Working out our Salvation

[forsha]

Agreed. . ."carnal" is used both of the regenerate man's weaker fallen nature,
as well as of the unregenerate man.

However, my issue is the bolded in my first post above:

justification/salvation through the gift of our faith (Ro 3:25) given at rebirth.

In regards to Romans 3:25, This sounds a little like Tribsman's interpretation of justification not happening at the cross, but when we are regenerated. One of the works of Jesus while on the cross was to redeem those that God gave him. Romans verse 24, Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We were justified on the cross because that is where redemption took place. As you have stated that our faith came with regeneration and then we realized that our atonement came by the sheading of his blood on the cross. Just because, as a carnal man, we were ignorant of what happened on the cross, does not negate the fact that it did indeed happen on the cross.

 

[Elin]

In regards to Romans 3:25, This sounds a little like Tribsman's interpretation of justification not happening at the cross, but when we are regenerated. One of the works of Jesus while on the cross was to redeem those that God gave him. Romans verse 24, Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We were justified on the cross because that is where redemption took place. As you have stated that our faith came with regeneration and then
we realized that our atonement came by the sheading of his blood on the cross. Just because, as a carnal man, we were ignorant of what happened on the cross, does not negate the fact that it did indeed happen on the cross.

You did not address the text of Ro 3:25, which states that
Christ is our sacrifice of propitiation through faith in Christ.

The text says nothing about "realization."

The blood of propitiation is applied through faith in Christ,
and that application through faith in Christ is justification.

 

[forsha]

You did not address the text of Ro 3:25, which states that
Christ is our sacrifice of propitiation through faith in Christ.

The text says nothing about "realization."

The blood of propitiation is applied through faith in Christ,
and that application through faith in Christ is justification.

I'm sorry, Elin, did not intend to leave you hanging. The way that I understand Romans 3:25, there being no comma between the word God and faith would make me to believe the "faith" in this verse is God's faith in his Sons blood and the atonement that took place on the cross. I am afraid that if you try to make this faith of man you will have too many contradicting scriptures. Sorry I delayed in my response to that verse.

 

[Elin]

I'm sorry, Elin, did not intend to leave you hanging. The way that I understand Romans 3:25, there being no comma between the word God and faith would make me to believe
the "faith" in this verse is God's faith in his Sons blood and the atonement that took place on the cross. I am afraid that
if you try to make this faith of man you will have too many contradicting scriptures. Sorry I delayed in my response to that verse.

So we are saved by the faith of God the Father himself. . .and by the faith of God the Son?

What can God not do himself for which he must rely on faith, in himself?

The absurdity of this doctrine speaks for itself.

There are no contradicting Scriptures in the Greek text used by the KJV,
the contradictions are only in the KJV translations of the Greek, which
sets Ro 3:25 against their own contradictory translations.

I think I'm done here.

 

[forsha]

So we are saved by the faith of God the Father himself. . .and by the faith of God the Son?

What can God not do himself for which he must rely on faith, in himself?

The absurdity of this doctrine speaks for itself.

There are no contradicting Scriptures in the Greek text used by the KJV,
the contradictions are only in the KJV translations of the Greek, which
sets Ro 3:25 against their own contradictory translations.

I think I'm done here.

I am sorry to hear this. I have been dropped by other people on this forum, just because they have no explanation of the scriptures that I give them that contradict their belief. I do enjoy discussing the scriptures and more so with you, because you seem to have a level head with your discussion.

 

[Elin]

So we are saved by the faith of God the Father himself. . .and by the faith of God the Son?

What can God not do himself for which he must rely on faith, in himself?

The absurdity of this doctrine speaks for itself.

There are no contradicting Scriptures in the Greek text used by the KJV,
the contradictions are only in the KJV translations of the Greek, which
sets Ro 3:25 against their own contradictory translations.

I think I'm done here.

I am sorry to hear this. I have been dropped by other people on this forum, just because they have no explanation of the scriptures that I give them that contradict their belief. I do enjoy discussing the scriptures and more so with you, because you seem to have a level head with your discussion.

Yeah, I enjoyed many of your posts also.

