Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
let's conclude-
“…the righteousness of God… by [the] faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. 3:22).
Note, the Apostle Paul here does not refer to faith in Christ, but the faith of Christ. Nor does he refer to what Christ believed, but rather to His worthiness to be believed, His fidelity, His trustworthiness.
We must not forget that faith is a reciprocal matter; it is two-sided. One side is objective; it believes in another. The other is subjective; it is a trustworthy character. One refers to what a person does; the other to what he is. If I have faith in you, you should keep faith with me; you should be trustworthy.
Seven times in St. Paul’s epistles he refers to “the faith of Christ” and each time his purpose is to emphasize our Lord’s worthiness of our complete confidence. That he does not refer to our faith in Christ is evident on the surface in each case. In the passage above he declares that the righteousness of God, which is “by the faith of Christ,” is conferred “upon all them that believe” (Here’s your faith in Him).
Similarly, in Gal. 3:22 he states that “the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to “them that believe.” Here again, we believe because He is worthy of our confidence.
Again in Phil. 3:9, the Apostle expresses his desire for a righteousness not of his own, “but that which is through the faith of Christ” — and then adds: “the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Here’s man’s faith again! He has faith in Christ because Christ is completely faithful, completely worthy to be believed in. He paid the full penalty for our sins and is now in heaven dispensing the merits of Calvary — riches of grace, mercy and forgiveness.
But remember, “the faith of Christ” always precedes our faith in Christ. What good would it do us to believe in Him for salvation if He were not wholly to be relied upon for this? But He can be trusted “to save… to the uttermost [all] who come unto God by Him” (Heb. 7:25). This is why Paul could say to the terrified jailor at Philippi:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).
I am familiar with the Grammar and Syntax of the Text brother-thank you for this "heart to heart" without being negative.
Shalom
J.
“…the righteousness of God… by [the] faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. 3:22).
Note, the Apostle Paul here does not refer to faith in Christ, but the faith of Christ. Nor does he refer to what Christ believed, but rather to His worthiness to be believed, His fidelity, His trustworthiness.
We must not forget that faith is a reciprocal matter; it is two-sided. One side is objective; it believes in another. The other is subjective; it is a trustworthy character. One refers to what a person does; the other to what he is. If I have faith in you, you should keep faith with me; you should be trustworthy.
Seven times in St. Paul’s epistles he refers to “the faith of Christ” and each time his purpose is to emphasize our Lord’s worthiness of our complete confidence. That he does not refer to our faith in Christ is evident on the surface in each case. In the passage above he declares that the righteousness of God, which is “by the faith of Christ,” is conferred “upon all them that believe” (Here’s your faith in Him).
Similarly, in Gal. 3:22 he states that “the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to “them that believe.” Here again, we believe because He is worthy of our confidence.
Again in Phil. 3:9, the Apostle expresses his desire for a righteousness not of his own, “but that which is through the faith of Christ” — and then adds: “the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Here’s man’s faith again! He has faith in Christ because Christ is completely faithful, completely worthy to be believed in. He paid the full penalty for our sins and is now in heaven dispensing the merits of Calvary — riches of grace, mercy and forgiveness.
But remember, “the faith of Christ” always precedes our faith in Christ. What good would it do us to believe in Him for salvation if He were not wholly to be relied upon for this? But He can be trusted “to save… to the uttermost [all] who come unto God by Him” (Heb. 7:25). This is why Paul could say to the terrified jailor at Philippi:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).
I am familiar with the Grammar and Syntax of the Text brother-thank you for this "heart to heart" without being negative.
Shalom
J.
The idea that Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness is found in several passages in the Bible, including Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, and James 2:23. The apostle Paul uses Abraham as an illustration of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from the works of the law, which involves imputed righteousness. It is not that Abraham was reckoned to be righteous in the sight of God in any different manner than you or I.
The faith that justifies is a deep conviction that God’s words are true and that God will perform all that He promises. Abraham simply believed that God would do what He said.
In terms of the faith of Christ, this refers to the faith that Christ had in His Father and His obedience to His will, even to the point of death on the cross. This faith is imputed to believers, meaning that it is credited to them as if it were their own. This is seen in passages such as Galatians 2:20, which says, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
In summary, both the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christ are important aspects of Christian theology. Abraham's faith is an example of the kind of faith that justifies, while the faith of Christ is imputed to believers and enables them to live a life of obedience to God.
J.
The faith that justifies is a deep conviction that God’s words are true and that God will perform all that He promises. Abraham simply believed that God would do what He said.
In terms of the faith of Christ, this refers to the faith that Christ had in His Father and His obedience to His will, even to the point of death on the cross. This faith is imputed to believers, meaning that it is credited to them as if it were their own. This is seen in passages such as Galatians 2:20, which says, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
In summary, both the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christ are important aspects of Christian theology. Abraham's faith is an example of the kind of faith that justifies, while the faith of Christ is imputed to believers and enables them to live a life of obedience to God.
J.
No
It was Christ's righteousness that was inputed to abraham, based on ABRAHAM"S faith
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
It was Christ's righteousness that was inputed to abraham, based on ABRAHAM"S faith
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
-
1
-
1
- Show all
John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
1 John 2: 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
You tell me.. What did Jesus mean. In jesus own words
1 John 2: 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
You tell me.. What did Jesus mean. In jesus own words
-
1
- Show all
I think the following verse can be applied to resolve all of the points raised in your post.
[Gal 2:16 KJV] 16 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.
And thank you also for not being negative.
Take care.
[Gal 2:16 KJV] 16 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.
And thank you also for not being negative.
Take care.
-
1
- Show all
something to ponder about-
Translating pistis christou as “faithfulness of Christ” is theologically attractive.
