I Peter 1:5

If I was him I would change my name, I think. I wonder why he picked Salamander? Do you think he knew what one was when he picked it.

It don't matter to me, but thought he should at least know. I just trying to help him out.

 

Warning:
Please stay to the topic: the OP.
Personal attacks are not tolerated.
If they continue in this thread it will be quickly closed.

 

The Bible tells us that faith is which is hoped for and not seen. I'm thinking God hopes for nothing, and has seen everything...meaning He doesn't have faith

 

Salamander, I think what Paul is saying to Timothy is that God has a character which, in never changing, is always worthy of our faith, and that our faith in Him can be sure and firm. A faithful servant is one you can count on, not one who has faith. You can have faith in him. We can count on God.

Does God have faith? In what? Faith needs an object. What is God supposed to have faith in? As has been mentioned, faith involves something not known or fully experienced. Is God in this position?

 

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
--Love is greater than faith and hope, because some day faith and hope will come to an end, but of these three: faith, hope, and love, only love will continue on forever into eternity.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
--The source of our faith is the Word of God. It increases as we study the Word of God, by whom we learn to know Jesus Christ, the object of our faith. Faith needs an object. The object of our faith is Christ. What would be the object of Christ's faith if he needed faith. God needs no faith.

2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)
--Faith will end at the coming of Christ, or when we see Jesus.
For now we walk by faith. When we see him we will no longer have need of faith. Faith looks beyond to those things that we cannot see. It is the confidence in the word of another that what he says will come true. Biblical faith is the confidence we place in the Word of God, that what God has said in his Word will come true.

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--There is both a definition and an example of faith.
Abraham was confident in the promises of God. He was fully persuaded in what God had said that it would be fulfilled.

Faith will come to an end when we see Christ. We walk by faith at this present time. Someday we will no longer walk by faith for we shall see him as he is. Faith will end. Christ or God does not have faith. That would be contrary to their nature. Christ is "the author and the finisher of our faith." Not His faith.

 

I will amen that DHK and Helen.

 

First off, Rom. 12:3 is talking about spiritual gifts or the "gifts of grace" as another passage terms these "charismata", as "the measure of faith", not salvation. The whole overall context is Christian living, in the chapter. A non-Christian cannot in any way have any sort of "Christain living" to begin with. Let's look at the subject and the context:

Did you notice in verse one that Paul addresses t hem as "Brethren"? They are already saved?

Did you notice in verse two he commands them to be transformed in their minds?

Did you notice in verse three the words "grace given", That is a participial phrase, with the exact same root as "charismata", or gifts of grace.

Did you notice in verses four and five, he speaks of one body, but individual members? Nothing about being "imparted faith" for salvation, which is your contentione, so far.

Did you notice vs. six through eight ennumerate some of the twenty-odd Spiritual gifts, found in Scripture for the believer, and the church, that "body" referred to in the previous two verses?
Did you notice the rest of the chapter describes a part of How Should We Then Live? , I apologize to the memory of the late Francis Schaffer for borrowing his title, here.

And contrary to your assertion, the other Scripture you cited does NOT say " "faith comes by hearing the Word of God", as you concluded. Rom. 10:17 says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing (comes- assumed, by the construction of the verse) by the word of God." You might notice that the translators did NOT capitalize "word" in this instance. I wonder why you did? The Greek "rhema" does not bear capitalizing, unlike "Logos", in some instances, but the word here is 'rhema', and usually refers to the preached message, as far as I am aware.

And I still wonder why you are attempting to differentiate between believe and faith. There is no reason to do this from the language. Only a preconceived theology necessitates this, in any way. You are correct that 'believe does not equal salvation'. I agree fully. One can believe in Buddha, Allah, ancestor worship, or any of a host of other things and not be saved. But anyone who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is saved, no "ifs, ands, or buts". And prior to the cross, and this age, one who "believed God" was saved, with nothing added to that. Witness Abraham and David, as Rom. 4:1-8 says. "But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted (imputed- literally, placed to the account of) for righteousness."

And Heb. 11:1 gives one definition of faith as this: "1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (ESV)

I am the one who has consistently declared that one is justified before God, by believe/faith and that, alone. I don't see how you can even suggest that I think this 'faith' is any sort of 'work', let alone one that one has to somehow "add" in order to be saved.

You made the statement to the effect that you did not agree with "calvinism". Yet your definitions, and what you say you "firmly believe", could be taken straight from the Canons of the Synod of Dort. One does not, in any way, have to "exercise faith" in order to receive "the free gift of grace through faith to become a child of God", whatever that convoluted sentence is supposed to mean.

One has to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and one is then saved - saved by grace, through faith, and that salvation is the gift of God. And the only way it can and and could have been by grace, was and is by faith.

Ed

 

Why would the dictionary disagree with us. It only disagrees with the definition that you choose to use. There is no one so loyal, so affectionate and loving, so faithful, as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Even when we don't remain faithful to Him; he always remains faithful to us. How wonderful is that. Yet that doesn't mean that He in himself needs faith. To say so would be to contradict his very nature. Faith needs an object. Christ himself is the author and finisher of our faith. If he is the author of our faith, how could He need faith?
If he is the object of our faith, how could he need faith?
If he is the finisher of our faith, how could he need faith?

