# Rom. 4:13, What is the "righteousness of faith"?



## Puritan Sailor (May 20, 2005)

*Rom. 4:13, What is the \"righteousness of faith\"?*



> For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.



What is the "righteousness of faith?" Greek help would be good here too. Thanks.

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 20, 2005)

I'm not sure what you mean by the question, but here go ...

It means that we receive God's spiritual promises of salvation through faith, not works.


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
> ...



"through the righteousness of faith." 

The statement is qualified by a preposition, dia, which means, in the genitive case through or by means of. This is incredibly significant since if the statement "the righteousness of faith" was in the accusative it would mean "because of." In other words, the righteousness comes through faith, but faith in and of itself is not the righteousness nor the foundation or fountain of righteousness. 

Rather, faith openly receives Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This is testified in the immediate context, Romans 3:21-26 (forgiveness - Christ's passive righteousness: as signified by the words sacrifice, blood) as well as later in Romans 5:21 (eternal life - Christ's active righteousness: as signified in the words obedience, [eternal] life).


----------



## Jeremy (May 20, 2005)

Rather, faith openly receives Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This is testified in the immediate context, Romans 3:21-26 (forgiveness - Christ's passive righteousness: as signified by the words sacrifice, blood) as well as later in Romans 5:21 (eternal life - Christ's active righteousness: as signified in the words obedience, [eternal] life). [/quote]


I think we all can attest to this blessedness of finding perfect righteousness in Christ. 

So I guess we can say that faith is the only channel through which the Holy Spirit can apply Christ's blood and righteousness to our filthy, rotten, black, depraved hearts, making us just before a Holy God. Faith is then the only channel through which the Spirit of God continually cleanses our hearts of all sin until the Day of Christ Jesus, making proof of our justification that shows we belong to Him. This faith is not of us either, it is a gift of God's grace.

Here's a jab at those who would reject eternal security...We have to properly set the beginning terms for salvation to get a proper perspective on the matter. Take a look at Romans 4:20-22, speaking of Abraham's faith as an example of the kind of faith God requires,

"He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And THEREFORE "it was accounted to him for righteousness"."

If God's promise is eternal life, and we must be "fully convinced" that God is able to perform the work, how can a person claim to be a Christian and at the same time deny this promise?

"He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." "“I John 5:10-11


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 20, 2005)

Those are good questions Jeremy but same them for another thread. 

How would you all respond to someone who deefined the "righteousness of faith" as the obedience which flows from faith?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Those are good questions Jeremy but same them for another thread.
> 
> How would you all respond to someone who deefined the "righteousness of faith" as the obedience which flows from faith?



Context: Romans 4:5

And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2005)

The righteousness, of which we speak here, is not our righteousness but God's. Paul started to speak of this point many, many verses before:

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:25-26 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God, To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Furthermore Abraham was not justified by works!

Romans 4:2-3 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Faith, as I pointed out earlier, appropriates or receives the an extrospective righteousness, an alien righteousness. Christ's obedience: passive and active!


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2005)

What do you think?

In reference to Romans 3:21-31: "œAlthough Paul says that the law should not be overthrown, he also says that faith rather than law manifests the righteousness of God"¦. When he was a Pharisee, Paul would have been incapable of saying that faith rather than law manifests the righteousness of God in any meaningful way. No other Jews in the first century distinguish faith and law in the way Paul does. For a Jew, faith fundamentally precedes anything as well, but there is no need to distinguish between it and law." Alan Segal, "Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (page 128)


----------



## andreas (May 20, 2005)

"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach"
Romans 10:5-8

andreas.


----------



## Jeremy (May 20, 2005)

Quote:

"How would you all respond to someone who deefined the "righteousness of faith" as the obedience which flows from faith?"


I would say that is a good assumption. But we probably shouldn't go beyond the text. Romans 4 is an argument for faith alone apart from works. There are plenty of other texts that make it clear that genuine faith is evidenced by obedience. I would respond by saying the same as Fred. Romans 4:5 is the keystone of the entire chapter.

All we have to do is move one step further into 4:16 and we see '...Therefore...it is of faith that it might be according to grace...'

