Whose Faith? Ours or Jesus'?

[Locutus]

Am waiting for life to give me chocolate.

It's not in your predestiny....

 

[MarcR]

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rms 3:22a prepositional phrase

First. are you saying these commentators are somehow usingδιὰ as "on account of" making it the actual accusative case? I would find that very hard to understand, as clearly since all the rest of the words in this prepositional phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, faith/belief/faithfulness are clearly in the genitive.

Or, are they debating the use of the objective and the subjective genitive? I have 5 commentaries open on Romans, and the majority seem to prefer the objective genitive, with all presenting the "alternative" as the subjective genitive. Which is to say, is Jesus the subject of the faith, in this phrase, or the object (perhaps this is where the confusing use of the accusative might come in)?

I also looked up quite a few translations, and most favour the use of the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, definitely translates it as the subjunctive. So, does theology dictate translation, or does translation dictate theology? I think the former, because this issue is simply not clear cut.

I looked through 5 commentaries, including the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Longenecker The Epistle to the Romans) and this is a very difficult issue. I also looked at various translations, most coming down on the traditional side of this phrase being the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, a translation I have been reading recently, translates as the subjective genitive, meaning that Jesus is the subject of the noun πίστεως or faith/belief/faithfulness.

So, in brief, this is the discussion. Is the genitive subjective or objective?

Objective - “through faith in Jesus Christ “ ESV
Subjective - “God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ “ NET

So, what are the arguments on both sides? And is there a third option? We talked about this issue a lot in Greek. Because sometimes it is obvious that it is the subjective or the objective genitive, and in other cases, both. But, in this case, not so much! And as one commentary says, perhaps it was not even an issue to the NT Greeks, but we moderns have made it into an issue. But, since this concerns the topic of this thread, let’s look closer!

“The righteousness of God comes through faith IN Jesus Christ.” Of course, the word “in” is not there in the Greek, although Alexandrinus (A 02) does add the ἐν “en” – but it changes the word order, and the case, pointing to a deliberative change, to forestall any subjective genitive interpretation. However, one could use “of,” as it is a genitive, meaning “The righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ.” Or “is by faith of Jesus Christ” like the KJV.

But, it could also be subjective, referring to the faith Jesus exercised, in other words, “Christ’s faith as opposed to man’s faith in him.” The word “faith” could then be taken in the sense of “faithfulness.” This could mean “God’s faithfulness in Christ Jesus” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” A reference to the “faithfulness of Christ” is supported by the fact that “all who believe” is redundant if we translate “faith in Jesus Christ” in the immediate section preceding.

So, should we see a reference to Christ’s faithfulness or to his faith, or to our faith, repeated twice in a row?

On the other hand, πίστις, pistis, for Paul, almost always means “faith” and other strong contextual features must be present if any other meaning is to be adopted.

One commentator, (D. Moo in New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Epistle to the Romans), comments that “it is necessary to introduce some dubious theology in order to speak of “the faith exercised by Jesus Christ.” Well, I guess that no one is saying that. It is either the “faithfulness of Christ,” or our “faith in/of Jesus Christ.”

It is also instructive that Longenecker notes the section Romans 3:24-26 has 15 “Prominent Exegetical Difficulties,” with #5 being this prepositional phrase. Although, it seems upon reading this, that he believes that to use the objective genitive is to set up a redundancy with the following phrase, and opts for the subjective genitive “through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to all who believe.”

There is a third option, is cited by Turner in a footnote in Morris’s Pillar New Testament Commentary on Romans.

“God’s act of redemption is seen to be motivated not only by the willingness and faithfulness of Christ by offering himself on behalf of all those who believe in him, but is seen also in the response of men, “who put their faith in Christ.” Of the controversial phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ,” he says, it is “difficult to comprehend it within the limits of either the subjective or the objective genitive exclusively.” He suggests that it may share in the qualities of both. However, another part of the footnote rejects it is both, Kasemann, arguing that this view is correct only in “that for Paul the Giver always comes on scene with the gift.”

