Doctrine of Unconditional Election

FreeGrace2 said:
We have the same situation here as in Gal 2:16. The vast majority of English translations of Phil 3:9 have "faith IN Christ".

Can you explain what exactly Christ is having His faith IN? What is He trusting in or on?
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm telling what is true. You either comprehend it or not.

I proved that the vast majority of English translations have "in", and the SAME for Phil 3:9. So go argue with the Greek scholars who provided the English translation. Unless you can prove that you have more credentials than any of them.

lol. Then please, by all means, explain what exactly Christ has faith in. The words "faith OF Christ" indicates that Christ has faith IN something. So, what is it?

Frankly, for Christ to have faith IN something is what is illogical. Why would Christ be trusting in something? He is God. He is omnipotent. He is omniscient. Would it be trust/faith in Himself?

I'm just curious as to what Jesus has faith IN.

OK, explain what it is that Christ has faith IN.

Obedience is the meaning of "faith OF Christ". OK.

This refers to the heathen's faith.

Oh, it absolutely IS the faith of the heathen, toward the work of Christ on the cross.

But seeing that thou art a calvinist, you won't understand this.

Once again, thou calvinist, the "hearing of faith" means to believe what the Galatians heard.

More reformed talking points. Can you explain what "the hearing of Christ's faith" means? It doesn't make sense to me.

I've already proven to you in spite of your refusal to accept facts, that election is for service.

As to your final point, the "ears to hear" is related to 2 Cor 3:16 - But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

So, rogerg, why didn't you answer my question what what the "faith OF Christ" refers to?

If Christ has faith, He has it IN something or someone.

So, you're using the earthly to explain the spiritual -really, it should be the other way around.

Even using your ridiculous example, it is not a gift. The ring never became a gift because it wasn't in the possession of the girlfriend even though it may have INTENDED as such by the guy. So, if she never had possession of it, she never had the gift, and if she didn't have the gift, it wasn't a gift. A gift doesn't become a gift until it is in the recipient's possession.

If I buy a Christmas gift intended for someone and keep it in my car trunk never ever giving it to them, did it ever become a gift?

I did answer it! Christ's faith was in/to God the Father.

Uh-oh, another oh my moment! I posted it explaining that very thing. You didn't read it, did you?
I'll repost it again (post 3639):

"As to your question, Christ was faithful to the mission the Father had assigned to Him to bring to fruition the promise God had made to Abraham, through which promise, and though Christ's faithfulness, was God's judgement removed from the elect by His offering, and thereby, was God's promise fulfilled."

[Rev 1:5 KJV] 5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

[Rev 19:11 KJV] 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

[Heb 12:2 KJV] 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

[Rev 2:13 KJV] 13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Continuing my reply further

In the Bible, God clearly calls salvation not just a gift, but a free gift. By "free" can we know that to whom it is given, it must be in their possession.

[Rom 5:15-16 KJV]
15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. ...

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Seems some folks have a silly idea in their hearts that their will is mightier then the will of the Father .. Ha ha God i can jump out of Your hand ha ha Your Word is a not Truth, ... God is sovereign

Hey guys engagements rings are not exactly gifts

Good point, Beckie.

FreeGrace2 said:
Well, there you are. It SURE DOES. That's where you keep going off the rails.

The poor schmuck INTENDS to give an engagement ring to his girlfriend. But she doesn't want to marry him, and rejects the ring.

The ring is a gift where you are able to comprehend it or not.
More evidence that you've gone off the rails.

Jesus used parables, earthly events, to explain spiritual events. So, I've got it right. You, however, don't.

The example isn't ridiculous. It's very REAL. And regardless of your own confusion, the poor schmuck had a gift for the girl. And she refused the gift. That doesn't make it a non gift.

Since your definition of what a gift is is flawed, your conclusion is just as flawed.

Well, you were part right; "they didn't have the gift" is correct. There WAS a gift, but she refused it.

That's just your flawed understanding. Not the real one.

You simply STOLE the gift that was intended for someone else.

The only reason you reject the real definition of the gift is that it refutes your flawed calvinist views.

So you think Christ's faith in His Father saves us???

I did respond to this. Obviously you don't read posts to you.

Faithfulness is obedience. That's what I said. And you didn't read.

Where in the world do you get your made up definitions from? The word "free" has no bearing on possession.

Offering a free gift doesn't mean it is in the possession of the one to whom it is offered.

Again, because of your own strong flawed calvinist definitions, you are just NOT ABLE to process what a free gift is.

OK, right. Paul calls justification (which means our salvation) a free gift in v.15. But let's read farther.

17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Do you believe that all people are justified per v.18?

Do you believe that "the many" which means "the masses" will be made righteous?

The wonderful verses you have quoted have NOTHING to do with will. I wonder why you quoted them.

In salvation, will isn't the issue at all. God offers the free gift of salvation. Man believes the gospel and receives the gift.

John 1:13 even says "not by the will of man".

Can you will yourself to believe something that you don't believe? No, you can't.

otoh, can you will yourself to reject something that you believe in? No, you can't.

To believe the gospel is to trust that Christ's death on your behalf will result in salvation. That's all.

Really? What about an engagement ring being offered to a girl? If not a gift, what is it?

FreeGrace2
Your posts sure read angry

That post should have been directed to Duckybill... things at home need quick attention so it is out of place.

Say John146 - Are you discounting the lessons of Scripture. In other words, are you attempting to dismiss Hebrews because it was written to Jewish believers?

By this logic, if you are, then we should dismiss the entirety of the Old Testament. After all, it was written to Israel and not the Gentile nations.

I hope I am reading you wrong.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Maybe it's just that you are reading angry. None of this is personal to me. I don't want to be wrong any more than you do.

And I defend the truth that is clearly stated in the Bible. You can call it whatever you want, but when people who make claims but can't defend them from plainly stated verses, my goal is to wake them up to that fact.

It it those kind of people who get angry.

This comment makes no sense. I was responding to your post. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I didn't say Christ's faith IN the Father, I said Christ's faithfulness in accomplishing His mission on earth, which mission the Father had assigned to him. Christ accomplished it so that we wouldn't have to nor could we. The salvation transaction
between God the Father and Jesus Christ in its entirety began before the foundation of the world and ended when Christ
declared that "is it finished"

I dont see where you have proved your thoughts. I read what you believe to be proof. While criticizing a brother in Christ for doing the same.
Skipping al the insults this has been an interesting read.. Thanks for your part.