Ye must be born again !

[Thinkingstuff]

Third, take note that even though man is capable of willing/choosing and running or pursuing, that such are not causations for receiving mercy but rather God's own sovereign will is the causation for receving mercy.

To say that God offers everyone salvation though not all will receive it does not deminish God's sovereign will being the causation for receving mercy. You seem to think it does.

However, I will have to get back with you how I view the passage you quoted from Romans. I will look at it from the greater context of the Pauline discourse. But I need some time to review.

 

[Dr. Walter]

However, returning to the subject of this thread which is John 3:3-7 and whether the new birth is something "WE CAN DO it" or whether it is something only God can do:

There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

 

[Dr. Walter]

To say that God offers everyone salvation though not all will receive it does not deminish God's sovereign will being the causation for receving mercy. You seem to think it does.

However, I will have to get back with you how I view the passage you quoted from Romans. I will look at it from the greater context of the Pauline discourse. But I need some time to review.

Fair enough, but don't attempt to deny/change/pervert the specific grammar and facts of Romans 9:14-18 by appealing to scriptures outside this context that are dependent upon your own particular interpretative bias as that only kicks the can down the road and is a political maneuver to escape dealing with the evidence placed before you. Outside context does not change the singular "him" and "whom" to "them" and "those"! It does not change "Pharoah" to a Jew, etc.

Furthermore, do not attempt to cut and dissect one part of my argument from the other parts as my argument is sustained by every peice as a unit from the same context in a developmental fashion according to the text.

 

[savedbymercy]

A second communication of Life !

Jn 3:7

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Marvel Not ! The word marvel is a word that denotes astonishment, wonderment. Its the word used in Lk 8:25

25And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

Its the word admired as in 2 Thess 1:10

10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

What Jesus was saying to Nicodemus is that a man must receive a second life, a second communication of life. He was not telling Nicodemus to do that for himself, for that's impossible, for men cannot communicate to themselves a new birth or a new life, though many delude themselves into thinking they can .

Lets think about birth for a moment, as we see the analogy of it from natural birth. Does Natural Life exist before it's manifestation at Birth ? When a Mother gives birth to a child for the first time, was that the very beginning of that Child's Life ? If any has any sense at all of the bio of a birth, then you know that the actual birth of a baby was not the beginning of its life, but only the manifestation of a conception and a development, that conception being 9 months prior, under normal circumstances. If this be true of natural birth, then I hesitate not that its equally true of a Spiritual Birth, that is, that a life existed [Spiritually Jn 1:4]] before it is brought into manifestation by Birth.

In order to be born, we must first be the offspring of the One giving Birth. To have been given physical birth into this physical world, we had to be the offspring of our Physical Father, His seed, and so likewise to be given Spiritual Birth, we had to be the offspring of a Spiritual Father ! Isa 53:10

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Now I would venture to say that most would agree that this verse is referring to Jesus Christ, and it indicates that He has a seed. The word seed here is the hebrew word zera`and means:

seed, sowing, offspring

a) a sowing

b) seed

c) semen virile

d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children

Jesus has a offspring, Just as a Physical Father has a offspring, so Christ as a Spiritual Father has a offspring, spiritual descendants.

Jesus in the realm of redemption is a Father, even from everlasting, that's what's indicated in Isa 9:6

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

We know this verse is speaking of the Son of God, and all the different titles belong to Him, one of which is the Everlasting Father. This is not designating Him God the Father,But pointing to His being a Father of a spiritual seed given Him. The word Father is the Hebrew word 'ab and means:

of producer, generator (fig.)

A Generator ! Whats that ? it means:

to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the generator of His spiritual offspring, He brings them into existence, produces them, cause them to be !

Their[His Offspring or seed] Life was in Him. Jn 1:4

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

What Life ? The Life of His seed, His Offspring.

All of what I am showing here is important to Jesus statement, "Ye must be born again " and exactly what that means. Jesus means, that one must have a second communication of life given them.