But I'm sure our disagreement would lie in the KJV translation of the Greek where the translators add the words the and of to various texts, by which you arrive at this doctrine, but which causes these texts to contradict Biblical doctrine.

So I don't think our differences can be resolved on that basis.

 

[tribesman]

Tribesman, I know that it will come as no surprise to you, but I still hold to the fact that Jesus sanctified us his elect while on the cross. Romans 5:9, Much more then, being now justified by his blood...... I do, however, acknowledge that a born again person becomes aware of it when he is converted.

I would say it is taken up in him at conversion, while it was yet certainly on his account prior to same.

 

[tribesman]

*bump*

Well, it seems you and I are in 101% agreement in your comments.

However, that is the issue I am dealing with here. . .not that faith is the result of obedience,
but the assertion that faith is a gift because it is the fruit of salvation, and not the means of salvation,
that we are saved by "the faith of Christ" (Gal 2:16), and not by our "faith in Christ" (Ro 3:25).

Fruit is sometimes spoken of as an instrument through which we receive salvation. It is not a means in itself. I would concur with that. It is also a fruit of having been saved. I am not on the side of the eternal justification advocates like Gill on this one. I am also not on the side of those who says that our faith is saving in and by itself (that would at least be a form of conditionalism or worse).

And the problem I am having with "faith," rather than "faithfulness," as a fruit, is that we can choose not to operate in the fruits but to operate in the flesh, but can those who have been given the gift of faith choose not to believe?

Well, this is your view. I can't (at least not yet) see this view being very compatible with a consequential monergistic view. As I already said, it is by necessity so that a good tree bear good fruit, the growth process can only be halted for a time, and if there be branches who are bad, they will be cut off. So just as a sheep can't choose not to be believe, other than maybe for a time, he can't also choose to not bear fruit, other than for a time. We can't scotch nature.

Does the fruit of "faith" operate like the other fruits, or is the fruit of "faithfulness" meant in Gal 5:22-23?

Fruit "operates" by way of its connection to the root system and being properly cared for. I am not familiar with the notion in "calvinistic" circles that fruit is something that is conditional on our own obedience and well doing. Although I heard of it during my charismatic days from non-reformed teachers.

Well. . .do tares every become wheat, or do goats ever become sheep? Not in the natural order (which is patterned on the spiritual order), and not in the spiritual order. So what good would it do to target tares and goats? I think Paul's letters are addressed to the elect.

Of course tares does not become wheat or goat becomes sheep. Maybe it could be discussed who is really targeted in the epistles, however I am far from a view such of for example the anabaptists who believed in "wholly holy churches" even with the most rigorous church discipline. How the crowd is mixed may be illustrated hereby: The tares and the wheat grow together (Matt.13:24-30). The branches which bear not good fruit will be taken away (John 15:1-2). There are ungodly men who have "crept in unaware" among the churches of God (Jude v.4-5).

 

[SeaBass]

and man therefore must work out/obey what God's word says to be saved.

Ro 8:4-9
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
KJV

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit (who comes with Salvation) it is impossible to obey.

If that is true, then all the people that are disobedient are that way because of the Holy Spirit's failure to "indwell" in them. Yet since the Holy Spirit has no moral culpability in man's disobedience then man does have the ability within himself without any miraculous 'indweling' of the Holy Spirit to obey God.

2 Thess 3:14 "And "if" any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."

Does that conditional word "if" mean it is man's personal responsibility/culpability to obey or not or is the Holy Spirit's responsibility/culpability if any man obeys or not?

 

[michael56]

[SUP] [/SUP]For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh(ourselves)

Phil3:3

 

[Elin]

*bump*
Fruit is sometimes spoken of as an instrument through which we receive salvation.

What other fruit did you have in mind as an instrument?

It is not a means in itself. I would concur with that.

"You have been saved through faith by grace." (Eph 2:8-9)

Faith is stated as a means here.

It is also a fruit of having been saved. I am not on the side of the eternal justification advocates like Gill on this one. I am also not on the side of those who says that our faith is saving in and by itself (that would at least be a form of conditionalism or worse).

