Featured Faith? Where does it come from?

Brother InTheLight,

As brother KY Redneck has previously shown in this thread, in the King James version faith in many places is quoted as being the "faith of Jesus Christ" and "faith of Christ". You may counter this is the only version that renders it that way, but I would point out it is not only the best selling version of all Bibles, it is the best selling book in history for that matter and probably has outsold all other versions of the Bible combined.

 

So what?[/QUOTE]
I just thought you might be interested in learning some truth on this topic.....But....maybe not today.....hey tomorrow is another day...lolFrownFrownFrown

 

John is not speaking of ability; he is speaking of reason or cause.
What is the reason that we love Christ, or Why? or What is the cause?
We love him because he first loved us. That doesn't discount an inability or ability for that is not the point of discussion. It would be much like praise. The unsaved would have no reason to praise God, not that they couldn't, they just wouldn't. They have no reason.
John is writing to Christians. Obviously we love Christ. Why? Because he made us the objects of His love.
This passage is not speaking of ability or inability and should not be taken out of its context to make it seem as if it does.

 

From Calvinism /Arminianism by W.R. Downing:


The words “and that” may possibly refer back to the preceding section of v. 4–8a, which emphasizes the freeness and sovereignty of God’s grace, which 1216 Eph. 2:8, Th/| ga.r ca,riti, evste sesw|sme,noi… “For by grace you are—have been and continue to be—saved…” The strongest language possible to connote being saved by grace alone and kept in this state by grace alone. 1217 Eph. 2:8–8-9, …evste sesw|sme,noi dia. pi,stewj [you are, having been and continuing in salvation by faith]\ kai. tou/to ouvk evx u`mw/n [and this not of yourselves]( qeou/ to. dw/ron [of God (emph. pos.) the gift!]\ ouvk evx e;rgwn( i[na mh, tij kauch,shtai [ (definitely) not of works (human ability or merit), in order that (the reason being) no one at all might boast ]Å If saving faith were mere human trust and one’s human trust made the difference, then there would most certainly be room and reason for boasting! 1218 Eph. 2:10, auvtou/ ga,r evsmen poi,hma [for his we are craftsmanship. The wording emph. the Divine origin of salvation]( ktisqe,ntej evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ evpi. e;rgoij avgaqoi/j [created in Christ Jesus unto goods, not because of good works or human ability] oi-j prohtoi,masen o` qeo.j( i[na evn auvtoi/j peripath,swmen [which foreordained (emph. pos.) God that in them (emph. pos.) we might walk or have our lifestyle.]Å This statement reinforces that salvation is all of grace from first to last. 1219 For the general agreement of the demonstrative ou-toj [tou/to] with its antecedent, Cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 704; see also William Hendriksen’s remarks on Robertson in “Ephesians,” New Testament Commentary, pp. 121–123. Cf. also Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar Comm.), p.175, who states that this is possible, referring to Robertson, adding that it is consistent with Paul’s teaching elsewhere, but concludes that “this” must refer to salvation by grace. 455 necessarily includes faith within the Divine gift. Other examples of this may be foundThe neuter demonstrative may refer to the act of believing, which would probably take the neuter rather than the feminine (Beza, Bengal, Moule). If Paul were referring merely to salvation rather than specifically to faith, then his statement would be tautological and needless (Hodge).The demonstrative pronoun does not always [only generally] agrees with its antecedent in number and gender.1219 There are instances in which a neuter pronoun may modify either a feminine or masculine substantive (Hendriksen, referring to the statement by A. Kuyper).In answer, it may be stated that:It has been objected, however, that the word “that” [tou/to, “this” in Gk.] is neuter, while “faith” is feminine, and so must refer to “the idea of salvation,” which is neuter, not “faith”. It is salvation in a very general sense which is the gift of God in this text.God, in the context of his eternal redemptive purpose, not external to God in the will of man. Verse 8a declares that by grace believers have been and are kept in the state of salvation (a periphrastic construction with a pres. vb. and perf. ptc.).1216 Then follow the words, “…by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast” (v. 8–9),1217 followed by the explanation that believers are the result of Divine craftsmanship, created unto good works, which God has foreordained that we should walk in them.” This explanation is emphatic that salvation—everything connected with salvation from beginning to end—is of God, not of man or human merit.12181213