Finally, Morris notes, “We should bear in mind that Paul is not describing Christ, but outlining what Christ has done in bringing about salvation, so that we must understand, that at least in part of the meaning, the objective genitive. Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly in mind.” But there would be no place for the exercise of this faith were it not for the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” and for “God’s faithfulness show in Jesus Christ.” The right standing God gives is connected with the faith of believers in Christ.

What is my personal opinion on this phrase? Well, I am certain that God has to give us the faith to believe first! It is a gift from God! It is totally from and of Christ. So, I would favour the subjective genitive, in which I can rely on Christ’s faithfulness, to hold on to me for the rest of my life. As Paul goes on to say in Romans 5:1, “We are justified through faith.” If that faith comes from God, then is not Jesus Christ the subject first and foremost of any discussion of justification and faith? We do not save ourselves, through “our” faith. That stinks too much of having faith in our own faith. I would far rather err on the subjective side, avoid the redundancy, and declare that:

“the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.” Romans 3:22a NET

Thank you Angela! I knew you would give a sound and well explained answer. I didn't realize I was putting you through so much work.

 

[dcontroversal]

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rms 3:22a prepositional phrase

First. are you saying these commentators are somehow usingδιὰ as "on account of" making it the actual accusative case? I would find that very hard to understand, as clearly since all the rest of the words in this prepositional phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, faith/belief/faithfulness are clearly in the genitive.

Or, are they debating the use of the objective and the subjective genitive? I have 5 commentaries open on Romans, and the majority seem to prefer the objective genitive, with all presenting the "alternative" as the subjective genitive. Which is to say, is Jesus the subject of the faith, in this phrase, or the object (perhaps this is where the confusing use of the accusative might come in)?

I also looked up quite a few translations, and most favour the use of the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, definitely translates it as the subjunctive. So, does theology dictate translation, or does translation dictate theology? I think the former, because this issue is simply not clear cut.

I looked through 5 commentaries, including the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Longenecker The Epistle to the Romans) and this is a very difficult issue. I also looked at various translations, most coming down on the traditional side of this phrase being the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, a translation I have been reading recently, translates as the subjective genitive, meaning that Jesus is the subject of the noun πίστεως or faith/belief/faithfulness.

So, in brief, this is the discussion. Is the genitive subjective or objective?

Objective - “through faith in Jesus Christ “ ESV
Subjective - “God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ “ NET

So, what are the arguments on both sides? And is there a third option? We talked about this issue a lot in Greek. Because sometimes it is obvious that it is the subjective or the objective genitive, and in other cases, both. But, in this case, not so much! And as one commentary says, perhaps it was not even an issue to the NT Greeks, but we moderns have made it into an issue. But, since this concerns the topic of this thread, let’s look closer!

“The righteousness of God comes through faith IN Jesus Christ.” Of course, the word “in” is not there in the Greek, although Alexandrinus (A 02) does add the ἐν “en” – but it changes the word order, and the case, pointing to a deliberative change, to forestall any subjective genitive interpretation. However, one could use “of,” as it is a genitive, meaning “The righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ.” Or “is by faith of Jesus Christ” like the KJV.

But, it could also be subjective, referring to the faith Jesus exercised, in other words, “Christ’s faith as opposed to man’s faith in him.” The word “faith” could then be taken in the sense of “faithfulness.” This could mean “God’s faithfulness in Christ Jesus” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” A reference to the “faithfulness of Christ” is supported by the fact that “all who believe” is redundant if we translate “faith in Jesus Christ” in the immediate section preceding.

So, should we see a reference to Christ’s faithfulness or to his faith, or to our faith, repeated twice in a row?

On the other hand, πίστις, pistis, for Paul, almost always means “faith” and other strong contextual features must be present if any other meaning is to be adopted.

One commentator, (D. Moo in New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Epistle to the Romans), comments that “it is necessary to introduce some dubious theology in order to speak of “the faith exercised by Jesus Christ.” Well, I guess that no one is saying that. It is either the “faithfulness of Christ,” or our “faith in/of Jesus Christ.”