 

[Dr. Walter]

However, returning to the subject of this thread which is John 3:3-7 and whether the new birth is something "WE CAN DO it" or whether it is something only God can do:

There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

 

[DHK]

However, returning to the subject of this thread which is John 3:3-7 and whether the new birth is something "WE CAN DO it" or whether it is something only God can do:

There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

We are not clueless concerning this matter. No one has ever denied that salvation is all of God, always has been all of God, always will be all of God. Are you accusing some here of not believing this basic truth? If so point out this baseless allegation.

Jesus said on the cross "It is finished." The work of salvation was finished on the cross. He demonstrated that once and for all by rising from the dead--the completion of the gospel. There is nothing more we can do. The full payment for our sins was paid by Christ and Christ alone. No amount of works can ever pay the penalty that Christ paid for us.

However, that wonderful gift of salvation is just that--a gift. In order to access it, it must be appropriated, for we are not universalists. The gift must be actively received. It must be received by faith.

For by grace (the grace of Christ), are you saved through faith (the faith that accesses the gift of salvation). There is no other way to obtain salvation. Having said this, it is well documented and defined that faith is not a work, never was a work, and never can be a work. Thus salvation remains, from beginning to end the entire work of God, accessed by faith. It must be received faith and faith alone--sola fide!!

To deny such a wonderful biblical truth is to be in serious biblical error.

 

[savedbymercy]

What is a Birth ?

In continuing to understand what Jesus means by " Ye must be born again " we will be more specific as to what a birth is. The greek word in our text is the word gennaō and means:


of men who fathered children

a) to be born

b) to be begotten

1) of women giving birth to children

2) metaph.

a) to engender, cause to arise, excite

b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone

c) of God making Christ his son

d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

As stated earlier, we must be first the offspring of the One giving birth, mainly the Father.

A birth is a continuing of a Father, a Progenitor , of whom they [the seed] take their image after. Remember Gen 5:3-4

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

The word for beget and begotten in this passage is the Hebrew word yalad and means :

to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail

a) (Qal)

1) to bear, bring forth

a) of child birth

b) of distress (simile)

c) of wicked (behaviour)

2) to beget

b) (Niphal) to be born

c) (Piel)

1) to cause or help to bring forth

2) to assist or tend as a midwife

3) midwife (participle)

d) (Pual) to be born

e) (Hiphil)

1) to beget (a child)

Now how did Seth become Adam's offspring or seed ? Remember Eve said at his birth Gen 4:25

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed[Offspring] instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Did Seth become Adam's Offspring by His own will ? Was it His choice to be born of As Adam's seed ? Or was it as Eve stated, that God hath appointed Him their seed or Offspring. We may learn that it's up to God's appointment who belongs to whose offspring and whom they will receive birth.

So its only one way that Seth became the Offspring of Adam, that was by the Sovereign purpose of God.

A birth, a seed, is determined by God, not the freewill of men. Its the continuation of a man's image and likeness.

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk:

it is well documented and defined that faith is not a work,

Says who ? The bible doesn't say that. Show me one scripture that says that Faith is not a work. I have showed you once before that Faith is a Law, a commandment.

Matt 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Your response was weak , stating that the word Faith has the article before it. Yes it does, but that does not negate what Jesus stated, these ought ye had done !

The word done is the greek word poieō:


to act rightly, do well

1) to carry out, to execute

b) to do a thing unto one

I will add another comment of Jesus when speaking to some jews He said:

Jn 8:39

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Now what are the works of Abraham so prominent in scripture ?

Rom 4:3,9

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Gal 3:7

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Jesus was equating works here with Abraham's acts of Faith throughout His Life.

So please show us a scripture that states Faith is not a work ,a commandment.

Or should we just take your word for it ? And all this really has nothing to do with Jesus statement " Ye must be born again ?

 

[DHK]

dhk:



Says who ? The bible doesn't say that. Show me one scripture that says that Faith is not a work. I have showed you once before that Faith is a Law, a commandment.

Matt 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Your response was weak , stating that the word Faith has the article before it. Yes it does, but that does not negate what Jesus stated, these ought ye had done !

The word done is the greek word poieō:


to act rightly, do well

1) to carry out, to execute

b) to do a thing unto one

I will add another comment of Jesus when speaking to some jews He said:

Jn 8:39

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Now what are the works of Abraham so prominent in scripture ?

