If faith is predestined and cause by God, then answer me this.....

[Reformed1689]

To be counted or accounted as something. It means it's not of you or something you accomplished. It was given.

What do you think it means?

No that's what I think. But why is that causing an issue of God causing the faith? I don't understand your hangup.

 

[Calminian]

No that's what I think. But why is that causing an issue of God causing the faith? I don't understand your hangup.

So you disagree with my definition of reckoned?

The NIV translates it,

Rom. 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.​

So, I'm curious, why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Please, what do you think this phrase means?

 

[Reformed1689]

So you disagree with my definition of reckoned?

The NIV translates it,

Rom. 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.​

So, I'm curious, why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Please, what do you think this phrase means?

No I agree with your definition. I am asking how that is in conflict with God causing/giving/gifting faith 100%? What is the hangup for you on that?

 

[Calminian]

No I agree with your definition. I am asking how that is in conflict with God causing/giving/gifting faith 100%? What is the hangup for you on that?

No hang up, just wondering if you agreed. If so, I've already made the case. Why would God cause something inadequate to save? Why cause faith (100%) only to then have to credit that faith as righteousness?

Now if faith is partly of man, it makes perfect sense. Man is not righteousness, but God credits his faith as righteousness. In this scenario, faith isn't meritorious. Faith, in and of itself, cannot earn anything, nor obligate God. Thus, the choice to credit man's faith is 100% of God. It's even monergistic!

 

[Reformed1689]

hy cause faith (100%) only to then have to credit that faith as righteousness?

This is your hangup. What in the world are you talking about? I don't see your point.

Now if faith is partly of man, it makes perfect sense. Man is not righteousness, but God credits his faith as righteousness.

Man is not righteous. God gives him faith and credits that faith as the righteousness that man does not have. In other words, he makes us righteous.

 

[Calminian]

This is your hangup. What in the world are you talking about? I don't see your point......

And i have no idea why you can't grasp this. It's really simple. Why the extra step? Why created faith which is not righteous, only to then credit it as righteous? Why cause something in man that then needs an extra perfecting step?

 

[Reformed1689]

And i have no idea why you can't grasp this. It's really simple.

Why did you ignore the second part of my post?

 

[Calminian]

Why did you ignore the second part of my post?

Why are you not getting something so simple? LOL!

 

[Reformed1689]

Why are you not getting something so simple? LOL!

That's just it, I DO get it. You are the one making things complicated because it doesn't fit your theology. Not to mention your logic is not logical at all.

 

[Dave G]

Now if faith is partly of man, it makes perfect sense.

At first, it did to me as well.

Then over the years, I saw that if anything is partly of men, then it's not all of God and all of His grace and mercy.

Man is not righteousness, but God credits his faith as righteousness. In this scenario, faith isn't meritorious. Faith, in and of itself, cannot earn anything, nor obligate God. Thus, the choice to credit man's faith is 100% of God. It's even monergistic!

If it's partly of men, instead of being a gift, it raises the possibility of man being able to take credit away from God for saving him.

I agree that faith, in and of itself, is not meritorious...but if men are saved by faith, instead of through it ( Ephesians 2:8 ), then something one person has in their possession, gives them an "edge" over their fellow man when it comes to gaining God's favor.
God then has to exercise partiality and reward that person for using what He gave them, correctly.
With election, God bypasses the way we do things, and simply does as He wishes with sinful and guilty men.

This results in the person being saved, seeing that they had nothing to do with any of it... and we as believers then fall on our face in genuine gratitude for His gifts.

He gets all the glory.

 

[Calminian]

Because His word states that He does.

As for why, I imagine it's because He wants it that way.

Fair enough. You might be right. But it makes more sense to me that faith needs to be credited because it's not righteousness in and of itself. It's something man can choose, but warrants no obligation from God.

God not only wants His children totally dependent upon Him for everything, in reality, all men, whether we know it or not, are dependent upon Him for every bit of good that we have, as men.

Totally agree. I get this from God taking man's faith, and crediting it as righteousness. That, to me, means salvation is 100% of God. There is no need to make faith 100% caused by God.

 

[Particular]

You said faith and works are not in contrast. Yes, they are.

Rom. 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.​

You are contrasting the Mosaic Law with Grace which gifts us faith.

 

[Dave G]

Staying focused, if faith is 100% caused by God, why does God then need to "reckon" it as righteousness?

Because His word states that He does ( Romans 4 ).

As for why, I imagine it's because He wants it that way.
Think of it like this...

God not only wants His children totally dependent upon Him for everything...
In reality, all men, whether we know it or not, are dependent upon Him for every bit of good that we have as His creation.