 

No faith is not a gift. You have taken a verse out of context and assumed that it is a gift. I don't believe it is a gift. Every man has faith, even unbelievers have faith. You exercise faith every day. Every day I put my car key into the ignition of my car, and by faith, when I turn the key I believe that the car will start. There is the occasional time when it doesn't start. Does that mean my faith has failed. No, it means that the car is not perfect, was made by fallible hands, and is an imperfect car. Faith is simply confidence. I put my confidence in the word of the Ford Company which says to me that if I put my key in the ignition and turn it that the car will start. They said (wrote) it, and I believe it. They are human and fallible.

How much more can I put my faith (confidence) in a perfect God, who has written his promises in his perfect word, who says that he will never fail.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

I put my faith in a bus driver, when I ask him if the bus is going to the city center, and he says, "yes, it is going to the city center," that it won't end up at the airport. I exercise faith (confidence in the word of another) every day. And so do you.

However do you exercise Biblical faith--confidence in the word of God. Faith is not some magical mystical thing that dwells within you that you have to reach down and pull out and somehow make it work. It is not mystical. It is simple confidence in God and his promises--nothing magical, supernatural, or mystical about it.

Learn what faith is, before you start to post about it.

 

Hold on there. Don't get so hot and bothered. Rethink what you said:

What did you say:
"God is full of faith." Faith always has an object. If God is full of faith, what is the object of his faith? Please explain.

 

Nor did I say you said "faith was salvation". (Language Cop does wish you better understood the meaning of quotation marks- more later. ) What you did say, and I actually agreed with is (and I quote) "I almost agree completely, though simple belief isn't salvation." I did not disagree with this, but said the above in answer to your contention that Rom. 12:3 was a verse that said God 'gave us the faith to believe in Him and be saved'. That was your contention, in so many words.

This smart-alecky remark does not merit a response in a serious discussion, so I will not give it one.

The first half of the your first sentence, above is Biblically correct, but what does that have to do with a difference between the spiritual gifts, and the truth that salvation is the gift of God? And BTW, the twenty-odd spiritual gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:7-11), are given irrevocably (Rom. 11:29), and it is in no way said they (your quote) "must be exercised by faith".

Your second question has no basis in any fact whatsoever. I have not ever given any hint that "works produce grace". The Bible says no such thing, either, by any stretch of the imagination. I have said that salvation does not automatically produce works, which is in opposition to what you seem to be saying.

And the third question you have asked is likewise another "red herring", you seem to attempt "smacking" with. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] I did not address what you suggest, trying to get a specific response to my question, or questions, rather than a "shotgun eisegesis" response. I do fully agree that God works to produce righteousness, but that was not exegetically germane to the question I asked about the verses.
[/FONT][/FONT]

I notice you did not address the usage of "rhema" vs. "logos". Should I here be surprised?

I did not "confuse Judaism in works of righteousness", any more that Paul did by my previous quoting of Rom. 3:21- 4:25 in post #27. But you have disagreed with, and misunderstood what the Scripture clearly says there, when you wrote in post #22 these words (and I quote):

By getting off track with the added comments, you are missing the point that we are indeed accounted righteous, by believing. And that is exactly how Abraham was accounted righteous, by believing in the LORD, all the way back in Gen. 15:6, and cited in Rom. 4:3-5

Did you notice that Abraham "had to do nothing else save "believe" here?

I am going to snip off the rest of your post, hoping I will not exceed the length to post.

Ed

 

Meaning what? This supposed distinction of the prepositions is entirely arbitrary. John 3:15 uses "en", properly 'in'; John 3:16 uses the word "eis" or properly 'into'; Acts 16:31 uses the word "epi", properly 'upon' or 'on'; John 6:47 uses no preposition, at all; yet all are clearly referring to the same thing, believing in/on Jesus Christ for salvation. The distinction you are seeking is some theological distinction, not a Biblical one.

In your attempt to play "versions", you have reversed the words from the KJV, here, as to the verse. I am not into playing one version vs. another, but if you would desire to exegete the words and compare versions, I will comply. I personally think the ESV, NASB, and ASV, (and the marginal reading in the NKJV, and HCSB) as some of the more "formal equivalency translations", gives the more accurate rendering in 2007 of the words "hupostasis" as "assurance", and "elegchos" as "conviction", as also given by Thayer, and substantially agreed with by Wigram. I have no particular question that the words the KJV uses may have conveyed this accurately 400 years ago, but I was not around then, nor were any others posting on this site.

I have never said that Jesus is not the author and finisher of our faith, for Scripture expressly declares this. But that is not the same thing as you keep insisting, namely that God "gave us the faith" or "faith is the gift of God" in order that we might "have faith" to "believe". Scripture never says the last part of this, at all. Jesus never asked Martha that since she was given the faith, did she now appropriate this faith. Paul never said to the Phillipian jailer, that since God has given you the faith, you may now believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus that whosoever God had given faith to, could now believe in Him. And Scripture did not say about Abraham that God gave him the faith, and then Abraham believed God. It simply is not there. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, true, but not as you are attempting to exeget this. For now the third time, I suggest that what you are suggesting here is pure "calvinism" (sic), and not what Scripture teaches. Faith comes by hearing, and 'hearing' (comes) by the word of God, not as some supposedly (specially) imparted gift.

Since I am quoting you, here, how could I contradict myself?

And who again is the "calvinist", here? It sure ain't me.

Ed

 

Didn't read the whole thread. But in response to the first few posts: Whose faith is it? It's mine, but Christ gave it to me.

Heb. 12:2

 

More accurately...He created you with it.