And the problem I am having with "faith" (rather than "faithfulness") as a fruit, is that we can choose not to operate in the fruits and to operate in the flesh, but can those who have been given the gift of faith choose not to believe?

Well, this is your view.

Actually, it is the burden of the passage Gal 5:16-25:"the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit. They are in conflict with each other. . .Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh. . .Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."
Paul urges them not to walk in the flesh as the unregenerate. . .but to walk in the Spirit.

I can't (at least not yet) see this view being very compatible with a consequential monergistic view. As I already said, it is by necessity so that a good tree bear good fruit, the growth process can only be halted for a time, and if there be branches who are bad, they will be cut off. So just as
a sheep can't choose not to be believe, other than maybe for a time,

I don't think a sheep can choose not to believe, in the sense of the unregenerate, for a time.
I find no examples in the NT of believers chosing not to believe for a time.
All I find is those who choose not to believe are actually unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19).

he can't also choose to not bear fruit, other than for a time. We can't scotch nature.

Yes, it is only for a time that the regenerate would choose to walk in the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit.
But the regenerate can never choose unbelief, in the sense of the unregenerate.

If one can choose not to walk in the fruits of the Spirit, but cannot choose not to believe, then this fruit of "faith" does not operate as the fruits of the Spirit, which is why I don't think faith is a fruit of the Spirit, but rather is a gift of God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), and the fruit in Gal 5:22 should be translated "faithfulness" rather than "faith."

Does the fruit of "faith" operate like the other fruits, or does Gal 5:22 mean the fruit of "faithfulness" which does operate like the other fruits?

Fruit "operates" by way of its connection to the root system and being properly cared for.
I am not familiar with the notion in "calvinistic" circles
that fruit is something that is conditional on our own obedience and well doing. Although I heard of it during my charismatic days from non-reformed teachers.

My issue is not about obedience, it is about choosing not to operate in the fruit (of the Spirit)
but in the flesh instead,
and choosing not be believe, and to "operate" in unbelief instead.
The NT presents no examples of "operating" in unbelief for a time. It presents only unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19)

Therefore, the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself."

Of course tares does not become wheat or goat becomes sheep.
Maybe it could be discussed who is really targeted in the epistles,

That is what is being discussed.

however I am far from a view such of for example the anabaptists who believed in "wholly holy churches" even with the most rigorous church discipline. How the crowd is mixed may be illustrated hereby: The tares and the wheat grow together (Matt.13:24-30). The branches which bear not good fruit will be taken away (John 15:1-2). There are ungodly men who have "crept in unaware" among the churches of God (Jude v.4-5).

We agree it is a mixed crowd, there are tares and goats among the wheat and the sheep.

But the NT letters are addressed to the wheat and the sheep, the elect.
It would be useless to address them to the tares and the goats, for they never become wheat and sheep.

 

[SeaBass]

For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh(ourselves)

Phil3:3

Paul was speaking about the Jews who were circumcised and put confidence in their fleshy circumcision, that it made them the true fleshly descendant of Abraham making them deserving of God's mercy. But instead, Paul says "we" (Christians) are the ones truly circumcised (Rom 2:29 - spiritual circumcision) that truly worship God is spirit and truth (Jn 4:23,24) and do not put confidence upon fleshly circumcision and being fleshly descendants of Abraham (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6)

 

[tribesman]

What other fruit did you have in mind as an instrument?

That was my typo, I meant "faith", not "fruit".

"You have been saved through faith by grace." (Eph 2:8-9) Faith is stated as a means here.

It is an instrumental means. It is not something which is a condition or prerequisite for our salvation.

Actually, it is the burden of the passage Gal 5:16-25:"the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit. They are in conflict with each other. . .Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh. . .Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit." Paul urges them not to walk in the flesh as the unregenerate. . .but to walk in the Spirit.

We are in agreement that the regenerate can negatively halt the growth process of bearing fruit by their own doing, save for a time only. The Q is how we in the positive can produce more fruit by our own doing or efforts. To walk in the Spirit basically means to remain in what the Spirit has already accomplished in our lives, in which we are always motivated to strive towards all that is good. Although the new man has a change of his will and its nature, we are still quite limited as how to advance in spiritual matters, save God permits it (Heb.6:1-3). Bearing fruit is then nothing that stems from us, or that we can advance in through our own efforts. A good tree brings forth good fruit. It is God who gives the increase. This is illustrated in 1Cor.3:6-7.