Rom 4:3,9

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Gal 3:7

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Jesus was equating works here with Abraham's acts of Faith throughout His Life.

So please show us a scripture that states Faith is not a work ,a commandment.

Or should we just take your word for it ? And all this really has nothing to do with Jesus statement " Ye must be born again ?

Nice of you to take Scripture out of context. I don't have time to answer this full post right now. But to demonstrate.

You can't do faith!

 

[Dr. Walter]

We have not been discussing "salvation" in a general sense. We have not been discussing what Christ did on the cross or any aspect of what Christ did in his person.

We have been discussing the nature of the new birth and whether John 3:5-7 is something "WE CAN DO...." or is it something ONLY God can do!

The Grammar denies it is someth "WE CAN DO...." The Grammar denies it is something "WE CAN DO..." by participation or a joint work between us and God. This is completely and irrefutably denied by the four undeniable grammatical facts of this context:


There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

We are not clueless concerning this matter. No one has ever denied that salvation is all of God, always has been all of God, always will be all of God. Are you accusing some here of not believing this basic truth? If so point out this baseless allegation.

Jesus said on the cross "It is finished." The work of salvation was finished on the cross. He demonstrated that once and for all by rising from the dead--the completion of the gospel. There is nothing more we can do. The full payment for our sins was paid by Christ and Christ alone. No amount of works can ever pay the penalty that Christ paid for us.

However, that wonderful gift of salvation is just that--a gift. In order to access it, it must be appropriated, for we are not universalists. The gift must be actively received. It must be received by faith.

For by grace (the grace of Christ), are you saved through faith (the faith that accesses the gift of salvation). There is no other way to obtain salvation. Having said this, it is well documented and defined that faith is not a work, never was a work, and never can be a work. Thus salvation remains, from beginning to end the entire work of God, accessed by faith. It must be received faith and faith alone--sola fide!!

To deny such a wonderful biblical truth is to be in serious biblical error.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nice of you to take Scripture out of context. I don't have time to answer this full post right now. But to demonstrate.

You can't do faith!

Justifying faith cannot be at the same time a "gift" of God and a work of man! The scripture clearly says it is a "gift" of God and in that context (Eph. 2:8-9) it is denied to be a "work" of man. Hence, I agree with DHK on that point.

However, where DHK is wrong is denial that the gift of faith can be exercised apart from the "new" heart given by God. The heart God gives is different than the old heart which is an UNBELIEVING heart (Jn. 3:18). God gives a BELIEVING heart and thus both the heart and faith are a "gift" of God.

 

[DHK]

Justifying faith cannot be at the same time a "gift" of God and a work of man! The scripture clearly says it is a "gift" of God and in that context (Eph. 2:8-9) it is denied to be a "work" of man. Hence, I agree with DHK on that point.

However, where DHK is wrong is denial that the gift of faith can be exercised apart from the "new" heart given by God. The heart God gives is different than the old heart which is an UNBELIEVING heart (Jn. 3:18). God gives a BELIEVING heart and thus both the heart and faith are a "gift" of God.

Just to let you know Dr. Walters, I have set forth a Scriptural truth in the theology forum (and occasionally here) which is: God does not give faith (or spiritual gifts/the fruit of the Spirit) to the unregenerate). It is not a gift of God. In the Baptist theology forum five threads have been completed on this very topic. Not one Calvinist (or any other person) has been able to show me one Scripture which says that faith is a gift of God given to the unregenerate or unsaved. This is Calvinistic error. If something is heard often enough and long enough they will eventually believe it whether it is true or not. Calvinists have accepted this without questioning its Biblical accuracy. It has no Scriptural foundation whatsoever. To think that God would give spiritual gifts and/or the fruit of the spirit to the unsaved is abhorrent. Yet this is the absurd belief you have.