Acts 18:27, …toi/j pepisteuko,sin dia. th/j ca,ritoj. perf. rel. ptc., “the ones believing and continuing to believe through [by means of] grace.” Cf. Phil. 1:29 with the pres. tense vb., and Eph. 2:8, with the pres. tense vb. and perf. ptc. in a periphras. const. 1214 Phil. 1:29, o[ti u`mi/n evcari,sqh [given as a gift of grace—freely. The vb. is the verbalization of the term “grace”] to. u`pe.r Cristou/( ouv mo,non to. eivj auvto.n pisteu,ein [on him to continue to believe, pres. inf.] avlla. kai. to. u`pe.r auvtou/ pa,scein [also for him to continue to suffer, pres. inf.]. Believing grace and suffering grace are both gifts of God’s free grace. 1215 2 Thess. 3:2, … ouv ga.r pa,ntwn h` pi,stijÅ Faith is articular, but, as the context refers not to doctrine, but to the essence of faith, the def. art. points to the unique nature of true, saving faith. 4548. The locus classicus is found in Eph. 2:1–10. This passage begins with the free and sovereign grace of God imparting spiritual life to those who were dead in trespasses and sin and “…children of wrath, even as others” (v. 1–3). God—and God alone in grace—makes the difference. These had to be made spiritually alive with [in] Christ. The Divine commentary, set in parentheses, is that this—and nothing less than this—that salvation is by grace, completely unmerited favor in the stead of merited wrath (v. 4–5). The motivation in salvation is internal to7. 2 Thess. 3:2, “…for all men have not faith.” If saving faith is mere human trust, then all men would have faith, they simply do not move it in the right direction to Christ. This statement only makes sense if saving faith is the gift of God


1215 If saving faith were merely human trust, then one might believe and then apostatize [cease believing or becoming a non–believer] from Christ and be finally lost. This must be assumed if the doctrines of “free will” and faith as human trust are allowed to stand. The issue is one of a consistent as opposed to an inconsistent Pelagianism.6.

Phil. 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake…” As a gift of God’s free grace of behalf of Christ…to continue to believe on him…” Again, grace and belief are place in juxtaposition to emphasize faith as the gift of God.12145. 1 Cor. 15:2, “By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” The meaning is, “believed to no purpose,” a mere intellectual ascent. But if saving faith is merely human trust, then an intellectual ascent to the facts of the gospel would be true faith. Indeed, it would be impossible, under the modern Pelagian idea, for this not to be saving faith, as all faith is merely subjective and must be taken on its mere claim to exist.4. 1 Cor. 2:5 is significant: “that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Mere human trust would be of man, not necessarily of God. Such would be merely psychological and not spiritual. Their conversion experience under Paul’s authoritative preaching, which demonstrated the unction of the Spirit, witnessed to the true spirituality of their faith. Thus, it is the essence or nature of their faith, not its content, which is in view in this passage.3. Rom. 4:16 is a vital statement: “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed…” If saving faith were mere human trust, then the promise might not be sure, as the determining factor would be the “free will” of the sinner, not the certainty of Divine grace. The very biblical principle of grace necessitates faith being the gift of God, i.e., a true and vital faith (Cf. Rom. 4:10–18).parallel to that of Eph. 2:8, “by grace you have been saved and continue in this state of salvation.”12131210 “...th/| w`risme,nh| boulh/| kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou/...” The construction is that of the combined use of the articular and anarthrous connected with a single definite article and the co– ordinate conjunction kai., both substantives being of the same case. The second term, “foreknowledge,” thus refers to and further enforces the first, “determinate counsel”. This is an occurrence of the so–called “Granville Sharp’s rule”. 1211 Jn. 10:26, avlla. u`mei/j ouv pisteu,ete( o[ti ouvk evste. evk tw/n proba,twn tw/n evmw/nÅ “But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep, [I mean] those [which are] mine!” 1212 Acts 13:48, …kai. evpi,steusan o[soi h=san tetagme,noi eivj zwh.n aivw,nion\ Their ordination to eternal life by the eternal purpose and sovereign grace of God resulted in their believing. 4532. Acts 18:27, “…he…helped them much which had believed through grace.” This statement refers to Apollos, who strengthened the disciples in Achaia. They are described as those “who had believed through grace.” This designation can only mean that they believed or came to faith in Christ and continued in their profession “by” or “through” or “by means of” the work of Divine grace—a thought1. Acts 13:48, “…and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”1212 This must not be reversed. These were disposed [ordained] by God to eternal life, and therefore believed. This alone is in accordance with the analogy of faith.Jn. 10:26, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep…”1211 It is not believing that makes one a “sheep” of Christ, but being a “sheep” of Christ results in one believing in him. Cf. the context in v. 1–16, 25–30. Note the following statements:Scriptural Statements and Theological Conclusions.The Definitive Statement. The orthodox teaching of both Scripture and theology is that saving faith is a gift of God graciously bestowed in the context of the redemptive purpose or the eternal covenant of redemption and grace. The elect of God in time, history and personal experience will be effectually called, regenerated and granted both faith and repentance so that they freely and willingly flee to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.NOTE on saving faith as the gift of God:[/COLOR][/B]

 

That is a very weak argument. Jesus said that to the Pharisees, the Saducees, the scribes, the seven churches of Revelation, and to others.
For example:
Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

It was a warning. It does not mean that everyone within hearing distance was regenerate.

 

DHK,

 

I just thought you might be interested in learning some truth on this topic.....But....maybe not today.....hey tomorrow is another day...lolFrownFrownFrown[/QUOTE]

"Through" vs. "By" vs. "Because" are translational distinctions without a difference in meaning.