I don't think a sheep can choose not to believe, in the sense of the unregenerate, for a time. I find no examples in the NT of believers chosing not to believe for a time. All I find is those who choose not to believe are actually unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19).

Maybe it is becoming overly technical at this point. Perhaps not "in the sense of the unregenerate" (and not in the sense of losing saving faith). But halting the process of bearing good fruit Hos.4.16, Mark.9:24, Luke.22:59-62, 1Tim.1:19.

"They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." — Westminster Confession of Faith 17.1

Yes, it is only for a time that the regenerate would choose to walk in the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit. But the regenerate can never choose unbelief, in the sense of the unregenerate.

If one can choose not to walk in the fruits of the Spirit, but cannot choose not to believe, then this fruit of "faith" does not operate as the fruits of the Spirit, which is why I don't think faith is a fruit of the Spirit, but rather is a gift of God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), and the fruit in Gal 5:22 should be translated "faithfulness" rather than "faith."

My issue is not about obedience, it is about choosing not to operate in the fruit (of the Spirit)
but in the flesh instead, and choosing not be believe, and to "operate" in unbelief instead. The NT presents no examples of "operating" in unbelief for a time. It presents only unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19)

Therefore, the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself."

Yes, I see what you are saying. And I think you understand my "objection". There is really no other way around this than that faith is both a gift (through which we receive salvation) and a fruit of the Spirit. And as such a fruit it is absolutely inevitably certain to be manifested, the growth process can only be hindered for a time. The end result is given, not dependent our efforts.

We agree it is a mixed crowd, there are tares and goats among the wheat and the sheep.But the NT letters are addressed to the wheat and the sheep, the elect. It would be useless to address them to the tares and the goats, for they never become wheat and sheep.

Well...there are words of judgments here and there in the NT clearly addressed to the tares and the goats. Maybe we have gone into an overly technical discussion by now. Nevertheless, it's very interesting.

 

[Elin]

"You have been saved through faith by grace." (Eph 2:8-9)

Faith is stated as a means here.

It is an instrumental means. It is not something which is a condition or prerequisite for our salvation.

All means are instrumental, that's what means are.

So how can means be instrumental if not in existence?
And that makes them prerequisite.

We are in agreement that the regenerate can negatively halt the growth process of bearing fruit by their own doing, save for a time only. The Q is how we in the positive can produce more fruit by our own doing or efforts.

However, the question of this discussion is that fruits, where one can choose to walk in the flesh rather than the spirit, do not operate like the gift of faith, where one cannot choose unbelief; therefore, the fruit of "faith" in Gal 5:22 should be translated the fruit of "faithfulness," because faithfulness operates like a fruit, while "faith" does not.

I don't think a sheep can choose not to believe, in the sense of the unregenerate, for a time. I find no examples in the NT of believers chosing not to believe for a time. All I find is
those who choose not to believe are actually unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19).

Maybe it is becoming overly technical at this point. Perhaps not "in the sense of the unregenerate" (and not in the sense of losing saving faith). But halting the process of bearing good fruit Hos.4.16, Mark.9:24, Luke.22:59-62, 1Tim.1:19.

Are you saying the fruit of "faith" in Gal 5:22 is not referring to saving faith, but some other kind of faith?
How do we know that?
Does "faith" in the NT not always mean saving faith?

Yes, it is only for a time that the regenerate would choose to walk in the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit. But the regenerate can never choose unbelief, in the sense of the unregenerate.

If one can choose not to walk in the fruits of the Spirit, but cannot choose not to believe, then this fruit of "faith" does not operate as the fruits of the Spirit, which is why I don't think faith is a fruit of the Spirit, but rather is a gift of God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), and the fruit in Gal 5:22 should be translated "faithfulness" rather than "faith."

My issue is not about obedience, it is about choosing not to operate in the fruit (of the Spirit)
but in the flesh instead, and choosing not be believe, and to "operate" in unbelief instead. The NT presents no examples of "operating" in unbelief for a time. It presents only unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19)

Therefore, the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself.

