Yes, but that is not through our faith, but through Christ's faith.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Differences?
- Thread starter Amy.G
- Start date
convicted1
Guest
Faith is a gift of God, and not something we get on our own. Jesus doesn't need to have faith in anything. He was/is God manifested in the flesh.
Then would you explain Gal 2:16 which says "faith of Christ"?
convicted1
Guest
To be very honest with you, no.
Now, can you please show me with scripture, what God the Son, needs to have faith in?
It's the KJV rendering. It should say "in" Christ.
Some claim that the faith of Christ means Christ's faithfulness to go to the cross, evenso, it is through Christs faithfulness, Rom 5:1 and Eph 2:8, and not our faithfulness. Our faith has nothing to do with getting our eternal salvation.
Yes amy, the KJV says "OF" but some of the other versions has changed the wording to read "IN" which takes it away from Christ and gives it to man, which is wrong.
I feel I fit in quite well with the meaning of grace when I preach the doctrine of grace as I know it to be the good news genuinely offered to all God’s creatures; seems my view of God’s offer of grace is all-encompassing and therefore involving more grace than those would claim to have “The” Doctrine of Grace. I believe "The" “Doctrine of Pre-selected Grace” would be much more straightforward title for the Calvinist and the Reformed to use in describing their theology. But I suspect they have their reasons to shy away from those other titles and use a more ambiguous term than the one that I suggest while trying to monopolize of the meaning of grace with such a title.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know Amy didn't want a debate, but I have to give a :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: to this. Very well stated!
There is no "change." Its a difference in translating the term. We do have faith in Christ. Faith is a gift form God. Christ doesn't need faith because he knows everything. How can you have faith if you are all knowing? The difference is between Subjective Genitive and Objective Genitive.
Note the KJV's inconsistency...
vs 22: πιστεως ιησου KJV: "faith of Jesus"
vs 26: πιστεως ιησου KJV: "believeth in Jesus"
The NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV,
"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
so faith in Jesus is doctrinally sound regardless of how one translates vs 22.
Tom Butler
New Member
I thought Iconoclast had brought us back from chasing rabbits, but alas, we're off track again.
I realize Calvinist, Reformed, DoG are sometimes used interchangeably, and I suppose that's okay in some ways, since it gives one a quick summary of one's soteriology.
But I really associate the term Reformed with Presbyterians more than Baptists. Reformed is also linked in a way to Covenant Theology.
Would it be somewhat misleading for a Baptist to describe himself as Reformed if he is not into Covenant Theology?
I realize Calvinist, Reformed, DoG are sometimes used interchangeably, and I suppose that's okay in some ways, since it gives one a quick summary of one's soteriology.
But I really associate the term Reformed with Presbyterians more than Baptists. Reformed is also linked in a way to Covenant Theology.
Would it be somewhat misleading for a Baptist to describe himself as Reformed if he is not into Covenant Theology?
Several groups have used the name 'Reformed Baptist' for a while before finally separating themselves from the Baptist denomination altogether. It's what the Disciples of Christ used to be called. Also the Reformed Baptist Alliance of Canada and the Northeast U.S., which eventually joined the Wesleyan Church.
convicted1
Guest
I have the Hebrew/Greek Interlinears by Jay Green-which I highly reccomend, btw-and in Gal. 2:16, it has "faith IN Christ". Granted the words "of" and "in" are in italics, so as to make the translation from Greek to English could be smoother. Faith "in" Christ seems to be the proper text, imo. The "faith of Christ" has an odd feel to it. Christ needs to have faith in/of nothing.
Galatians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
16having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'
Galatians 2:16
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
16 know that a man [soothly knowing for a man] is not justified of the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; and we believe in Jesus Christ, that we be justified of the faith of Christ [that we be justified by the faith of Christ], and not of the works of the law. Wherefore of the works of the law each flesh shall not be justified.
Galatians 2:16
New Living Translation (NLT)
16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”[a]
Galatians 2:16
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16
Lexham English Bible (LEB)
16 but knowing that a person is not justified by the works of the law, if not by faith in Jesus Christ,[a] and we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified[c].
16 know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ.[a] And we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will[c] be justified.
Galatians 2:16
American Standard Version (ASV)
16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
16But we know that God accepts only those who have faith in Jesus Christ. No one can please God by simply obeying the Law. So we put our faith in Christ Jesus, and God accepted us because of our faith.
Now, two of the versions I posted here, have footnotes stating it could be "of" instead of "in". So who really knows? I look at consistency, and "in" seems moreso than "of".
So based on these replies, Reformed usually believe in Covenant Theology, Calvinists use the TULIP as their guide (points), and DoG's seem to be more moderate and can have differing views on eschatology.
Is that correct?
So why do you choose one term over another, speaking from a personal aspect?
Is that correct?
So why do you choose one term over another, speaking from a personal aspect?
I know Reformed people who are also Dispensationalist. TULIP is only an antiquated acrostic that was used (mostly in the past) but has been greatly modified to be much more descriptive (for Limited Atonement has been adjusted to Particular Atonement). Lastly Doctrines of Grace is a systematic sotorology (did I spell that wrong?)
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it breaks down so simply as you put it. DOG people also use the tulip as their guide, and so would be no different than calvinists. Many Baptist Calvinists (DoG people) would call themselves reformed, but a Presbyterian might say they are "reformed in soteriology only" but not in baptism, church government, & eschatology.
So "reformed" MIGHT mean something slightly different than the other two to some extent, but I would say Calvinism & DoG would be exactly the same.
Tom,
Historically baptists are a real mixed up group. Sometimes here on BB you see some who will say They just want to discuss regular baptist doctrine.
That is because some baptist churches are lagging badly on doctrinal basics.
Recently Pastor Greg Nichols has written a book called Covenant theology...written from a Baptist perspective...it is really good.
http://www.solid-ground-books.com/detail_1613.asp
Tom ......Reformed Baptists recognise the centrality of God's Covenants in scripture. I believe everyone should .
reformed take the entire calvinist theology "package", including covenant theology, Isreal now is either the Church, fulfilled in the Church etc
DoG takes cal theology as JUST rearding sotierology
calvinist all depends IF one is referring to just how Salvation is viewed, or else the entire system!
Rather, without Grace, faith doesn't occur.
Faith is the gift of God given, according to John 1:12, to "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name."