Oh, and thanks a lot for the condescension.

 

[/QUOTE]
Your welcome....and by the way....it makes all the difference in the world...because of which does not appear anywhere in scripture would be man as it's source....it does not happen anywhere in scripture...not once....that's..."so what".....

here is from David Branierd;

Someone may ask, “Have I repented enough to be saved?” The answer must be “No— never!” Again, “Have I believed enough to be saved?” The answer again is “No—never!” No one can ever repent enough! No one can ever believe enough! Such questions are asked because the one who asks them, ignorant of the nature of Divine grace, approaches repentance and faith as works done in his or her own strength. It is not the amount of repentance or faith that makes them effectual, it is their nature (they are both the gifts of God freely and sovereignly bestowed, Acts 11:18; 18:27; Eph. 2:4–10; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:24–25) and their object (saving repentance is concerned with sin as the ruling principle of the life—any and all sin—not merely certain sins. Saving faith rests in the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ and appropriates it. This is “Justification by Faith”— not justification because of faith, which is synonymous with works). 478

 

And who translated the scriptures--oh, that would be man.

 

I meant it as helpful to you....you are in combat mode so you will not welcome it right now.... it is not a matter of translation...it is fact.
You will not welcome it from me...but that is okay, I understand as I press you a bit....but search it out....
I started a more specific thread on this topic, you are welcome to search it out.

 

The use of the NRSV and the argument made from these verses shows the deadly danger of using translations with 'inclusive' language. Note the NKJV translation of verse 29. 'Of how much worse punishment , do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?'
The Greek is singular in the highlighted pronouns, but in order to be 'gender inclusive' the NRSV uses the plural. But who is the 'he' who 'was sanctified'? What is the nearest antecedent? The 'Son of God.' 'And for their sakes I sanctify Myself' (John 17:19). This is the understanding of John Owen in his mammoth commentary on Hebrews.

The idea that someone can be in Christ, out again, and then maybe in again is not feasible. 'For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable' (Romans 11:29). And the idea that someone can be born of the Spirit of God and then trample the Son of God underfoot is surely not to be countenanced. 'And I give them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand' (John 10:28).

 

Brother Martin,

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful reply to my post. I am very much aware that the NRSV is a gender-inclusive translation and I use it cautiously. However, in Hebrews 10:29 a man is spoken of who has done the following things:

He has spurned the Son of God
He has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified
And he has outraged the Spirit of grace

Giving us the following:

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (RSV)

The RSV has it right. By the way, the Greek reads here:

Heb. 10:29: Heb 10:29 πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καταπατήσας καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας;

The Greek singular third person masculine pronoun (he in English) is not used; the concept is merely implied, and the correct antecedent is, in Greek, very often NOT the nearest noun.

Moreover, Jesus was not sanctified by the shedding of His blood. Indeed, as you yourself noted, Jesus sanctified Himself before his blood was shed. Owen attempts to eliminate the obvious difficulty and absurdly writes, “It is not real or internal sanctification that is hear intended, but it is a separation and dedication unto God; in which sense the word is often used.” (The use of italic type here is his, not mine). His comment is true of its use in John 17:19, but it is NOT true of its use in Hebrews 10:29.

 

And so?
Your quote is from Downing who is the pastor of the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church.
Their stated "Doctrinal Distinctive" is:

http://www.sgbcsv.org/aboutUs/

IOW, you quote from a Calvinistic pastor who uses both the First And Second London Confessions as their expressions of faith. And you think I would agree with that?? As far as I am concerned, you have a flawed source.

 

I don't think your argument is very sound. When were you saved? Was it the very first time you heard the gospel? How often did you hear the Word of God before you were saved?
The Scriptures say:
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The more Jesus would preach the Word the more people would be saved, hence the more "ears would be opened." Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Some mission fields are harder than others. I read of a missionary who preached for seven years in India before he saw one soul come to Christ. But after that one, then many others came. Faithfulness to the Word is key.

 

You cannot begin to touch upon the content of anything in either confession, and furthermore in your wildest dreams you cannot begin to deal with the teaching offered in these links.
They are offered for you and others to learn as they are Christ centered as are Calvinists.
Your hatred for these truths makes you turn from these truths, and as Jesus pointed out as you turn from light you turn to darkness.
35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.

Anyone without an agenda like you carry around on your back like a burden, will enjoy the clarity of thought offered in any of these links...in fact, they already have.

This is one of the pastors who could correct your errors on the carnal Christian teaching but you refuse wisdom...as well as the three words used in the greek that explain our one English word...carnal.

No one can force you to consider these truths , but a wise man will.
12 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
15 Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard.

16 Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.

18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured

 

You are critical of all these sources.....and yet we all have noticedthat you never have attempt to show any flaw in them. This speaks volumes....CautiousCautious