We shouldn't pollute the pure milk of the Word with mention of obedience in order to prove a point that is clear elsewhere. In fact, feeding on the pure teaching of faith alone by grace alone is the only teaching that can give us true knowledge of the Lord's grace. I like to say to people that push obedience without thoroughly explaining grace that it's like depriving a baby of his mother's milk. We'll have unhealthy, pseudo-Christians if we don't emphasize grace enough. Anyone who is truly saved is standing on God's promise of eternal life in Christ based upon His finished work alone.

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 20, 2005)

Thankyou for the responses so far. They help. Another inquiry along the same line. What is the nature of faith? How do we connect the purely receptive character of faith receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ, to the more aggressive nature of reaching out and obeying?


----------



## Jeremy (May 20, 2005)

Sorry to be so quick to reply, but this subject is always on my heart.

I believe the issue of repentance is necessary to bring into the equation. We are speaking of a flippant faith vs. a repentant faith here. 

We are talking about the other side of the coin.


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thankyou for the responses so far. They help. Another inquiry along the same line. What is the nature of faith? How do we connect the purely receptive character of faith receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ, to the more aggressive nature of reaching out and obeying?



I'm would affirm this definition:

Q21: What is true faith?

A21: True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word,[1] but also a hearty trust,[2] which the Holy Ghost [3] works in me by the Gospel,[4] that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God,[5] merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.[6]

1. James 1:6
2. Rom. 4:16-18; 5:1
3. II Cor. 4:13; Phil. 1:19, 29
4. Rom. 1:16; 10:17
5. Heb. 11:1-2; Rom. 1:17
6. Eph. 2:7-9; Rom. 3:24-25; Gal. 2:16; Acts 10:43

True faith receives and trusts. True faith has to reach out in the sense of calling upon God, but there is no obedience per se in justifying faith other than responding to the call of the gospel by believing. 

Luke 18:13-14

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."


----------



## Jeremy (May 20, 2005)

Also, if we separate repentance and faith in the gospel, we have 1/2 of a gospel. 

So to the question, 'what is the nature of faith?' I believe 2 Corinthians 7:10 defines the nature of faith and qualifies it well,

"For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."


----------



## Poimen (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> Also, if we separate repentance and faith in the gospel, we have 1/2 of a gospel.
> ...



Faith and repentance are two parts of one work, conversion, but they are not the same thing. Both are necessary unto salvation, and yet only one justifies: faith. Otherwise if we speak of being justified by a repentant faith (such as Norman Shepherd) we put the free grace of the gospel into jeopardy, unless we mean that repentance prepared us for faith because we have understood that we are sinners and in need of Christ's salvation.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

My explanation was clear in my own mind, but came out hazy in textual form. I agree with you 100% that God's grace is free and as I said in previous reponses to this thread that we can't pollute God's free grace. 

But most people in mainline churches don't recognize the need for repentance. Jesus came to save us from our sin. Even throughout our lives as a Christian, we must practice repentance every day. But it is repentance that necessitates faith in Jesus. I like Hebrews chapter 4 which offers us "rest" from our effort.

One of my favorite hymns is 'My Faith Has Found A Resting Place'


----------



## Poimen (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> My explanation was clear in my own mind, but came out hazy in textual form. I agree with you 100% that God's grace is free and as I said in previous reponses to this thread that we can't pollute God's free grace.
> 
> But most people in mainline churches don't recognize the need for repentance. Jesus came to save us from our sin. Even throughout our lives as a Christian, we must practice repentance every day. But it is repentance that necessitates faith in Jesus. I like Hebrews chapter 4 which offers us "rest" from our effort.
> ...



Well I have never heard of that hymn, but I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## andreas (May 21, 2005)

Never heard of the hymn either,but it is not our faith but Christ's faith. 

"Knowing 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

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 21, 2005)

Assurance is what faith essentially is. Assurance of one´s salvation by the grace of God is the nature, of faith. Faith trusts Jesus Christ as the Savior of the one who believes. Weak faith is certain of salvation, as well as strong faith. 
andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 21, 2005)

> Phil 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith"” 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Never heard of the hymn either,but it is not our faith but Christ's faith.
> 
> "Knowing 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
> ...




Good responses guys. My only concern is that we not get into semantics over words. It is definitely Christ's faith, but in this Galatians 2:16 passage and in others, the KJV as far as I know is the only version that renders it as 'the faith of Jesus Christ'. Other translations say 'faith in Jesus Christ.' So that's probably a shaky stance to take. Romans 4:5 says, 'to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly...his....faith is counted for righteousness.' Also Titus 1:1 says, '...according to the faith of God's elect.' So is it His faith or ours...or is it His faith which He gives us and calls it ours so we can be just before God?'