That is not what Eph.2:8,9 teaches. The gift of God is salvation. You are saved. Salvation is the gift of God. Both adverbial prepositional phrases "by grace," and "through faith," are prepositional phrases describing the verb, giving the how and manner of salvation. You are saved. How? By grace. By what means? By faith. It is the gift of God. What is? Salvation is? It is not of yourselves. What is not of yourself? Salvation! It is not of works. What is not of works? Salvation is not of works.
Salvation is the topic throughout. The main sentence: YOU ARE SAVED. There is the subject and the verb. Everything else describes those either subject or verb.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Just to let you know Dr. Walters, I have set forth a Scriptural truth in the theology forum (and occasionally here) which is: God does not give faith (or spiritual gifts/the fruit of the Spirit) to the unregenerate).

Do you believe the unregenerate is born of God or is the children of God who are born of God? Since the new birth is not something the unregenerate can do as the four grammatical proofs I have furnished prove beyond a reasonable doubt than the unregenerate is PASSIVE in the new birth rather than ACTIVE and it is "OF GOD" and not "OF MAN" or "OF THE FLESH" and therefore it is indicative not imperative.

Secondly, since the OLD HEART found in the unregenerate is CONDEMNED ALREADY due to unbelief (Jn. 3:18) and is incapable of believing (Rom. 8:7) and that is precisely why it must be REPLACED (Ezek. 36:26-27) with a NEW HEART that is predisposed to the law of God (2 Cor. 3:3) which is defined three verses later defined as the Spirit giving "life" (2 Cor. 3:6) then what is being GIVEN by God is a BELIEVING HEART which is ETERNAL LIFE (Jn. 17:2).

It is not a gift of God. In the Baptist theology forum five threads have been completed on this very topic. Not one Calvinist (or any other person) has been able to show me one Scripture which says that faith is a gift of God given to the unregenerate or unsaved. This is Calvinistic error. If something is heard often enough and long enough they will eventually believe it whether it is true or not. Calvinists have accepted this without questioning its Biblical accuracy. It has no Scriptural foundation whatsoever. To think that God would give spiritual gifts and/or the fruit of the spirit to the unsaved is abhorrent. Yet this is the absurd belief you have.

Phillippians 1:29 also states that believing is a gift of God. Ephesians 2:8 and the phrase "it is a gift of God" has for its grammatical antecedent the whole phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith" and this is the position of the best Greek Grammarians on this passage.

There is a double verb or what is called grammatically a paraphrastic construct! It is the perfect tense verb joined with the present tense finite verb. This means at a past point there was a completed action that stands completed up to the present time speaking. that is at a point in the past you were completely "saved" and you continue in that completed state at the time of writing. The perfect tense alone is sufficient to teach this. However, Paul joins a present tense finite verb to strengthen the idea that the completed action in the past CONTINUES or keeps on keeping on as a completed action.

The prepositional phrase "through faith" occurred in that past point of completed action and is inclusived of "saved" which continues to the present. It refers to the beleiving heart furnished by God in the new birth (Deut. 5:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6) as a believing heart (Rom. 10:10) is a gift of God and derived from God as no human being can give himself a new heart much less remove the old heart (Deut. 5:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 10:8-10; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; etc.).

Paul explicitly and clearly states that it is the heart that believes and the unregenerate do not have such a heart - it must be given unto them by God and that is part of the new birth.

1. There is no such heart in the unregenerate:

Deut. 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!


2. Such a heart is necessary to spiritual perceive, understand, see and hear truth and God must first GIVE it:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.


3. The New Covenant work of Salvation by God is giving such a heart:

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


4. This giving of a new heart is the CAUSE for receiving and obeying His Word:

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

[DHK]

Do you believe the unregenerate is born of God or is the children of God who are born of God? Since the new birth is not something the unregenerate can do as the four grammatical proofs I have furnished prove beyond a reasonable doubt than the unregenerate is PASSIVE in the new birth rather than ACTIVE and it is "OF GOD" and not "OF MAN" or "OF THE FLESH" and therefore it is indicative not imperative.

Secondly, since the OLD HEART found in the unregenerate is CONDEMNED ALREADY due to unbelief (Jn. 3:18) and is incapable of believing (Rom. 8:7) and that is precisely why it must be REPLACED (Ezek. 36:26-27) with a NEW HEART that is predisposed to the law of God (2 Cor. 3:3) which is defined three verses later defined as the Spirit giving "life" (2 Cor. 3:6) then what is being GIVEN by God is a BELIEVING HEART which is ETERNAL LIFE (Jn. 17:2).

