did not just believe, he believed Christ ought to be obeyed as his men obeyed him ... whether it be the ailing body of his servant or the will of a man created in His image.

Okay. So do you agree with me that if someone believes that Christ is someone who "ought to be obeyed," then that person will be saved and go to heaven?

[tabibito]

Where is it that the disobedient wind up, again?

Oh yes ... Rev 22:14-15

But what does "ought" mean? - δει - it is necessary・obligatory Matt 23:23, Mark 13:14, Luke 11:42, 12:12, 13:14 + 16, 18:1, John 4:20 and so on. Of course, "ought" also means τις "something", so of course, some people (those who don't like the idea that one word can mean two or more things depending on context) will be free to continue ignoring the facts.

[Obsidian]

I'm not gonna waste time on you, tabibito, because you stopped addressing my points.

[Marta]

Where is it that the disobedient wind up, again?

Oh yes ... Rev 22:14-15

But what does "ought" mean? - δει - it is necessary・obligatory Matt 23:23, Mark 13:14, Luke 11:42, 12:12, 13:14 + 16, 18:1, John 4:20 and so on. Of course, "ought" also means τις "something", so of course, some people (those who don't like the idea that one word can mean two or more things depending on context) will be free to continue ignoring the facts.

There was an argument that was posted a while back about that if you broke "one" precept of the law you broke them all?

James 2:10, 10 Whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

For while the Jews taught that 'he who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt; and so has he done who has only broken one precept;' they also taught, 'that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law

Halakhic Interpretation from a
Constitutional Perspective

Jews who happen to be atheists, because they deny the total existence of God, need not approach halakhah as in any respect God-given or rooted in God-given foundations. They may chose to regard some halakhic elements as folkways or they may regard all halakhic elements as obsolute or irrelevant. However, even for believers there have been radical transformations. For example, the Reform movement was founded on a reemphasis in the belief in God as One who manifested Himself in this world in modern liberal, progressive, and up-to-date ways. Thus the Reform movement could emphasize the belief in God along with the abolition of the binding character of halakhah. This allowed them to pick and choose among halakhic requirements, now no longer required, on the basis of what they perceived to be progress in the world and changes in modern sensibilities.

By the same token, the Conservative movement has tried to have its cake and eat it too. On one hand it has proclaimed itself irrevocably faithful to halakhah. On the other hand, it feels very pressured by the transformations of modernity and postmodernity and the sensibilities that they have evoked. Their resolution of this conflict has normally involved halakhic decision-making that reaches the same conclusions as modern contemporary sensibilities and on finding the halakhic grounds to do so. Exactly how this should be done and to what extent, has been a matter of continuing debate within the ranks of the Conservative leadership.

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/63-16.htm

[Marta]

I did not intend "Sight and hearing come to the blind and deaf through those who see and hear." to be taken as an inevitable outcome (though on re-reading, I see that it can easily be so interpreted.)

What I had in mind was τουτο εστιν το εργον του θεου ινα πιστευσητε εις ον απεστειλεν εκεινος "this is the work of God so that you may・can have believed on the one that he sent"

As you have pointed out, no action will be of any effect when people block their ears and shut their eyes.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...s-breaking-all