---------------------------------------------------------------

"My Faith Has Found A Resting Place"

My faith has found a resting place"”Not in device or creed:
I trust the Ever living One"” His wounds for me shall plead.

Enough for me that Jesus saves"”This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him"” He'll never cast me out.

My heart is leaning on the Word"”The written Word of God:
Salvation by my Savior's name"” Salvation through His blood.

My great Physician heals the sick"” The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed"” For me His life He gave.

Refrain

I need no other argument, I need no other plea; It 
is enough that Jesus died, And that He died for me.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Never heard of the hymn either,but it is not our faith but Christ's faith.
> 
> "Knowing 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
> ...



How do you think Christ's faith justifies us Andreas? 

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Never heard of the hymn either,but it is not our faith but Christ's faith.
> 
> "Knowing 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
> ...



This is wrong, and dangerous. It has been addressed in several threads. Christ did not have faith. He had no need for faith, for He was without sin.

The "faith of Christ" is an objective genitive, best translated by all modern versions as "faith in Christ." Further, that is what the KJV meant.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by andreas_
> ...



Jeremy, 

The faith is NOT Christ's faith. That is a subtle road to heresy. The merit is Christ's merit, applied to us by our faith, which is not our own, but the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 21, 2005)

Faith of Christ and Faith in Christ are the same thing, as long as you understand the context and the original language, from what I understand.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

Psalm 22:8

"He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him."



Ephesians 2:8-9

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."


----------



## fredtgreco (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Faith of Christ and Faith in Christ are the same thing, as long as you understand the context and the original language, from what I understand.



Exactly. The genitive case in Greek ( "of" ) can be either subjective of objective. The classic case for this is "the love of God" in Romans 5:5, from 

á¼¡ á¼€Î³Î¬Ï€Î· Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿¦

in the Greek

If it is a subjective genitive, it would mean "God's love {that He has for us}"

If it is an objective genitive, it would mean "the love {we have} for God"

The same is the case here: the text means "faith in Christ" or "faith which has as its object, Christ"

The Reformers were unanimous on this; Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, etc. There is (or was) a huge thread on this about a year ago.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Psalm 22:8
> 
> "He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him."




This refers to the complete trust that Christ had in his father. It was by sight, not faith.



> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."



This is the faith of the believer. See Habbakuk 2:4; Rom. 3:26.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

Good responses guys. My only concern is that we not get into semantics over words. It is definitely Christ's faith, [/quote]

Thank you for clarifying. I guess this quoted statement of mine is what's causing all the trouble. I agree with you. 

What I mean by Christ's faith is not that He had imperfect faith as we do, but that it is 'His faith' in the sense that He is the 'Author and Finisher of our faith' as it says in Hebrews 12:2. It is our faith in His completed righteousness that He gives us.

But I have to disagree that Christ had no faith at all. He emptied Himself when He came to earth and showed us what it means to truly live by faith. This is I believe part of what it means to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. He is our perfect, merciful High Priest who became completely human and bore our sin on the cross. He is the God/Man.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Good responses guys. My only concern is that we not get into semantics over words. It is definitely Christ's faith,



Thank you for clarifying. I guess this quoted statement of mine is what's causing all the trouble. I agree with you. 

What I mean by Christ's faith is not that He had imperfect faith as we do, but that it is 'His faith' in the sense that He is the 'Author and Finisher of our faith' as it says in Hebrews 12:2. It is our faith in His completed righteousness that He gives us.

But I have to disagree that Christ had no faith at all. He emptied Himself when He came to earth and showed us what it means to truly live by faith. This is I believe part of what it means to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. He is our perfect, merciful High Priest who became completely human and bore our sin on the cross. He is the God/Man. [/quote]

Christ did not live by faith because he had no mediator to trust upon. He lived in perfect communion with God as Adam once did before the Fall. Only sinners live by faith because they must depend upon the merits of Christ for there relationship with God. Christ relied upon His own merits to remain in communion with God in His human nature.

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 21, 2005)

Amen Patrick.

Jeremy, you have to think of the implications of things before you espouse them.

What does it say about Jesus if he had faith, even perfect faith?