It is also instructive that Longenecker notes the section Romans 3:24-26 has 15 “Prominent Exegetical Difficulties,” with #5 being this prepositional phrase. Although, it seems upon reading this, that he believes that to use the objective genitive is to set up a redundancy with the following phrase, and opts for the subjective genitive “through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to all who believe.”

There is a third option, is cited by Turner in a footnote in Morris’s Pillar New Testament Commentary on Romans.

“God’s act of redemption is seen to be motivated not only by the willingness and faithfulness of Christ by offering himself on behalf of all those who believe in him, but is seen also in the response of men, “who put their faith in Christ.” Of the controversial phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ,” he says, it is “difficult to comprehend it within the limits of either the subjective or the objective genitive exclusively.” He suggests that it may share in the qualities of both. However, another part of the footnote rejects it is both, Kasemann, arguing that this view is correct only in “that for Paul the Giver always comes on scene with the gift.”

Finally, Morris notes, “We should bear in mind that Paul is not describing Christ, but outlining what Christ has done in bringing about salvation, so that we must understand, that at least in part of the meaning, the objective genitive. Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly in mind.” But there would be no place for the exercise of this faith were it not for the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” and for “God’s faithfulness show in Jesus Christ.” The right standing God gives is connected with the faith of believers in Christ.

What is my personal opinion on this phrase? Well, I am certain that God has to give us the faith to believe first! It is a gift from God! It is totally from and of Christ. So, I would favour the subjective genitive, in which I can rely on Christ’s faithfulness, to hold on to me for the rest of my life. As Paul goes on to say in Romans 5:1, “We are justified through faith.” If that faith comes from God, then is not Jesus Christ the subject first and foremost of any discussion of justification and faith? We do not save ourselves, through “our” faith. That stinks too much of having faith in our own faith. I would far rather err on the subjective side, avoid the redundancy, and declare that:

“the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.” Romans 3:22a NET

AMEN...what I have said all along.......

 

[Depleted]

or a person can stay and build it up

seems you have done both

honestly Lynn ... you dish it out but do not seem able to take it

Sadly, you think everyone is dishing with you.

 

[stonesoffire]

If yer stop treating the hubby like a taxi driver maybe he'll step up with some...

I'll wait for life. Tee hee...


actually he brings me chocolate all the time. And I sit in front but he has to wear the hat!

 

[stonesoffire]

It's not in your predestiny....

Am a now kind of lady.

 

[Depleted]

Amen 1ofthem...I must admit I have to be very careful now in what I post...A few times I have posted what I believed the Holy Spirit has shown me only for someone to come along and rip it apart and tell me that what I have posted is wrong...I want to post what I have learnt, and I really do appreciate guidance to correct me if need be, only few will correct in a gentle manner, that`s what makes all the difference to me, someone who is loving in their ways with a gentle spirit, not a harsh cold reply which can often lead to babes or imature in the Lord to never post again, thank you for your reply, the Holy Spirit will always give me eyes to see and ears to hear...xox...

Unless we're of the brain level where we can read the earliest manuscripts plus have a full understanding of the culture and the history behind every word in the Bible, (and, I've never heard of or met anyone who had that brain level), we will learn from others. It's a good idea, because there are men who did spend considerable amount of time to learn just that, so they could write it down for others. (I call them "my Dead Guys" because the commentators I use and the ones who wrote all the Bible aids I use are dead. And, considering they've been dead for 50 to a few hundred years now, they really were all guys.) Considering it's just not in me to spend 20-50 years of my life to study that much in depth, I'm very happy to read the ones who did think it was a good life-mission.

The ones I don't trust are the ones who say that all they ever do is read directly from the Bible. At best, they're delusional or have memory problems. Some of the doctrine we all believe doesn't come directly from the Bible. Well, it does, but try and learn such concepts as "trinity" or "Jesus was 100% man and 100% God when he was on earth" in the same way those who worked out those doctrines did, and you'll go gaga just trying.

