A couple of odd statements about faith.

First off, it is not "HOW" but "WHY" (does Jesus marvelle at their faith).

Secondly, this is not specifically about the 'origin' of faith, but if one holds that God gives faith then why all the problems, frustrations with it half the time, specifically among His own disciples.

It is an interesting thing though to me, that Jesus came to the Jews, the Jews first and formost and is quoted saying this on a couple of occasions (once even to a Gentile woman seeking His help) and yet the only times recorded that Jesus was amazed (marvelled) was when two Gentiles and not Jews are declared they had great faith (even in all Israel and this included His own present followers).

So it is interesting to me that if Jesus was here for the Jews first, and His ministry was given by the Father it would 'seem' an odd thing indeed for a Gentile to believe or have faith (which some say only comes from God) when they were not yet to be involved till after His resurrection.

You'r making no sence brother.
Jesus was not 'bound' to speak as a man. He spoke as God (omnisciencently) as well. Knowing His impending death, resurrection. Speaking of Him knowing the hearts of men.

Also God spoke omnisciencently in the OT as well. Most every prophesy spoke of this exact thing.

So with respect to Moses you assert that in Gods foreknowledge He knew that if Moses had an option, God knew which option Moses would take?

This word is tossed around A LOT and is used most times when scripture does not agree with a particular theology. There are some anthropomorphisms in scripture but not as many as some ascribe.

Who said He was 'learning' something?

How can man have the capsity FOR or potentially to have faith and have to be given faith as though man does NOT have the capsity to have faith?????

So you agree that man does have the capsity for faith.
That is good becuause it is truth. Now, if man has the capsity for faith, when does God need to give 'faith' since it is by nature the very same thing. The only difference between the saving faith and vain faith is the object OF faith, and it is that object which faith fastens itself to that saves.

I rest my case. It is not a or any faith that saves but the object OF our faith.

 

I think you might be stretching just a little to try to explain away. I also don't dismiss the possiblity but we can not assume it was for their benifit only He appeared to be amazed.

Again with due respect to your view I don't believe God created puppets and we just follow along the life He determined for us to walk.

Yes, but this does not preclude the potential of man having a choice. But you postulate that when God gives a choice there IS NO REAL choice in the matter. There are two option but man can only choose the option God will allow. So, the structure you present has nothing to do with what God might 'know' but based on what God determinded each person will do or not do. In your view,Ninvah could not have repented unless God decreed allowed them to, regardless of God commanding them to.

Very True.

Now you are allowing theology to determine what scripture is saying rather than the converse.
If Jesus was acting in the fashion of a man who was sent to the Jews, and a Gentile came up to Him with great faith, would He not be amazed?!

But in the same manner, being God and knowing that no man comes to Him unless Father draw them, and in your view also gives them faith. Why would He be amazed in the fashion of man while knowing faith is that which the Father gives to all who will seek Him? Tt not known to Him those who come to Christ SHOULD be of faith, is it not?

This is what I call fuzzy logic.
Man has the capsity for faith, but God has to give man that which He already has the capsity for, why?
Only to support your view that a certain type of faith comes from God.

If you are refering to Faith in the noun form, meaning Christ (our Faith) I will agree. For the scriptures state He came from God and in fact IS God.
But if you are refering to the act of believing upon the object of God for our salvation (our Faith) then I disagree with you.

Faith is a gift ONLY in the sense that if it were not for God's grace through the revealing and convinciton of the Holy Spirit we would never know any real True nor THE Truth (Christ the Lord) that it may be of faith because of His grace.

But God giving us faith as though it was something we never had nor could have in any measure (thus the reason for giving it) makes no sense in light of the fact we have even the smallest measure of common faith, which is by nature no different from saving faith since both are 'faith'; with the exception (of course) regarding the object AND for the purpose to which faith set toward that object.

Thus to say our acknowledging that we have nothing of ourselves worthy to offer in exchange for but that we also acknowledge the Work of Christ and Himself being the absolute suffienctsness on our behalf; in no way imparts saving qualities whatsoever to us (or our faith), since it is God who saves and we acknowledgled that by placing our faith in Christ.

Faith can not by itself save us therefore even if faith originates in man (God giving every man a measure of faith) it still does not negate all credit for Gods saving work in and to Man. We are saved BY grace THROUGH faith. It is grace that saves, but it pleased God to bring that salvation to us through faith in His grace.