It says that he needed a mediator. Who would that be?

It says that he did not know God (even though a member of the Trinity): remember, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1)

It says that he was not perfect - for faith waits for what is hoped for and "we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance" (Romans 8:24-25)

Further, faith is not somethat even *we* will have. Because, in glory there will be no need for hope or faith (1 Cor 13), only love abides. What will we be like in glory? We will be like Christ - Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2)


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

You guys are right and I have been agreeing with you all along. I guess I don't mean 'faith'. I should be using a different word I guess. I thought I had something there but I guess I was wrong. 

Maybe what I'm trying to imply is that Jesus chose to be dependent on the Father for certain things while He was here on earth. For example, He told Peter in the garden when Peter cut the guy's ear off that He could have prayed to the Father and He would have given Him twelve legions of angels to rescue Him.

I'm not saying that His relationship with the Father was dependant on faith or anything. I'm just saying that there are passages in the Bible that indicate Christ's dependency on the Father. And if I'm wrong, maybe you can help me to understand. I have a big heart but a small brain.

The passage that I'm drawing from is Psalm 22. Maybe someone can help me with it. Take Psalm 22:19-21 for example and see if there is a hint of dependency on the Father in Christ's words,

"But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."


----------



## andreas (May 21, 2005)

Patrick,

We are justified by His work,not our own.

"Remembering without ceasing your Work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;" 1 Thes. 1:3

"Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the Work of faith with Power:" 2 thes.1:11

andreas.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Patrick,
> 
> We are justified by His work,not our own.
> ...



You said we are saved by Christ's faith. Are you then arguing that Christ's work and faith are the same thing? Also, noting the verses you quoted here, are you saying that our faith and works are the same thing?


----------



## andreas (May 22, 2005)

We are not saved by our own faith in Christ, but by Christ putting faith in us. There is a difference between being saved by our own faith in Christ, and our being saved by Christ's faith.It is Jesus who is the starter and finisher of the faith we have."Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2.
It is Christ working in us that gives us the power to believe in Him.John 6:29.
Without Him we are dead as the dodo birds.We have nothing.By the grace of God, we have the spirit working in us to produce the fruit of the spirit(work of the spirit).
"But the fruit of the spirit is... ,joy,peace,longsuffering,goodness,faith.Gal.5:22

Nothing to do with you.It is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.Phil.2:13.

andreas.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> We are not saved by our own faith in Christ, but by Christ putting faith in us. There is a difference between being saved by our own faith in Christ, and our being saved by Christ's faith.It is Jesus who is the starter and finisher of the faith we have."Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2.
> It is Christ working in us that gives us the power to believe in Him.John 6:29.
> Without Him we are dead as the dodo birds.We have nothing.By the grace of God, we have the spirit working in us to produce the fruit of the spirit(work of the spirit).
> ...


And if Christ gives us that faith, is it not ours? Along with all things that He has given us (Rom. 8:32)? It is we who exercise this faith correct? I do not dispute the fact that Christ gives us faith and sustains our faith. But he does so in a way that it is also our faith. We are the ones who believe when we are born again and renewed in our minds and wills. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that our faith beings Christ's and not ours. And this time, instead of just quoting Scriptures you could also explain your interpretation of those Scripture. You seem to have a bad habit of assuming we know what you mean by the verses you quote.


----------



## andreas (May 22, 2005)

Quote:***You seem to have a bad habit of assuming we know what you mean by the verses you quote.***

And you seem to have a bad habbit of ignoring the explanation i give you.
It is plain.Christ is the author of our faith,and finisher of our faith.What more do you want?Get down to molecular levels?
The fruit of the spirit is the work of the spirit,and faith is one of the fruit of the spirit.What more can i say? 
Take away the spirit 's work and you have nothing.Apart from me ,Jesus said, you can do nothing.It is God that works in you to will and to do of His good pleasure.Once you are born again, you surrender ALL to Jesus.

I AM CRUCIFIED WITH Christ,NEVERTHELESS I LIVE,YET NOT I BUT Christ LIVES IN ME,AND THE LIFE WHICH I NOW LIVE IN THE FLESH I LIVE BY THE FAITH OF THE Son of God.Gal.2:20

That should be clear,or do you want it explained?

