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.