It's not merely good to learn from others. It's fantastic. The harder part is to figure out who to trust when gathering that information. Whereas I wouldn't trust the Swaggarts, Marc mentioned a few sources I would trust. (Don't know Elliot. Not saying he's a bad source, just don't know the name.) And even with his suggestions, my personal taste goes with reading John Gill, but not always trusting him. Kind of funny, since my husband likes Gill more than some of the other guys I read.

I can give you this much though, eSword tends to have good selections for trustworthy writers. (Gill is one of them, and I do trust him enough to read him whenever I'm trying to learn something in the Bible. My only thing against him is how much he likes bringing up targumim. Yeah, I know you probably don't know that word yet, but studying will bring it up eventually. lol)

I just don't want you to be stuck thinking the only way you can learn is directly from scripture. Too many keep saying that while telling what they believed that didn't come from scripture itself.

And, yeah. Really. You will get some of it right and some of it wrong. I have had to unlearn a lot of garbage I was taught. And I'm absolutely sure what I believe now, but know I will have my mind changed in the future even on that. At the end, I think everyone in heaven will be mumbling, "Ohhhh, THAT's what you meant! I did not get that." And often. lol

 

[Depleted]

Just read through the thread, after answering Marc's query!

No wonder I turned Reformed! The alternative, at least as presented here by many, makes no sense, and is totally human centred, instead of God centred!

As far as Calvin, never read him, never met him, although I do have a copy in English of his Institutes on my Kindle which I got for free, which I have not read. I'm thinking I will read the French version instead, for a little challenge and review. Some day!

In the meantime, I just keep reading my Bible and studying it faithfully. I pray and seek God daily. And over and over, the sovereignty of God is vital.

Then, there is the cross, so rejected by some calling themselves saved on this thread! The cross, as it represents not just the death of Jesus, but our sin, is essential!

"And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions. 14 He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. 15 Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross." Col. 2:13-15 NET

Notice how IT - our sin - our debt - is nailed to the cross? Hmm, some people are short on knowing and understanding redemption in this forum, it sure seems to me!

I've never read Institutes for two reasons:
1. I'm not smart enough to understand Calvin.
2. When hubby read it he spent a few months being very legalistic and judgmental. (He tends to take on the personality of whoever he reads over a long period of time. I liked him in his John Owen's stage, his Francis Schaeffer stage, Gordon Clark, and really like him in his Charles Spurgeon stage. lol)

Truthfully, the only thing I know about Calvin is he was a follower of a follower of Luther, had some cool one-liners, worry a strange cap, and was cocky enough to think he could lead a theocracy. (Which, if you think about it, is an oxymoron.)

 

[Desertsrose]

Of course it's reformed teaching! There are only three kinds of teachings -- Catholic, Reformed, a little of both, (which keeps reverting back to what the RCC teaches, so it's really just a subset of Catholic.)And why did the reformation have to happen? Because the Catholics took the Bible out of the equation.The Reformers went back to the Bible and saw what was missing. That was the heart of the protest. And they were called "reformers" because they wanted their church to reform back to the Bible, but individual power and cooperate power were at stake. What happens if people aren't responsible for their own salvation? What happens if the holy "Roman" Empire doesn't get vast swathes of money from the guilt of the people? Power is taken!To this day, people are arguing over their power over God's power and thinking God owes them. In this instants, "God owes us because of our faith."Not. Even. Ever!God IS sovereign. (Which means a lot more than the average Christian has in mind too.)The entire Bible is a record of God. It shows what he wanted, and 20,001 ways people tried to give him what he wanted to appease him while continuing to do their own thing. What it really showed is Man's ineptness and God's sovereignty!We're inept! Why would we ever want to go back to our skill levels? We never had any skills. That which changed that is God, and he imputes HIS skills onto us. That IS the Good News! Through God we are able!(Side note. I have been gobsmacked by this entire thread because this is where I realize that all the people who hate "Calvinism" honestly have no idea what it is to make the judgement on hating it. I honestly thought the Arminians understood Calvinism, decided they didn't like it, so dismissed it. Nope. Never knew it to make that decision, yet still made it anyway. Kind of like me deciding E = MC^2 is wrong and evil. I can't, because I cannot understand it enough to make such a decision. lol)

I'm not going to get into a Calvinism argument with you, Lynn. Please don't make this a discussion of something it's not.