"And i saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.Rev.20:4

We are not talking about headless bodies.We are talking about the saints that surrendered ALL authority to Jesus.If you like ,once we are born again we become beheaded,for we surrender all to Jesus.Do not tell me that the faith is yours,it is Christ's."Nevertheless i live,yet not i ,but Christ lives in me".

andreas.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2005)

Andreas,
You sound like you're treating "faith" like a substance, like a material thing that is transferable. And then, when someone questions your take on that, and asks you to clarify what sounds like a rather novel position, you snap back that they just aren't listening. "It's plain," or obvious, you claim. I'd say that about 75% of all the posts you've ever made on the board are little more than a verse or a passage. Thus, the criticism has some validity.


> That should be clear,or do you want it explained?


*This is just inexcusable sarcasm.* You spout verses, and then expect everyone (who's truly spiritual?) to "receive" the same interpretation you did? Puhleez. If everyone just agreed with you there'd never be any arguments, right? Your's may be a more "Socratic" method than others, but your method of teaching is no less open to error and criticism than others.

We all need teachers and explanations from time to time. God has placed us under mediated, human authority as well--not absolutely, which is why we don't check our brains at the door of the church, and just nod our heads at everything that comes down from "the authorities". But neither does this mean that we don't learn from Christ's gifted teachers, living and dead. Go on then, instruct us.


When Paul says, "we walk by faith, and not by sight," it is evident that faith is being contrasted to physical sight. And therefore, Christian faith is nothing less than _spiritual_ sight. This is how John refers to it in several places as well (e.g. John 12:45). So, we do certainly receive the gift of spiritual sight, that is FAITH, from Christ (to whom everything of God's has been committed, and by whom we have been blessed with all spiritual blessings, _in him_). But then, we actually do "see" with the "eyes" we've been given, and that faith, plainly stated in Scripture (Eph. 2:8-9), is instrumentally responsible for our salvation, even as there are other aspects of salvation (as when we speak of grace, or hope--Rom.8:24, or the atonement, or God himself--Tit.3:5, or baptism--1Pt.3:21, or the word --Js.1:21, etc.) This acknowledgment no more makes our faith an ultimate cause of our salvation than it ascribes anything to it farther than the Scripture taken together allows.

The faith "of" Christ referred to in Gal. 2:16 (and elsewhere) has already been linguistically explained above. Greek cases don't simply transfer over into English neatly packaged--translation always requires unpacking and repackaging. Our preposition "of" is sufficiently elastic to allow its frequent, yes even consistent usage as a non-case-language (i.e. English) rendering of the Greek genetive case. However, that usage doesn't solve the contextual issue assumed by the Greek case itself, a job that the Greek reader himself had to exercise. In the case of such an English translation the English reader has the same job as the Greek reader.

As time goes by we tend to use alternate prepositions to reduce inherent ambiguity in our speech/writing. Thus the more elastic "of" has given way to the less elastic "in" (with respect to persons, when appropriate) in modern translations. This is also reflective of such grammar deficiency of English, our lack of broad familiarity with English literature, and our ignorance of other languages. We tend to think in categories hardened by our own limited usage of terms, and assume that our parochial usage is universal. Instead of seeing "of" and thinking "genetive," with all the possible nuances, we assume "of" means "belongs to," because that's the way we use it ourselves mostly.

And regarding 1 Thess. 1:3, speaking of "_your_ work of faith." The poster indicates that this work is not the work of the "your" but a work of "Him" that apparently has new ownership. This, despite the fact that "labor" and "patience" are also attributed to "your", and that the three rise in intensity over the course of the expression. Obviously, the interpretation of whose activity is being "remembered" here by Paul will affect the interpretation of the whole verse (and the context). 2 Thess. 1:11 is offered as interpretive corroboration. The sole connection being the phrase "work of faith." I agree that the second can be helpful in interpreting the first, however it is clear to me that the second also refers to the Thessalonians work (the capitalization in the post is the poster's). Someone could paraphrase verse 11, "... God would count you worthy of the calling [to the heavenly kingdom, verse 5]. 'To this end, may he mightily animate you with all delight in goodness, _and with whole-hearted activity inspired by the faith you profess.'"_ That this should follow from Paul's former expression (I.1:3) is most reasonable.