Yes, I see what you are saying. And I think you understand my "objection".
There is really no other way around this than that faith is both a gift (through which we receive salvation)
and a fruit of the Spirit.

No. . ."the way around" this self-made dilemma of translation is to use the Greek meaning pistis in Gal 5:22, which is "faithfulness, steadfastness," as well as "faith," and which meaning fits the text better, for "faithfulness" operates like a fruit, and "faith" does not.
Not to mention, many translations use "faithfulness," rather than "faith," and have no such dilemma.

We agree it is a mixed crowd, there are tares and goats among the wheat and the sheep.But the NT letters are addressed to the wheat and the sheep, the elect. It would be useless to address the letters to the tares and the goats, for they never become wheat and sheep.

Well...there are words of judgments here and there in the NT clearly addressed to the tares and the goats.

Good point. . .the words of judgment are for the tares and goats.

The rest of the letter is only for the wheat and sheep.

And it remains: the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself, which meanins is used in many translations.

Our faith is a gift through which we are saved by grace.

We are not saved by the faith of Christ or the faith of God.

 

[BradC]

Why do any of us believe that Jesus Christ existed as a man being born in the flesh? Is their proof of this and is not the proof we have according to the testimony of others which is recorded in scripture, being assimilated from other recorded documents and manuscripts? With that, do we also have proof that Jesus, being born in the flesh, was the incarnation of God in the flesh who dwelt among men who beheld his glory? We were not there to see him in person but we trust and believe in him through the testimony of others who were. That is faith on our part and it is justified and supported by the word of another. Can we trust in the record that we have of the person and work of Jesus Christ or do we look to another for the Savior and the forgiveness and remission of sin?

Our faith is in the words that have been passed down and inspired of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit convicts our heart that these things are true and trustworthy and we can believe upon every word. There are other spiritual books claiming to be inspired but we are led to the scriptures that testify of the living God through Jesus Christ and no other. We become convinced that their is no salvation in any other name under heaven then the name of Jesus Christ. Once we put our faith in Jesus Christ, we learn to trust in his every word and in the work of the cross he bore. The more we learn of him the more we trust him in all things and the more our faith increases in him, his word and in all things that pertain to him. We learn that Christ is our salvation and eternal life and we have been saved by his grace through faith. We have peace through the blood of his cross and have been justified through the atonement found only in his blood. We have access to his grace through faith that we might have fellowship with him through the Spirit and the words of life that come from only him which are spirit and eternal life.

 

[tribesman]

All means are instrumental, that's what means are.

So how can means be instrumental if not in existence?
And that makes them prerequisite.

Dunno exactly what you are trying to say here, it's a bit confusing to me. For sure there are means, however these are not conditional on us. They are laid in our hands by God, as a result of regeneration. God is working in and through them, it is not anything that we work ourselves or co-work with God, we are but passive recipients of undeserved grace and gifts of mercy.

To make things clear I have to ask you then: do you believe that "our faith" is a condition for God to save us? Or that, conditioned upon "our belief", He saves us? If you believe this, then we are surely not "101% in agreement", as you stated before.

A believer's faith is definitely given by God through the Spirit. But it is not the basis of his salvation. Salvation and our right standing before God is not conditioned on faith. The difference between salvation and damnation is not the faith of the sinner. Salvation is solely conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

However, the question of this discussion is that fruits, where one can choose to walk in the flesh rather than the spirit, do not operate like the gift of faith, where one cannot choose unbelief; therefore, the fruit of "faith" in Gal 5:22 should be translated the fruit of "faithfulness," because faithfulness operates like a fruit, while "faith" does not.

Again it is fruit, in singular, and its describing the characteristics of things which are of God's Spirit. As for hindering the growth process of fruit in a believer, I thought we sorted that out. Even the regenerate may halt the growth process but for a time, having a weak and wavering faith inclusive. But that is only for a time, ultimately he will bear fruit. There is no good tree which cannot bear good fruit.

Are you saying the fruit of "faith" in Gal 5:22 is not referring to saving faith, but some other kind of faith? How do we know that? Does "faith" in the NT not always mean saving faith?