This was never about that. A member on here kept saying that it's not their faith they live out, but it's Jesus' faith and they just kind of rest in Jesus as if they don't exercise their own faith. Jesus just kind of does it all for you. They didn't say it in exactly those words, but that's a paraphrase of what was said. And no, this person isn't a Calvinist.


I was genuinely stumped by that thinking because even at the time I was influenced with Calvinism, I never heard it quite like that. They did believe in man's responsibility as to working out their own faith IN Jesus, not Jesus working out your faith for you.


So please don't prejudge me. And please don't tell me what the OP is about when it isn't. I actually thought this came from WOF/HP. That's why I asked if anyone knew it's origin.


FYI, I love Calvinists, I just don't love their understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God; the work of the cross.


But God can save everyone of us without having the proper understanding of soteriology. If we are saved by grace through faith, we've all entered into the Kingdom of God. One day we'll understand it all, but then it won't matter because we'll be face to face with our Savior and Lord who purchased us with His own blood.

 

[Jackson123]

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rms 3:22a prepositional phrase

First. are you saying these commentators are somehow usingδιὰ as "on account of" making it the actual accusative case? I would find that very hard to understand, as clearly since all the rest of the words in this prepositional phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, faith/belief/faithfulness are clearly in the genitive.

Or, are they debating the use of the objective and the subjective genitive? I have 5 commentaries open on Romans, and the majority seem to prefer the objective genitive, with all presenting the "alternative" as the subjective genitive. Which is to say, is Jesus the subject of the faith, in this phrase, or the object (perhaps this is where the confusing use of the accusative might come in)?

I also looked up quite a few translations, and most favour the use of the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, definitely translates it as the subjunctive. So, does theology dictate translation, or does translation dictate theology? I think the former, because this issue is simply not clear cut.

I looked through 5 commentaries, including the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Longenecker The Epistle to the Romans) and this is a very difficult issue. I also looked at various translations, most coming down on the traditional side of this phrase being the objective genitive, although the NET Bible, a translation I have been reading recently, translates as the subjective genitive, meaning that Jesus is the subject of the noun πίστεως or faith/belief/faithfulness.

So, in brief, this is the discussion. Is the genitive subjective or objective?

Objective - “through faith in Jesus Christ “ ESV
Subjective - “God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ “ NET

So, what are the arguments on both sides? And is there a third option? We talked about this issue a lot in Greek. Because sometimes it is obvious that it is the subjective or the objective genitive, and in other cases, both. But, in this case, not so much! And as one commentary says, perhaps it was not even an issue to the NT Greeks, but we moderns have made it into an issue. But, since this concerns the topic of this thread, let’s look closer!

“The righteousness of God comes through faith IN Jesus Christ.” Of course, the word “in” is not there in the Greek, although Alexandrinus (A 02) does add the ἐν “en” – but it changes the word order, and the case, pointing to a deliberative change, to forestall any subjective genitive interpretation. However, one could use “of,” as it is a genitive, meaning “The righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ.” Or “is by faith of Jesus Christ” like the KJV.

But, it could also be subjective, referring to the faith Jesus exercised, in other words, “Christ’s faith as opposed to man’s faith in him.” The word “faith” could then be taken in the sense of “faithfulness.” This could mean “God’s faithfulness in Christ Jesus” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” A reference to the “faithfulness of Christ” is supported by the fact that “all who believe” is redundant if we translate “faith in Jesus Christ” in the immediate section preceding.

So, should we see a reference to Christ’s faithfulness or to his faith, or to our faith, repeated twice in a row?

On the other hand, πίστις, pistis, for Paul, almost always means “faith” and other strong contextual features must be present if any other meaning is to be adopted.