Now if one interprets this "work of faith" is the divine work that produced faith in the believer, he still has _exegetical work to do_ to find the same meaning in 1 Thess. 1:3. The common phraseology is absolutely insufficient to account for the importation of this idea from 2 Thess (assuming its correctness), back into 1 Thess. At its most basic, this is the fallacy of the single meaning--the idea that expressions (not to speak of the equally great problem with the misuse of words) must always mean exactly the same thing, regardless of context. This is an abuse of the legitimate and indispensible principles of the analogies of Scripture and Faith. There are a few technical terms or phrases where a single meaning might be found over the whole biblical usage, but even that usage must first be established by applying the grammatical/historical hermeneutical method. Only then can such meaning be presumed as the default position, and even this default must be held with care. It is always open to challenge, and may require an individual defense.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

<Exortation>

Play nice!


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

The following is spoken in meekness and not intended to be a rebuke, since some of you are older than I:

I'm surprised that men of God can turn a cold shoulder to each other when discussing the things of God.

Furthermore, you guys basically label a person a heretic if they try to say that Jesus had faith. I think this argument went into unhealthy ground and became an argument over words. You all knew full well what I was implying and instead of trying to work with what I had said, chose to pick apart my words. You ignored the spirit of the matter and turned a perfectly legit concept into an argument over words. 

The idea that Jesus in His humanity did not depend upon the Father and have a direct trust in Him is unbased. It denies the incarnation and denies clear statements of Christ that things were in the Father's hands and that Jesus came to do the Father's will. When Jesus agonized in prayer in the garden, sweating drops of blood, was this not trust? Isn't prayer trusting? 

Christ having faith does not imply imperfection or weakness or a need for a mediator. Jesus had direct access to the Father on earth. But Christ most certainly did choose to live a life of dependency on the Father that His will should be done.

"Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." "“Hebrews 10:9

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> The following is spoken in meekness and not intended to be a rebuke, since some of you are older than I:
> 
> I'm surprised that men of God can turn a cold shoulder to each other when discussing the things of God.
> ...



Jeremy, perhaps a little context into our Reformed circles would help you understand our "cold shoulder". There is a heretical teaching out there right now that states that we are saved by Christ's faith, and that Christ is the ultimate example of covenant keeping for us. Just as Jesus was faithful in the covenant, so we must be faithful to the covenant to inherit eternal life. In this view, they argue that the active obedience of Christ was not imputed to us, but only his passive obedience. Christ garanteed our place in the covenant, by forgiving our sins, but now we have to keep that place in the covenant by our faithful obedience just like Jesus. The problem with this view, is that we are not in the same relationship to the Father that Christ is. Christ was our covenant head and representative. He acted on our behalf. We are secured in our relationship to God because of His merits, and partake of those blessings by faith in Him. Faith is for sinners who need a Savior. Faith is the means through which all those blessings Christ inherited for us are thus given to us. Clearly, Jesus doesn't fit that category. Jesus lived in a relationship dependent upon His own obedience to the Father. We live in a relationship dependent upon Christ's obedience for us. Even our own obedience that God requires of us, God provides to us through the Spirit. Now, certainly Jesus trusted the Father in his human nature. He believed the promises made to Him by the Father. He loved the Father and was pleased to do His will. But that trust is not the same as our faith. There was no sin in Jesus, no barrier to communion with God, until He became sin for us on the cross. This is what we mean by denying that Jesus had faith. Hope this helps you to understand us a little better.


----------



## Solo Christo (May 22, 2005)

Patrick, your answer and demeanor are both commendable. I remember a time when I sympathized greatly with Jeremy's understanding. I only wish I had more help like that.

Jeremy, I know it can seem like splitting hairs at times, but there is good reason for it. May the Lord bless your desire to know him.


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for clarifying. I've been hurt by your lack of responses. It makes me feel like I'm a worthless bum or something and that you think you know everything.

I had no idea what was in your minds. That's what happens when there is no spontaneous face to face interaction. This heresy you're describing I've never really heard of. 

But what I think you're trying to keep out of this forum is Harold Kamping type theology. This is where they take the idea of "waiting on the Lord" to unhealthy levels and apply it to the salvation message, basically teaching that we are saved by keeping God's law rather than by the unmerited favor of God. As far as waiting for God to save us, the gospel says, "behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." "“2 Corinthians 6:2. A sinner must never wait to be saved, he's to flee from the wrath to come.

