The act of receiving

Take careful not that Romans 4 nowhere says that Abraham's subjective faith was imputed to him for "justification". It was imputed to him for "righteousness". These two things are not necessarily the same thing. The context decides. I believe Paul taught that Abraham's subjective faith in God was imputed to him for righteousness, but not for justification before God. Ask why Paul did not use the Greek word dikaiôsis, "justification", but always "dikaiosunê" - "righteousness", when speaking of Abraham's faith. Abraham was already a man justified (in and by Christ) before God the Judge of all the earth when he believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, not "for justification". That saving justification which the Scripture calls "justification of life" (Rom. 5:18) is in the sight of (before) God as a holy and righteous Judge. It must precede (and it did) Abraham's believing God which was imputed to him for righteousness (not justification). The perfect obedience and blood of the Messias to come was imputed to Abraham for justification. This sovereign Divine imputation of Christ's perfect justifying righteousness to Abraham demanded his quickening into life eternal, hence the Scripture calls it "justification of life". Sometimes after God had regenerated the justified Abraham he believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness (not justification). Thus this imputation of Abraham's belief for righteousness was not "justification of life". The latter he had obtained previously, sometime prior to God regenerating him.

Christ's justifying righteousness imputed to a sinner's person justifies him/her before God, this and nothing else. This is a "justification of life", it demands life eternal, spiritual life, to the justified person. And God is faithful and sovereignly begets from above the sinner justified in and by Christ and His righteousness, His obedience and blood, and this regeneration altogether apart from human or earthly means, and on the footing of Christ's resurrection from among dead ones (1Pet. 1:3). God regenerates by His living Word (God the Son) through the Holy Spirit. Abraham's believing that was imputed to him for righteousness did not result in his new birth or regeneration, but on the contrary was a fruit of it, an evidence of Divine regeneration, a part of "the fruit of the Spirit" (cp. Gal. 5:22).

It is also interesting that in Rom. 4:24 the form of the verb translated "be imputed" (KJV) is present passive infinitive. The Spirit of Christ inspiring Paul gave such a construction that it excludes any notion of a once and for all imputing of subjective faith God-ward for justification before God. Rather it speaks about ongoing or repeated imputation of faith (cp. vv. 22 & 23) for righteousness. If the word for "impute" had been in aorist passive it had properly translated as "to be imputed" (once, once and for all). But now the infinitive passive is in the present tense - "to be being imputed". As it is quite a difficult grammatical construction it is not easy to tell how to best render it into English. The words of the KJV, "it shall be imputed", are rendered from 2 original words "...mellei logizesthai...". The first is a present active indicative, 3rd p. singular; the 2nd is present passive infinitive as stated. Literally it would read "it is being about to be being imputed", meaning the imputing which is under consideration is not a one time occurence (point action, as in aorist), but something occuring repeatedly, time and time again, or possibly constantly. Also, the verb translated "believe" in this same verse is neither an aorist, but a plural present active participle - " (ones) believing" or "believers". This also excludes a one time act of faith as that which brings about a once and for all justification or "getting right with God", as they say.

Paul taught clearly and dogmatically that true God-given faith excludes, shuts out, all boasting in the flesh.

Rom. 3:27 Where then [is] the boasting? It was excluded. By means of what kind of a law? By the works? Certainly not! but to the contrary by means of a law of faith.

Abraham was an example of this.

Rom. 4:20 And he hesitated not at the promise of God by unbelief, but to the contrary was empowered by the faith, giving glory to God,

Many professing believers have faith in their own faith. Such is a dead faith. Many make their claimed faith their co-partner with Christ in their professed justification. I dare claim that none of those who will eventually be found in the glory world when time ceases had died believing the false gospel of justification by faith in Christ. Because the Holy Spirit of Christ does not acknowledge such a gospel, for He did not inspire any such gospel to be written down in the Holy Scriptures. Some Bible versions would have people think they can be justified by "faith in Jesus Christ", cp. NASB & NKJV (plus some others as well) in both Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16. Also the KJV in Rom. 3:26b seemingly supports those two versions in said verses. But not so the honorable Textus Receptus, nor the tampered with Alexandrian Greek texts, nor the Majority Texts of Hodges-Farstad and Pierpont-Robinson, also they inferior to the best TR editions.

All of them read the same in Rom. 3:22a:

dikaiosunê de Theou dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou

"Namely righteousness of God by means of faithfulness OF Jesus Christ" (emphasis mine)

Yea, let God be true and every man a liar.

Harald

 

Amen!!! Faith in faith leaves nothing.

 

Ray,

Differnt passage of scripture, same faulty inference. That all are in equal need of the gospel does not imply that people are equally able to respond to it positively as negatively. If you were to look to Rmans 5 and how those in Adam are helpless, this would be clear.

Nowhere are we told how Abraham came to believe. That he was specifically called by God supports effectual call, not free will. You assume that Abrahahm was equally able to say yes or no to God; an assumption which, as alaways, is unproven and actually conrary to scripture considered in its entirety.