One commentator, (D. Moo in New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Epistle to the Romans), comments that “it is necessary to introduce some dubious theology in order to speak of “the faith exercised by Jesus Christ.” Well, I guess that no one is saying that. It is either the “faithfulness of Christ,” or our “faith in/of Jesus Christ.”

It is also instructive that Longenecker notes the section Romans 3:24-26 has 15 “Prominent Exegetical Difficulties,” with #5 being this prepositional phrase. Although, it seems upon reading this, that he believes that to use the objective genitive is to set up a redundancy with the following phrase, and opts for the subjective genitive “through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to all who believe.”

There is a third option, is cited by Turner in a footnote in Morris’s Pillar New Testament Commentary on Romans.

“God’s act of redemption is seen to be motivated not only by the willingness and faithfulness of Christ by offering himself on behalf of all those who believe in him, but is seen also in the response of men, “who put their faith in Christ.” Of the controversial phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ,” he says, it is “difficult to comprehend it within the limits of either the subjective or the objective genitive exclusively.” He suggests that it may share in the qualities of both. However, another part of the footnote rejects it is both, Kasemann, arguing that this view is correct only in “that for Paul the Giver always comes on scene with the gift.”

Finally, Morris notes, “We should bear in mind that Paul is not describing Christ, but outlining what Christ has done in bringing about salvation, so that we must understand, that at least in part of the meaning, the objective genitive. Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly in mind.” But there would be no place for the exercise of this faith were it not for the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” and for “God’s faithfulness show in Jesus Christ.” The right standing God gives is connected with the faith of believers in Christ.

What is my personal opinion on this phrase? Well, I am certain that God has to give us the faith to believe first! It is a gift from God! It is totally from and of Christ. So, I would favour the subjective genitive, in which I can rely on Christ’s faithfulness, to hold on to me for the rest of my life. As Paul goes on to say in Romans 5:1, “We are justified through faith.” If that faith comes from God, then is not Jesus Christ the subject first and foremost of any discussion of justification and faith? We do not save ourselves, through “our” faith. That stinks too much of having faith in our own faith. I would far rather err on the subjective side, avoid the redundancy, and declare that:

“the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.” Romans 3:22a NET

so you believe

in order to save, you had to have a faith

in order to have a faith, God must give you a faith

why God give open invitation in john 3:16.

I think God honest when He say who ever believe in Him will save.

i can not imagine if one invite who ever come to my house I will give $100 and the inviter make only 2person come.

the inviter announce the invitation for all. And the inviter ask His emplyoyees to spread the invitation to all nation.

Matt 28
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

to me these verse show that the inviter interested to save all, though there is requirement. The requirement is believe

 

[Locutus]

There's just too many "your faiths" in the new testament for me:

 

[PeterJens]

I was sharing yesterday with some believers yesterday about door to door.
We are doing a church plant. To make contact with the community people are going
out and introducing themselves.

Now what is the thing you think about first? What you will say or that Christ has put you,
His miracle in front of others to say, look what I have done for them, this is the power of
my gospel. We discount ourselves, rather think are we saying the right things.

Trust God and share. This might be the only light they hear face to face in their life.

So is it Jesus's faith or ours in Him? In a loving relationship, who is loving? Both.
Jesus has faith in us and the seed He has planted. I think His faith is greater than
our own, because we are trusting perfection.

 

[dcontroversal]

It is not that difficult to deductively conclude the truth about faith based upon the following....

a. Not all men have faith <--yet God would have ALL MEN BE SAVED AND COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH

b. Christ has dealt to every man a measue of faith (concerning the saved and study the word dealt)

c. CHRIST is the source of ALL FAITH and it is gifted to men.

d. Christ BEGINS and FINISHES our faith

e. Christ PROMISES to finish and complete that good work of faith that he began in us....

the truth is evident!!

 

[Depleted]

I'm not going to get into a Calvinism argument with you, Lynn. Please don't make this a discussion of something it's not.