If faith always means saving faith (or not) in the NT is actually another discussion, as I see it. Since I don't see the dichotomy you see in Gal.5:22.

No. . ."the way around" this self-made dilemma of translation is to use the Greek meaning pistis in Gal 5:22, which is "faithfulness, steadfastness," as well as "faith," and which meaning fits the text better, for "faithfulness" operates like a fruit, and "faith" does not. Not to mention, many translations use "faithfulness," rather than "faith," and have no such dilemma.

And it remains: the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself, which meanins is used in many translations.

Our faith is a gift through which we are saved by grace.

You are pushing hard that it is wrong to translate pistis as faith in Gal.5.22, which indeed can be translated both ways suggested and a few more synonyms. You see a dilemma where I see none, you see a dichotomy where I see none. And I wonder, because I am still not wholly sure about it, why you see it that way. With a huge dichotomy between faith as a gift and faith as a fruit, I see some problems coming with this, which can be quite severe if not caught up with by making necessary disclaimers. Some of these would be conditionalism or the idea that a regenerate can not bear fruit. Possibly it can be used for ecumenical purposes to "include" those of heretic beliefs. So I am wary about this sort of huge distinction. I know that John Piper has preached a form of conditionalism, that faith is a condition, and he erred while doing so. Unless it is your own personal beliefs, if you like, you may tell me from where, what church or what teacher, you have gotten this teaching from. You can inbox me about that if you don't like to post it here.

We are not saved by the faith of Christ or the faith of God.

Which I have never said. That would be forsha's table and not mine .

 

[Elin]

Dunno exactly what you are trying to say here, it's a bit confusing to me. For sure there are
means, however these are not conditional on us.
They are laid in our hands by God, as a result of regeneration. God is working in and through them, it is not anything that we work ourselves or co-work with God, we are but passive recipients of undeserved grace and gifts of mercy.

Totally agree. . .the gift of regeneration is the origin of it all.

regeneration-->gift of our faith-->justification (cleansed of guilt, declared "not guilty")-->salvation

To make things clear I have to ask you then: do you believe that "our faith" is a condition for God to save us? Or that, conditioned upon "our belief", He saves us? If you believe this, then we are surely not "101% in agreement", as you stated before.

The gift of our faith given at the gift of regeneration is the necessary means to the gift of
justification/righteousness (sin forgiven, delcared "not guilty"--Ro 4:17), which is salvation (Lk 1:77).

A believer's faith is definitely given by God through the Spirit. But it is not the basis of his salvation.
Salvation and our right standing before God
is not conditioned on faith.
The difference between salvation and damnation is not the faith of the sinner.

Jesus said it was (Jn 3:18).

Which is cause and which is effect in shown in Jn 3:18:

". . .whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed
in the name of God's one and only Son."

Salvation is solely conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

First of all, the atoning blood is not conditional, or something to be done.
It is accomplished, completed, finished, done.

Secondly, the blood must be applied in order for justification/righteousness to be imputed/cleansed by forgiveness.

That is the pattern of sin sacrifice given in the OT.
The death of the animal did not cleanse, only its blood cleansed.
Its death ("capital punishment") paid the penalty for guilt.
And its blood had to be applied in order to cleanse.

That is the pattern given by God for Jesus' sacrifice.
His death alone does not cleanse the guilt of sin.
His blood must be applied. . .by faith in order to be cleansed, as it was applied by hyssop in the OT.
You are not following the pattern given by God for sin sacrifice.

Yes, it is only for a time that the regenerate would choose to walk in the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit. But the regenerate can never choose unbelief, in the sense of the unregenerate.

If one can choose not to walk in the fruits of the Spirit, but cannot choose not to believe, then this fruit of "faith" does not operate as the fruits of the Spirit, which is why I don't think faith is a fruit of the Spirit, but rather is a gift of God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), and the fruit in Gal 5:22 should be translated "faithfulness" rather than "faith."

My issue is not about obedience, it is about choosing not to operate in the fruit (of the Spirit)
but in the flesh instead, and choosing not be believe, and to "operate" in unbelief instead.
The NT presents no examples of "operating" in unbelief for a time.
It presents only unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19)

Therefore, the fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself.