 

Who said ANYTHING about godly virtue being inherent in fallen man. You skipped everything I wrote and centered upon this one peice, which unfortunately is out of the context it was written to explain.

Faith (in the verb sense) HAS NO value by itself. The only value faith has is in the object to which faith has been set toward or fastened upon. So whether common faith or saving faith it is by nature the same thing - faith. Not that its nature is godly whether common or saving. The nature of verb form of faith is 'the acting upon' but the value of faith is contengent upon the object for and toward which faith that faith has been fastened.

Faith in the sense of the Noun, IS the value from which our action (faith) comes. Since the object of our faith (Jesus).

The only difference between the saving faith and vain faith is the object OF faith, and it is that object which faith fastens itself to that saves not faith itself.
It is this 'Faith' which 2 Thes 3:2 speaks NOT the verb form - of acting upon ~ to believe.

Umm... I didn't cite any such passage. What I did say that had the word "measure" in it was:

It isn't citing a passage but speaking to your statement of all man having common faith. Thus regardless of measurement of mans common faith all men have the capsity OF faith.

As I stated above, the faith in verse 2 is in the noun form and said "not all have Jesus", since Jesus is the object of our faith (verb) and therefore IS our Faith (noun).

So it appears that theology is informing you
That verse can in no way be used as stating man has no faith.
BUT it IS a true statement that no man has a saving faith apart from God.
And all non-Cals agree with that. For man left to himself will die in his sins having no hope.

 

So it is your contention that God the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are all acting.

That Jesus was play-acting amazement is contradictory to your previous statement of Him having the capcity to be amazed. I don't by it because God is not in the deception business. Satan is the father of lies. And incase you forgot (cause I sure you already know) - acting like something you are not is the basic definition of a hypocrit. Are you implying that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are acting like something that is not true (amazed, grieved, et...) thus being the very definition of a hypocrit? I doubt that is your intent but that IS the outcome.

Jesus was a man and therefore able to be amaze, or astonished. The question as I stated before is not HOW is HE but WHY is HE?

And guess what, we CAN grieve the Holy Spirit.
Unless of course you don't believe scripture regarding God as having emotion.
Like Love, Hate, Anger, even being Greived.

His emotions as God goes beyond our understanding but God thought these words acturately gave a picture to us regarding His being.

 

Ok, I was hoping you were not taking that route :laugh:

 

Bumpity bump.

 

Ok, one last time then I will let the thread RIP.

I have really enjoyed the interaction on here. You all have been great.
Bump.

 

Good morning Tom
The thought actaully did occur to me as well. Good observation. But I have a problem tossing the 'anthropomorphic' aspect around lightly. And since this is discribing a human attribute to a man (remember Jesus was a man also due to the incarnation) it does not necessitate (IMO) the anthropomorphic language to be applied in these instances.

What I found most interesting is other distinctive about what you point out regarding those around Him, and that is (as I have stated earlier) they were always Gentiles in contrast to the Jews who claimed to have faith.

 

True and I have no real problem with that but I must also ask:

Why would Christ 'marvel' at anyone of faith, seeing that it is His Father which is supposed give it to those who would follow Christ?

Also it is of note that He did not marvel at the disciples when they acted in faith, yet with this Gentile we find Christ "Turned to His followers" (those supposed to be of faith) and stated that He has not found so great faith, no, not in Israel - The whole Nation! This included His own chosen disciples!

Talk about a rebuke to those Jews who were following Christ, not to mention the other Jews in contention WITH Christ to say a Gentile had more faith than they did.

This is what I am refering to. Jesus states about faith in many places that His followers, more specifically His disciples, have only little faith, no faith, or no great faith. So if God gives man faith, how could His disciples have 'no faith' or 'little faith' since God gives them faith. Did God mess up on His measuring out faith to each man? Of course Not!

Jesus doesn't tell them they aren't using the faith God gave them to it's fullest measure, but alsway equates it as 'their faith' or 'your faith' and that is why it was either lacking or not there at all. Otherwise the faith God seems to give can be denied to be used or used ineffectively in our lives. That would make no sense.

Faith is not a compulsion to act due to faith but a decision to act due to a believed truth establishing faith.