This was never about that. A member on here kept saying that it's not their faith they live out, but it's Jesus' faith and they just kind of rest in Jesus as if they don't exercise their own faith. Jesus just kind of does it all for you. They didn't say it in exactly those words, but that's a paraphrase of what was said. And no, this person isn't a Calvinist.


I was genuinely stumped by that thinking because even at the time I was influenced with Calvinism, I never heard it quite like that. They did believe in man's responsibility as to working out their own faith IN Jesus, not Jesus working out your faith for you.


So please don't prejudge me. And please don't tell me what the OP is about when it isn't. I actually thought this came from WOF/HP. That's why I asked if anyone knew it's origin.


FYI, I love Calvinists, I just don't love their understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God; the work of the cross.


But God can save everyone of us without having the proper understanding of soteriology. If we are saved by grace through faith, we've all entered into the Kingdom of God. One day we'll understand it all, but then it won't matter because we'll be face to face with our Savior and Lord who purchased us with His own blood.

This is page ten now. Have I brought this into yet another Calvinist V. Arminian discussion?

I'm not prejudging you. I'm answering your questions. Will you believe what I believe when it's over? No idea, but if I betted on it, I leaned toward no. (I only bet on sure things, so I wouldn't bet on this either. I'm cheap. lol) This was always about answering what you wanted to know. How those strange people you keep running into believe faith is from God. (And, honestly? Do those strange people get any stranger than me?) And the history behind it.

Ultimately, I don't think our exact beliefs save us either. As I just said to Rosemary, I suspect we'll all be learning a whole bunch of what we thought we knew already when we have our face-to-face with the Lord.

So, don't think I'm judging you. That first sentence in that post, had I been able to give an inflection in it, was the same inflection Dumbledore gave Harry when Harry asked if it was all real or just in his head. (Dumbledore: "Of course this is all in your head, Harry. But does it make it less real?")

Many people don't like saying where they get their ideas. Always feels like they're ashamed of them or they're hiding them for some shady reason. I'm merely upfront where I get mine.

I've been saved for 45 years now. 20 of those years I was Arminian. I was still saved, so I know that is one of those areas that just doesn't matter for salvation sake. (I do think Reformed does bring the whole Bible into one concept, but you never have to agree with me on that one. lol)

Truthfully, the only thing that bothers me with that long-winded Cal-v-Arm argument is when people lie about what I believe to fit their stereotype. But, honestly? I really have been telling you all along what it is we believe, how we got there, and the history. What you do with that information is entirely on you, and no hard feelings no matter which way you go with it.

I owned the car Dad gave to me... until three years later when he took it away. The car's name was Betsy. Only car I ever named.

 

[Depleted]

so you believe

in order to save, you had to have a faith

in order to have a faith, God must give you a faith

why God give open invitation in john 3:16.

I think God honest when He say who ever believe in Him will save.

i can not imagine if one invite who ever come to my house I will give $100 and the inviter make only 2person come.

the inviter announce the invitation for all. And the inviter ask His emplyoyees to spread the invitation to all nation.

Matt 28
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

to me these verse show that the inviter interested to save all, though there is requirement. The requirement is believe

I think God is honest too. I think you forget John 3:16 was in the middle of what Jesus said. Read the whole thing.

I'm honest with you if I'm teaching you about driving a car and say something like, "put it in drive" too, but without the steps before that and the steps after that, I can also guarantee you won't be driving the car.

 

[Depleted]

There's just too many "your faiths" in the new testament for me:

Yup. And it was my car too. Dad merely owned it over me.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I see faith this way, it is a work of god,

1. Faith come by the word (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word) which was given by God (All scripture is inspired by God)
2. The world promises eternal life (and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish)
3. Eternal life is a gift (penalty of sin is death, GIFT of God is eternal
4. It was paid for on the cross by reconciliation (that he might reconcile them both to God in the body through the cross, putting to death the enmity, ....now all things are of God who has reconciled us) and redemption (in him we have redemption through the blood)
5. God is offering to make us stand righteous before him (justified) and that can not be earned (being justified freely by his grace through redemption which is in christ)
6, our faith is in our hope. Is God trustworthy (in the hope of eternal life which God who CAN NOT LIE promised before time began)

This is the work of God, now we musty respond, He promises to give these things to all who have faith in him.