But I wouldn't be conversing on this board today if I didn't understand the we are saved by grace alone through faith alone on the grounds of the righteousness of Christ alone. And I wouldn't be here either had I not come to know this by experience having rested my faith forever in Christ Jesus alone.

I can see where you're coming from also about speaking of not being saved by Christ's faith. To emphasize Christ having faith rather than ours seems to blunt the fact that we are responsible in time to repent and personally trust Christ for salvation.

I was just trying to say that Jesus chose to depend on His Father while here on earth. I guess I was kind of off the subject. Maybe the confusion was that you thought I meant Jesus had saving faith and that I was implying He was a sinner. I don't know. But we were indeed talking about two different things.







[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 22, 2005)

Harold Camping type stuff is not welcome here true, but that's not who we had in mind.  
Just check out some of our justification threads and you will see who we have been scrappin' with lately.


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> The fruit of the spirit is the work of the spirit,and faith is one of the fruit of the spirit.What more can i say?
> Take away the spirit 's work and you have nothing.Apart from me ,Jesus said, you can do nothing.It is God that works in you to will and to do of His good pleasure.Once you are born again, you surrender ALL to Jesus.
> 
> ...



Forgive me, Andreas, this sounds like the quietist teaching I received in AG churches as a child. I hope I'm wrong about that. Patrick is right, the Holy Spirit works in us but in such a way that WE exercise the faith He has put in us.


[Edited on 5-23-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***The faith "of" Christ referred to in Gal. 2:16 (and elsewhere) has already been linguistically explained above.***

Has it?

"pistis christou" as you find it in ,
Romans3:22
Galatians2:16
Galatians2:20
Galatians 3:22,
involves a subjective genitive and means Christ's faith.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***AG churches***

Here we go again.What is an AG church?

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2005)

Annoying Goofballs


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***Patrick is right, the Holy Spirit works in us but in such a way that WE exercise the faith He has put in us.***

I am sorry to go on about it,but we are not saved by our own faith in Christ,but by Christ putting faith in us.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Thanks Gabriel for the enlightenment.
andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2005)

Actually, it means "Assembly of God," which is a charismatic/pentecostal denomination here in America.


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***Forgive me, Andreas, this sounds like the quietist teaching I received in AG churches as a child. I hope I'm wrong about that. Patrick is right, the Holy Spirit works in us but in such a way that WE exercise the faith He has put in us.***

Forgive me if i pressumed wrong ,and this has nothing to do with the AG churches,but do you mean we are justified by our own action in believing?If there was the slightest chance that it was by our faith in Christ that we are justified,then we are left with a merit system for man.
andreas.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***The faith "of" Christ referred to in Gal. 2:16 (and elsewhere) has already been linguistically explained above.***
> 
> Has it?
> ...


Thus far we have:
1) A claim that the text is a subjective genitive (without using the terminology "subjective genetive," because the terminology had not been introduced into the conversation)

2) An introduction of "genitive" terminology, and a counterclaim that the passage(s) in question use an objective genitive, supported by tranlational gloss (including the KJV)

3) Followed by both an _exegetical_ and then an _historical_ defense of the "objective genitive" position

(none of these were my posts, for the record)

4) Over against which is offered the bare, unsubstantiated re-assertion in above quoted post, "Its subjective, ... because I said so."


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

You lost me somewhere in the jungle of grammar.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***And regarding 1 Thess. 1:3, speaking of "your work of faith." The poster indicates that this work is not the work of the "your" but a work of "Him" that apparently has new ownership. This, despite the fact that "labor" and "patience" are also attributed to "your", and that the three rise in intensity over the course of the expression. Obviously, the interpretation of whose activity is being "remembered" here by Paul will affect the interpretation of the whole verse (and the context). 2 Thess. 1:11 is offered as interpretive corroboration. The sole connection being the phrase "work of faith." I agree that the second can be helpful in interpreting the first, however it is clear to me that the second also refers to the Thessalonians work (the capitalization in the post is the poster's). Someone could paraphrase verse 11, "... God would count you worthy of the calling [to the heavenly kingdom, verse 5]. 'To this end, may he mightily animate you with all delight in goodness, and with whole-hearted activity inspired by the faith you profess.'" That this should follow from Paul's former expression (I.1:3) is most reasonable.***

This is scriptural gymnastics.You have twisted my word.What i was trying to say with 1 Thes.1:3, was that faith requires work,and we need power for that.Is it our power or God"s?This is where 2 Thes.1:11 comes in.It is Godly power that accomplishes faith.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:***This is just inexcusable sarcasm.***

Patrick,
I apologise if i offended you in any way.

andreas.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 23, 2005)

For the record, Andreas, I think we agree more than disagree. For that let us thank God, who enlightens each one.