Actually, faith as Arminians use the term IS a work. That you call it faith does not mean that it is faith as Paul understood it.

The logic is simple. You and I would agree that God will not turn away anyone who believes. All who call on the name of the Lord wil be saved. But here is the rub. If faith is of human origin, then God is not acting out of grace, but out of obligation, merely rendering to the believing individual what he is due for believing (justification). But that which is given as due is the example of a work that does not justify in Romans 4. Thus we see that faith has to have its origin in God, and not man for it to qualify as being responded to by God out of grace.

So you have your own definition of faith which is not what Paul means by faith. You go on to try to shoehorn your version of faith into Romans 5, without success.

[ February 11, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Bible-belted ]

 

Bro. Dallas,

I agree with your views on Church History. I do not go along with the TULI but believe something like Perserverance. I believe if a person really believes and trusts in Christ as personal Savior, that He will keep that person forever in His love and care.

Blessings on your family . . .

 

There is no deep mystery and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to understand the difference between justification and imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul is not saying the same thing by using these two words. Justification makes us judicially and forever accepted before the Divine authority of His justice, while imputation of righteousness is what He does in the heart and life of the person who truly believes and trusts in Jesus for everlasting life. His righteousness become ours as regenerated sinners. God then does not see our sin, if we sin as Christians, because positionally He sees us as pure as Jesus is immaculate and uncorrupted as to sin. God is spotless holiness and He sees us as holy before Him, because He has justified us before Almighty God.

On the experiential level while we are on earth, if we try to continue to sin, He will step into our lives and chastise us because of His love for us as His children. [Hebrews 12:5-8]

 

Harald,

Good post from Finland.

Regards . . .

 

Bible- belted,

God has, as you said, obligated Himself to save all who will come to Him. [John 5:40] He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, [Hebrews 12:24 a] and His atonement covers the sins of every human being. [I John 2:2] All that a sinner has to do is savingly believe in Jesus Christ. [Acts 2:21]

The simplicity of the Gospel is that you do not have to wait until you think He has tapped on your shoulder with that special, alleged, "Effectual Calling." He is calling by His Spirit every human being. [Revelation 22:17]

When the sinner senses a call to salvation, it is then time to believe in Him for the promise of Heaven and everlasting life.

Regards . . .

 

Primitive Baptist,

I don't know what you meant when you said, 'Faith in faith leaves nothing.' Help me out.

 

There are people who trust in their faith itself for salvation.

 

So you have no response to the fact that yor version of faith is not the biblcial understanding?

You have no answer to the evidene provided that those in Adam are helpless?

Typical.

You choose instead to try to shift the ground. Fine.

Calvanists do not deny that there is a general call. But what you consistently fail to deal with is the assumed nonsequitur that repsonsibility necessarily leads one to infer ability.

You fail to deal with these things, but respond as though you have.

Your problem.

 

Again I ask, how is one "morally accountable" for that which he can't choose otherwise? If one can't choose otherwise, that one can't be morally held responsible for what he does. However, the Bible does teach man can and is expected to "choose". (Josh 24:15)

The fact that "in Adam" humans have a sinful "nature", and thus tend to sin, doesn't mean that the person cannot choose otherwise in every single instance. Jesus acknowledged that evil people know how to do at least SOME good (Luke 10:13). Paul pointed out that even unregenerate Gentiles could "by NATURE do the things contained in the law" and that "the works of the Law" were "written on their hearts." (Romans 2:14-15). It seems odd then to suggest that unregenerate folks don't have the ABILITY to do good or that they have no choice but to do evil.

Therefore, if God takes the initiative to draw one to Himself, that one can responsibly come. Sadly, however, that one can also RESIST God's drawing and NOT come.

 

Doubting Thomas,

I do not have to explain how it is, as long as Scriture teaches this. And it does. Roamsn is very clear that no one can actually fulfill thelaw. Yet it was given in full expectation that it should be obeyed in full.

Again the issue is not whether a person has th eability to choose, but whether one has equal ability to make any choice. Scripture is solidly against this notion. We are God's enemies, unable to please God, helpless, etc. We are simply not able to choose all options equally.

What is it about "helpless" you don't understand?

Calvanism does not deny this at all. Yo uare here makign a mistake about Calvanism. The teaching is not that people can do no good but that they are helpless to save themselves. That includes choosing God of their own "free will".

No one has made the claim that people can never do good. But the Bible is very clear about the powert of sin on those in Adam. Sin reigns. We are slaves of sin. It is the master of thse in Adam.

There is the general cal of the gospel, and yess it is resistable. But those whom God has elected to salvation get the effectual call, such that they do not wish to resist.

Again, youmake salvation a matter of human effort. Some people dont' resist in your schema. Why not? what is it about them? Is it something inate to them? Does that not make God a respecter of persons? saving only those with the right stufff to not resist the gospel call? And does htis not make faith a work, as per Paul's definition of Romans 4? Yes of course it does!