That goodness even leads those who refuse to repent, to repentance ( Romans 2:4 ).

Why would God give an inadequate gift that needed to be "counted" as righteousness?

No gift of God is "inadequate".
Each and every gift is perfect ( James 1:17 ), and suited for the task at hand.

Paul's gifts were evangelism, preaching and teaching, among others.

They suited him for what God had him do...go around and bring God's elect into little groups, teaching them doctrine, encouraging them in their faith and correcting them when they sinned.
He reminded them of God's great love for His children in the midst of this nasty ( and very temporary ) world that we live in...

To run the race set before them, and to run it well.

 

[Reformed1689]

But it makes more sense to me that faith needs to be credited because it's not righteousness in and of itself. It's something man can choose, but warrants no obligation from God.

There is your trouble. You are relying on what "makes more sense to me" that's not how you should go about theology.

 

[Calminian]

There is your trouble. You are relying on what "makes more sense to me" that's not how you should go about theology.

Of course. I read the Scriptures and look for what appears to me to be the most plain reading. That's all I can do.

You, OTOH, lead with your theology, and try to fit Scripture into it. The plain reading of Romans 4 is pretty straightforward. God credits man's faith.

Rom. 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

Sorry but that's what it says. "his faith." To me, his faith means his faith. That make more sense to me.

 

[Reformed1689]

Of course. I read the Scriptures and look for what appears to me to be the most plain reading. That's all I can do.

But that's not what you are doing when you say, "It makes more sense to me...."

You, OTOH, lead with your theology, and try to fit Scripture into it. The plain reading of Romans 4 is pretty straightforward. God credits man's faith.

Rom. 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Sorry but that's what it says. "his faith." To me, his faith means his faith. That make more sense to me.

If I give you a gift it is now yours. No contradiction there.

 

[Dave G]

But it makes more sense to me that faith needs to be credited because it's not righteousness in and of itself.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you in this statement.

It's something man can choose, but warrants no obligation from God.

There's where we disagree, unfortunately.
Again,
If man can choose, we then go right back to man's salvation being dependent upon what we have done, possessed, "exercised", etc.
One man can now gain an "edge" over his fellows, and procure ( yes, buy ) his escape from God's wrath.

According to the "legal language" of God's word, He is obligated to save those who believe, from the heart ( Romans 10:9-10 ).
He is obligated to save those who have genuine faith ( notice that I differentiate between genuine, and false faith ).

He obligates Himself ( that's what covenants are, God obligating Himself to a set of promises that He is determined to keep and will unfailingly keep ), we cannot force Him to make obligations.



So, if faith is available to all men, and salvation partly a work of men and partly of God, then that takes impartiality off the table....and puts it in the hands of men who will then climb all over each other in a mad dash to "get saved", as I see it.

That's man-made religion at its finest, if you ask me.
Mankind doing all sorts of things to gain His favor.

 

[Calminian]

But that's not what you are doing when you say, "It makes more sense to me...."

I just explained to you what I meant by "it makes more sense to me."

If I give you a gift it is now yours. No contradiction there.

And if that gift is freely accepted, it's still a gift. Accepting a gift is not the same as earning it.

 

[Calminian]

Amazingly enough, I agree with you in this statement.

Amen then! We can at least agree that faith is not righteousness, and needs to be credited as such.

Again,
If man can choose, we then go right back to one man's salvation being dependent upon what they have done, possessed, "exercised", etc.
According to the "legal language" of God's word, He is obligated to save those who believe, from the heart ( Romans 10:9-10 ).

So then, accepting a gift is the same as earning a gift? If that's the reasoning, I can see the hangup. But I don't see this principle anywhere in Scripture. Where is accepting a gift, in Scripture, described as partially earning it? I don't see it in Scripture, in ANE culture, or even in modern culture. So where does this idea come from?

 

[Dave G]

So then, accepting a gift is the same as earning a gift?

There is a difference between reaching out and taking something that is offered, and going about one's daily life and having it dropped into one's lap.

I believe, in the light of Romans 10:20, that eternal life is such a gift.
Unexpected, unsought ( Romans 3:10-18 ), and totally of God.

To me, that's the only way that it can truly be a gift, instead of being a reward.

But I don't see this principle anywhere in Scripture.

Answered above, and I've already gone through this in another thread, if you care to have a look at past ones.

Where is accepting a gift, in Scripture, described as partially earning it?

Romans 4:4, Romans 11:5-6.
Where is it declared as anything but being received, passively?

I don't see it in Scripture, in ANE culture, or even in modern culture. So where does this idea come from?

If you don't mind me asking,
Where do you get the idea that accepting a gift is part of the giving?

God's word, or man's way of doing things?