There is really no other way around this than that faith is both a gift (through which we receive salvation) and a fruit of the Spirit.

No. . ."the way around" this self-made dilemma of translation is to use the Greek meaning pistis in Gal 5:22, which is "faithfulness, steadfastness," as well as "faith," and which meaning fits the text better, for "faithfulness" operates like a fruit, and "faith" does not.
And it not just my idea, many translations use "faithfulness," rather than "faith," and have no such dilemma.

I thought we sorted that out.

We did above. . ."faith" cannot be a fruit, which is why many translations use "faithfulness"
rather than "faith" in Gal 5:22. . .but you return to it again below.

Even the regenerate may halt the growth process but for a time,
having a weak and wavering faith inclusive.

Weak and wavering is still faith, but no fruit is not fruit.
A believer can choose not to have fruit for a time.
But a believer cannot choose not to believe for a time.
Faith/belief does not operate like a fruit, because it is not a "fruit," it is a gift.

You are pushing hard that it is wrong to translate pistis as faith in Gal.5.22, which indeed can be translated both ways suggested and a few more synonyms. You see a dilemma where I see none, you see a dichotomy where I see none.

Suffice it to say, many translations do not use "faith" in Gal 5:22 for a reason.

And I wonder, because I am still not wholly sure about it,
why you see it that way. With a huge dichotomy between faith as a gift and faith as a fruit,

That was explained in my post:

The fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself,
and "faithfulness" is the meaning used in many translations.

Our faith is a gift through which we are saved by grace.

We are not saved by the faith of Christ or the faith of God.

Which I have never said. That would be forsha's table and not mine .

It was my and forsha's discussion of this point that you entered.

But your theology has the same problem by maintaining that faith follows justification as a fruit,
rather than precedes justification as the necessary means to it.

Faith is not a fruit because it does not operate like a fruit.
The fruit in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," which does operate like a fruit.

Unless it is your own personal beliefs, if you like, you may tell me from where, what church or what teacher, you have gotten this teaching from. You can inbox me about that if you don't like to post it here.

It is my personal belief, as well as that reflected in many translations.

 

[Jeff_56]

since <we | ekklesia | born again set apart ones immersed in yahshua >

> are <already> like little children and see the

kingdom of heaven

without this <direction | thread | >

perhaps this <direction | thread | > isn't ...... ....

....

beneficial......


i.e. perhaps it isn't necessary to (mis-named thread?) "work out our salvation" at all......

> since without it, it is <already > accomplished..... (and more simply, much much more simply)

> OR | are there still some here who do not see the kingdom of heaven ???

 

[Elin]

.
Short Version:

do you believe that "our faith" is a condition for God to save us? Or that, conditioned upon "our belief", He saves us? If you believe this, then we are surely not "101% in agreement"

Your theology maintains that faith follows justification as a fruit,
rather than precedes justification as the necessary means to it.

Faith does not operate like a fruit.
For weak and wavering faith is still faith, whereas no fruit is not still fruit.
A believer can choose not to have fruit for a time.
But a believer cannot choose not to believe for a time.

The NT presents no examples of believers being in unbelief for a time.
It presents only unregenerate apostates (1Jn 2:19)

Faith/belief does not operate like a fruit. . .because it is not a "fruit," it is a gift.

Faith is not the fruit of salvation, it is the necessary means of salvation.

The fruit of "faith" in Gal 5:22 should be the fruit of "faithfulness,"
as it is in many translations, for "faithfulness" operates like a fruit,
while "faith" does not.

 

[tribesman]

Totally agree. . .the gift of regeneration is the origin of it all.

And yet there seem to be a major disagreement.

regeneration-->gift of our faith-->justification (cleansed of guilt, declared "not guilty")-->salvation


The gift of our faith given at the gift of regeneration is the necessary means to the gift of
justification/righteousness (sin forgiven, delcared "not guilty"--Ro 4:17), which is salvation (Lk 1:77).