It is really no use in talking to you since your hyper Calvinism has taken you beyond what Calvin himself believed. You support your views with OT scripture which is not even applicable.
You are like an atheist in this respect. If I could convince an atheist beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt that Christ had risen from the dead proving once and for all that he was indeed deity, would he accept my proof. The inevitable answer would be no. Thus, no matter what I say on the matter you are going to refuse. You are here to be contentious no matter what I say. I find that odd since you have not been that way in the past.

In the past few years I have posted that same explanation of the new birth on the board to clarify what the new birth is. For both Cals and non-Cals it has been well accepted. Now, for some reason I get two or three people who vehemently oppose the exposition; this explanation from the Word of God which I give. I can only chalk that up to being contentious for the sake of contentiousness. That is sad.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is really no use in talking to you since your hyper Calvinism has taken you beyond what Calvin himself believed. You support your views with OT scripture which is not even applicable.

The writer of Hebews claims the same gospel preached now is the same gospel preached then (Heb. 4:2)

Peter claims the same gospel preached by all the prophets is the same gospel preached now (Acts 10:43)

Paul claimed he "said none other things" in regard to the gospel than what Moses and all the prophets preached (Acts 26:22-23)

Jesus claimed BEFORE the cross that there was only one way of salvation and none other (Mt. 7:13-14) and it is through him (Jn. 14:6) and Luke confirmed this after the cross (Acts 4:12).

Jesus taught the need of new birth BEFORE the cross and BEFORE Pentecost and rebuked theologions for not understanding this truth in the Old Testament Scritpures so why can't I use the Old Testament Scriptures? Has the nature of man changed? Has salvation changed? Has the New birth changed????

So why cannot I support the gospel from ALL THE SCRIPTURES or is God the author of confusion and saves pre-cross saints one way and post-cross saints another way????

I will tell you what is sad! It is sad that a man of your education, ability and understanding of the scriptures cannot admit he is wrong when John 3:3-7 gives four unrefutable grammatical proofs that your position is wrong:

1. PASSIVE voice denying participation of the subject "you" in doing the new birth.

2. INDICATIVE mode denying it is a command to be obeyed

3. Genitive case "OF God" denying it is "OF the flesh" or "OF man"

4. "Born FROM ABOVE" denying it is an act done from below or from man.

What is sad, is that you fit Nicodemus who was ignorant of the New birth taught in the Old Testament and therefore deny the use of the Old Testament to teach the new birth:

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

According to you logic Jesus should have been rebuked for demanding that Nicodemus should understand the new birth when he only had the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES which you condemn as usable for this doctrine.

According to you the Old Testament cannot be used to teach these things as you deny the use of the Old Testament to define the problem and therefore the need of new birth.

 

[DHK]

The writer of Hebews claims the same gospel preached now is the same gospel preached then (Heb. 4:2)

Peter claims the same gospel preached by all the prophets is the same gospel preached now (Acts 10:43)

Your problem is that you cannot reconcile this verse to the new birth and won't.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is really no use in talking to you since your hyper Calvinism has taken you beyond what Calvin himself believed. You support your views with OT scripture which is not even applicable.

Thank you, but I have never studied Calvin. Thank you, I do support my view with not merely the OT scripture but the NT scripture and you will admit this if you honestly look at my posts. There is more NT scripture used than OT scripture in my posts.

Even though I disagree with you, I would not liken you or compare you to an Atheist as there is a vast difference between an Atheist and one who believes not only a literal historical creation but believes that salvation is obtained the very same way this universe came into existence by a creative act of God:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

Don't glory in yourself. I didn't compare you to an atheist. I made a comparison between your reactions to the reactions of an atheist when put in a similar position. The comparison was in the reaction.

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk:

You can't do faith!

Tell that to Jesus Christ !

Matt 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

 

[DHK]

dhk:



Tell that to Jesus Christ !

Matt 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

He was speaking of works, works that had to be done by faith.
You don't understand the verse.
Again I will say to you.

You can't do faith!
It is impossible.