I don't know which you think is gymnastical (or how it is): 
my take on your position, 
or my own interpretation of the passage; 
or even if you have misread my view (quoted) as if it contained what I attributed to you _apart from the second sentence, which I did attribute._

If I truly misrepresented you, I apologize. You obviously feel as though I did. Which misunderstanding highlights once again how a radical economy-of-words can actually hamper effective communication. You wrote one line, and quoted two texts. That, taken together with what you had previously written, was all I had to formulate your stance regarding the matter.

In cases like this, perhaps it is better to simply let you speak your piece, and light your candle, and exit. Your style is not much suited to interaction, and I don't say that to criticize it. It is terse and epigramatic, entirely in keeping with your enigmatic, anonymous board persona, which exception the governors have graciously allowed. I, with like grace, shall free you from my direct responses.

In Charity,


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***Forgive me, Andreas, this sounds like the quietist teaching I received in AG churches as a child. I hope I'm wrong about that. Patrick is right, the Holy Spirit works in us but in such a way that WE exercise the faith He has put in us.***
> 
> Forgive me if i pressumed wrong ,and this has nothing to do with the AG churches,but do you mean we are justified by our own action in believing?If there was the slightest chance that it was by our faith in Christ that we are justified,then we are left with a merit system for man.
> andreas.



Good, I was wrong. In this cas, I'm happy to be wrong. I agree, faith is a gift, not a work of ours.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. I've been hurt by your lack of responses. It makes me feel like I'm a worthless bum or something and that you think you know everything.
> ...




Jeremy,

I apologize for being overly brusque with you on this topic. It was not proper and I should have taken the time to explain myself. Unbeknownst to you (and how could you know?) there were several long threads on this exact same topic about a year and a half ago. I poured hours and hours (hours I don't have now) into that discussion, treating in detail the texts in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that deal with this issue. Now that I search, the thread is gone - deleted.

This is as close as I can get, a thread in which I referenced the first thread and made some additional points:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5938

The summary is: we are saved by Christ's work not his faith. All these things go together: the covenant of works in which Adam was our federal head, and why we have original sin; the headship of Christ, fulfilling the work we could not; the application of that merit - actual real merit, not just trust, that Christ had to our account, so that we are accounted righteous in God's sight; our obtaining that merit by faith, faith that we have to exercise by believing, but which faith is the result of the work of God in us.

You see this issue of Christ's faith has HUGE implications for soteriology, Theology proper, Covenant theology, Trinitarianism, etc. There is SO much to write, that I took the easy way out.

Sorry.


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

Hi Fred,

Don't worry about it brother. I'm sorry too. I came on this board acting like some kind of know-it-all. What I should have done is work my way into things instead of posting topics all over creation. I think the Lord wants us to know each other above and beyond throwing our knowledge around.

You are right in all you said and I'm sorry for opposing you my friend.

To be honest with you, I need to sit under the wing of Godly teachers seeing my whole life I have had such a conglomeration of opinions thrown at me. My bookshelf is filled with books that contradict one another. But I've been reading a lot of Jonathan Edwards and John Piper. Mostly I've been studying my Bible. I've been trying to go through the NT epistles with my Greek study Bible. 

The Lord is good and gracious isn't He?

In Him,

Jeremy


----------



## andreas (May 23, 2005)

Quote:*In cases like this, perhaps it is better to simply let you speak your piece, and light your candle, and exit. Your style is not much suited to interaction, and I don't say that to criticize it. It is terse and epigramatic, entirely in keeping with your enigmatic, anonymous board persona, which exception the governors have graciously allowed. I, with like grace, shall free you from my direct responses.*


If there were ever a time when an individual must seek peace with God,it is now,but how can i do that, if i can not be at peace with my brother?Please forgive me Bruce.

andreas.


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

andreas,
Are you in trouble? We will pray for you if you wish.

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## andreas (May 24, 2005)

Thanks Meg,


"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16.

andreas.


----------