1. Repent like the tax collector. On his knees unable to look up begging God to atone his sins. Because he can not help himself

2. Like the pagan ,or Pharisee, Boast in self. Judge others, Reject Gds gift, because in your view, you do not need help. You are worthy on your own, or your work will save you.

these are only two choices. As Jesus said, Whoever believes is not condemned, whoever does not believe is condemned already.

Number 1 is not a work, it is not earning salvation, It is just saying yes God, apply all YOUR work to me, vs number 2 which I is saying No God, I can handle it myself. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Rosemaryx]

The one major lesson cc has taught me is to ignore those with the wrong spirit.
What closes us down is what you just described. "I have to be careful" No you do not.
Just share and let your heart shine. It is this closing down which bring darkness.

So many people say the Lords love in my heart is so personal and deep, I cannot let others
see it. But the truth is, I am so insecure I dare not share how I really feel in case I am wrong
and have to change. Now that is the tough part. Taking the risk and being open.

And closed people hate those who can be open, because they long for this reality but just
oppose it at every turn because it reminds them of something they cannot do.

So please share away, and be the light God calls you to be, Amen, and Praise the Lord,
because each step we get closer to the King.

Thank you PeterJens for these words of encouragement, I see what you are saying...xox...

 

[Rosemaryx]

Unless we're of the brain level where we can read the earliest manuscripts plus have a full understanding of the culture and the history behind every word in the Bible, (and, I've never heard of or met anyone who had that brain level), we will learn from others. It's a good idea, because there are men who did spend considerable amount of time to learn just that, so they could write it down for others. (I call them "my Dead Guys" because the commentators I use and the ones who wrote all the Bible aids I use are dead. And, considering they've been dead for 50 to a few hundred years now, they really were all guys.) Considering it's just not in me to spend 20-50 years of my life to study that much in depth, I'm very happy to read the ones who did think it was a good life-mission.

The ones I don't trust are the ones who say that all they ever do is read directly from the Bible. At best, they're delusional or have memory problems. Some of the doctrine we all believe doesn't come directly from the Bible. Well, it does, but try and learn such concepts as "trinity" or "Jesus was 100% man and 100% God when he was on earth" in the same way those who worked out those doctrines did, and you'll go gaga just trying.

It's not merely good to learn from others. It's fantastic. The harder part is to figure out who to trust when gathering that information. Whereas I wouldn't trust the Swaggarts, Marc mentioned a few sources I would trust. (Don't know Elliot. Not saying he's a bad source, just don't know the name.) And even with his suggestions, my personal taste goes with reading John Gill, but not always trusting him. Kind of funny, since my husband likes Gill more than some of the other guys I read.

I can give you this much though, eSword tends to have good selections for trustworthy writers. (Gill is one of them, and I do trust him enough to read him whenever I'm trying to learn something in the Bible. My only thing against him is how much he likes bringing up targumim. Yeah, I know you probably don't know that word yet, but studying will bring it up eventually. lol)

I just don't want you to be stuck thinking the only way you can learn is directly from scripture. Too many keep saying that while telling what they believed that didn't come from scripture itself.

And, yeah. Really. You will get some of it right and some of it wrong. I have had to unlearn a lot of garbage I was taught. And I'm absolutely sure what I believe now, but know I will have my mind changed in the future even on that. At the end, I think everyone in heaven will be mumbling, "Ohhhh, THAT's what you meant! I did not get that." And often. lol

Thanks Depleted...I understand what you are saying...But I know how easy it is to go and listen to people who claim they are teaching Gods word when really they are not but twisting it, so many post about who they listen to but then another will post saying Do not listen to them, they preach such and such...Like someone on here I think it was Marc who gave me good advice, if they talk about Jesus then listen, but if it`s all about the i then don`t, that struck a chord...xox...

 

[Locutus]

Whose faith did the old testament saints have?

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.