Borhter Bill,

Yes.

Because genuineness is not determined by the effectiveness of the call but the sincerity of the One making the call. The general call is a serious call. If any were to answer it appropriately, then God would not reject them. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But none do that.

See above.

I note that you make a lot fo claims about what Calvanists say, yet I don't see calvnaists saying those things.

Straw men are easy to beat, and caricatures of beliefs easy to refute. Try dealing with the real thing.

 

Bible-belted,

This is the true meaning of faith. Just because you might have been taught a certain view of "Effectual Call', regeneration, and later the introduction of faith to the new Christian, does not mean it is the orthodox view. Faith is man's reliance on what Jesus accomplished on the Cross. For nearly my whole life I never heard of this Calvinistic inverted order in order to putty the walls of Calvinism. Of all the Christians that I know only two or three follow your view.

 

Brother Bill,

For a Calvinist there is an Effectual Call which is the one that calls in the elect. Their alleged General Call is a hoax because it is an insincere one offered by our Lord to the rest of the lost. The reason why this concept is an error is because in Romans 2:11 reminds us that with God there is no respecter of individuals. [Romans 2:11] It is impossible for God not to offer a bonified offer of salvation and eternal life with God,and only a 'crack-pot' could have thought this one up.

Apparently, in seminary some of these men were not taught the absolute infinity and viability of God's love, justice and mercy. In other words, He cannot because of His Divine nature treat some with real love that brings them in as the elect, while knowing in His heart that He is going to turn the vast majority away from His prepared city called Heaven. This Divine impossibility is what makes this two tiered concept of a General and Effectual Call a most serious error.

 

I bring to the table a credible witness as to what genuine Christian faith is all about. Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary has written 25 books and is the author of "The Ryrie Study Bible, The Holy Spirit, Balancing the Christian Life and Revelation," are the most prominent ones. In his book called "Basic Theology' on page 626 he writes this definition of faith. 'Faith means giving credence, confidence, trust or holding something or someone as true.'

When a sinner trust Christ and knows he has confessed his sins to God he is 'born again.' The man can say he has faith because he has 'Believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has been saved . . . ' [Acts 16:31] And what does that faith mean? It clearly means that he has credence, confidence and trust in Jesus Christ who will bring about His final salvation in Heaven and will enjoy everlasting life with the Lamb of God, our Savior. There is no other or better definition of faith than this one.

 

Primitive Baptist,

We trust in our faith because it has placed us in touch with the Lord of magnificent glory above. Our faith is not in the concept alone it includes the Object of our faith and trust which is our Lord Jesus.

 

Bible-belted,

You said, 'My version of faith is not one of Biblical understanding.' My view is that faith is a trust and reliance on Christ for all things future and is received only by believing in Jesus with all of the heart, mind and spirit. Th.D. {Summa Cum Laude, 2000 A.D.}

On 2/12/03 at 1:37 I offered up an alternative coming from the pen of Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Th.D. of Dallas Seminary. This seminary has clear Calvinistic leaning, so you might accept his view. And if not there is one more.

This one comes from Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Th.D. {the late professor at Dallas Theological Seminary} in his "Systematic Theology" Vol. 7 p. 146. His statement is this. 'According to the simplest conception of it, faith is a personal confidence in God. This implies that the individual has to come to know God to some degree of real experience. And he goes on to say, 'The following quotation from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states the simple facts about that faith which is in God (Handley Dunelm, s.v., "Faith"): 'It is important to notice that Hebrews 11:1 is no exception to the rule that "faith" normally means "reliance," "trust.". . . . But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen.

(a) The history of the use of the Greek word 'pistis' is instructive. In the LXX it normally, if not always bears the "passive" sense, "fidelity," "good faith," while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, "trust."

Dr. Pat Robertson says, 'In the Book of Hebrews, the Bible defines faith as "the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality. We are hoping to reach Heaven, a world we cannot see, and faith gives substance to our expectation.' {President of the Christian Broadcasting Network. M.Div. from New York Theological Seminary and his J.D. from Yale University of Law School.

Dr. Robert Shank says, in one of his books, "Elect In The Son," p. 108, 'In Romans 5:18, Paul affirms a universal atonement and reconciliation comprehending all men: "so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquital and life for all men" (RSV). But actuation of the universal atonement for individual men is contingent on personal appropriation: "much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (v. 17 RSV). What is provided "for all men" benefits only those who receive."

 

Primitive Baptist,

I believe you are right in your statement, 'There are some people who trust in their faith itself for their salvation.'

I believe faith or belief in Jesus is the conduit that delivers to the sinner His grace. We always have to keep our reliance on Christ for our hope in this life and the next. Without a continual fellowship with the Lord we end up with a handful of 'dead orthodoxy.' No one is attracted to that; we need to keep our relationship to Him alive and worshipful.