This is again getting overly technical unless we are now discussing ordo salutis. The question at hand, which it boils down to, is if justification at some part, to some degree, is to be found in the sinner or solely in Christ alone. Let me ask this question in return: is there any possibility that a regenerate soul can not believe, or choose not to believe? Is there some form of preparationism or "prevenient grace" involved, where a soul indeed can experience a calling, but yet turn out to fail to respond to same? If faith is the result of regeneration, then it is impossible for the regenerate not to believe.

Jesus said it was (Jn 3:18).

Which is cause and which is effect in shown in Jn 3:18:

". . .whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed
in the name of God's one and only Son."

There is no word about any condition for salvation there. There is a believe or not believe. Obviously unbelief damns people. The verse does not speak of where faith in God, that believers have, comes from. We must consult other scriptures to find answer to such questions, such as for example John 6:29;10:26-27 etc.

First of all, the atoning blood is not conditional, or something to be done. It is accomplished, completed, finished, done.

By writing this it seems you have either lost me or there is some big misunderstanding at least. Yes, Christ's work to redeem sinners is completed and accomplished in full. All conditions for our salvation has been fulfilled in Him alone.

Secondly, the blood must be applied in order for justification/righteousness to be imputed/cleansed by forgiveness.

That is the pattern of sin sacrifice given in the OT.
The death of the animal did not cleanse, only its blood cleansed.
Its death ("capital punishment") paid the penalty for guilt.
And its blood had to be applied in order to cleanse.

That is the pattern given by God for Jesus' sacrifice.
His death alone does not cleanse the guilt of sin.
His blood must be applied. . .by faith in order to be cleansed, as it was applied by hyssop in the OT.
You are not following the pattern given by God for sin sacrifice.

How I am not following the pattern given by God for sin sacrifice? Have I claimed that the blood does not have to be applied in order to receive forgiveness? Skinski7 is saying elsewhere that we who believe in penal substitution have our sin paid for but not forgiven. I hope we don't go into a discussion where there are confusions of terms because of misunderstandings.

We did above. . ."faith" cannot be a fruit, which is why many translations use "faithfulness" rather than "faith" in Gal 5:22. . .but you return to it again below.

Weak and wavering is still faith, but no fruit is not fruit.
A believer can choose not to have fruit for a time.
But a believer cannot choose not to believe for a time.
Faith/belief does not operate like a fruit, because it is not a "fruit," it is a gift.


Suffice it to say, many translations do not use "faith" in Gal 5:22 for a reason.

First off, I am not resting well with the notion that someone can positively chose to operate in the fruits according to will (like it is something we do out of ourselves). In the negative though I believe that a believer may do so that he hinder the growth process, but only for a time. However I can not see any of this having any bearing on whether there is a huge dichotomy between fruit/gift as for faith. I would rather underline that none that is elect would be able to end up fruitless and yet being saved. Are you really with me on that? That some translations has translated pistis as faithfulness in Gal.5:22 is not a sufficient proof for the point you are pressing on to make.

That was explained in my post:

The fruit of the Spirit meant in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," rather than "faith" itself,
and "faithfulness" is the meaning used in many translations.

Our faith is a gift through which we are saved by grace.

We are not saved by the faith of Christ or the faith of God.


It was my and forsha's discussion of this point that you entered.

But your theology has the same problem by maintaining that faith follows justification as a fruit,
rather than precedes justification as the necessary means to it.

Faith is not a fruit because it does not operate like a fruit.
The fruit in Gal 5:22 is "faithfulness," which does operate like a fruit.

Have I said that justification precedes faith? I am saying that we are saved by the work and person of Jesus Christ alone and that His righteousness is wholly outside of us, an alien righteousness, imputed to us, wherein we are but passive recipients. I am not saying that "we are saved by the faith of Christ or the faith of God" since they do not operate "by faith" as do we. I also do not say that we are "eternally justified" when justification is bestowed upon us in time. God's wrath was also upon the elect before they possessed the imputed righteousness of Christ. Else I am not much in disagreement with "the dutch".

Faith is ours as gift, and it is real, but it is not a "condition" on "us", since we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:24). Without faith, we would not be able to receive the gift of justification. But it cannot thereby be concluded from this that faith is the condition of salvation.