The theme of “union with Christ” is a powerful one in Pauline theology, and it makes good sense of a number of passages. For example, the KJV translates Galatians 2:20 with the subjective genitive: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
When incorporated into Reformation categories of theology, “faithfulness of Christ” bolsters support for the doctrine of imputation. “We are justified by the faithfulness of Christ (his perfect obedience to the Father’s will, his faithfulness unto death on behalf of his covenant people).”
Philippians 3:9 seems to put more emphasis on Christ’s faithfulness, rather than our faith, as the means of supplying our needed righteousness. “Not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through the faithfulness of Christ – the righteousness from God based on faith.” Anything that appears to give more glory to Christ is attractive to me.
3. The juxtaposition of Israel’s unfaithfulness (works of the law) and Christ’s faithfulness (through his death) provides a compelling interpretation of the key passages in Galatians.
Ardel Caneday writes: “In Galatians, Paul’s argument features Christ Jesus over against Torah, with Torah in a servant role to Christ, as preparatory for Christ who has now come. Paul’s antithetical placement of pistis christou with “works of the law” / “law” placards the faithfulness of Christ Jesus who accomplishes what the Law could not.”
For a while, I leaned toward the “faithfulness of Christ” view, primarily because the reasons listed above. Still, despite the attraction of that translation, I have recently shifted in the other direction. Today, I am convinced that the New Testament authors intended pistis christou to refer to “faith in Christ” rather than the faithfulness of Christ. Here are the reasons that swayed me the other way:
1. None of the early church fathers or early Greek readers give a subjective genitive reading of pistis christou. In fact, the discussion doesn’t even come up.
This reason is the most compelling to me. As a fluent Romanian speaker, I’ve observed quirky grammatical constructions that could possibly mean two or more things within the flow of the language.
If Romanians, however, hear those grammatical constructions in only one way, then I know that I’m correct in translating the ambiguous phrase according to its unambiguous meaning in its original language and the receptor language. The same principle applies to native Greek speakers.
Barry Matlock writes: “It is not that the subjective genitive reading is explicitly rejected among early Greek readers… but rather that no awareness is shown of this option nor indeed of any problem, and so the objective is read without polemic or apology. Silence can be very eloquent, and here it fairly sings.”
2. The “repetition” problem isn’t as big a problem as it first appears.
In Rom. 3:21-22, Paul probably intends to place the emphasis on the “all”: -that is, God’s righteousness through trust in Jesus Christ, to all who trust.
It is also likely that Paul uses repetition intentionally. In an oral culture, this is a common technique at getting across one’s point.
3. Grammatically, there are other places where the genitive refers to Christ as the object.
In Philippians 3:8, Jesus Christ is described as the object of knowledge. In 1 Thessalonians, he is described as the object of hope. In both these cases, it is clear from the context that Paul is not talking about Christ’s knowledge or Christ’s hope. There is no grammatical reason why the same can’t be true of pistis christou.
4. We should not do exegesis with a bias toward “what is theologically attractive.”
Though I love the emphasis the “faithfulness of Christ” view places on Christ’s obedience, I can’t let my exegesis be driven by what appears to support my theological position. The key issue is “what did the author intend to communicate?”, not “how does this boost what I already believe?”
Regarding my thoughts above on Christ’s faithfulness to the covenant, I should reiterate that Paul’s emphasis on “faith in Christ” does not undermine the truth that God is the One doing the saving.
Michael Bird writes: “Faith in Christ means entrusting ourselves to the event of the gospel, which includes the theocentric act of deliverance wrought by God in Jesus which includes his coming, faithfulness, death, and resurrection. Thus, I would say that Jesus’ faithfulness is implied not in the noun pistis but in christos.”
The more I study, the more I am convinced that pistis christou should be translated “faith in Christ.” What about you? Have you considered this debate? Which way do you lean?
(For more information on this debate, I recommend reading The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Also of interest, a post from Collin Hansen that summarizes the views of several New Testament scholars.)
Thanks brother-
J.
Translating pistis christou as “faithfulness of Christ” is theologically attractive.
The theme of “union with Christ” is a powerful one in Pauline theology, and it makes good sense of a number of passages. For example, the KJV translates Galatians 2:20 with the subjective genitive: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
When incorporated into Reformation categories of theology, “faithfulness of Christ” bolsters support for the doctrine of imputation. “We are justified by the faithfulness of Christ (his perfect obedience to the Father’s will, his faithfulness unto death on behalf of his covenant people).”
Philippians 3:9 seems to put more emphasis on Christ’s faithfulness, rather than our faith, as the means of supplying our needed righteousness. “Not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through the faithfulness of Christ – the righteousness from God based on faith.” Anything that appears to give more glory to Christ is attractive to me.
3. The juxtaposition of Israel’s unfaithfulness (works of the law) and Christ’s faithfulness (through his death) provides a compelling interpretation of the key passages in Galatians.
Ardel Caneday writes: “In Galatians, Paul’s argument features Christ Jesus over against Torah, with Torah in a servant role to Christ, as preparatory for Christ who has now come. Paul’s antithetical placement of pistis christou with “works of the law” / “law” placards the faithfulness of Christ Jesus who accomplishes what the Law could not.”
For a while, I leaned toward the “faithfulness of Christ” view, primarily because the reasons listed above. Still, despite the attraction of that translation, I have recently shifted in the other direction. Today, I am convinced that the New Testament authors intended pistis christou to refer to “faith in Christ” rather than the faithfulness of Christ. Here are the reasons that swayed me the other way:
1. None of the early church fathers or early Greek readers give a subjective genitive reading of pistis christou. In fact, the discussion doesn’t even come up.
This reason is the most compelling to me. As a fluent Romanian speaker, I’ve observed quirky grammatical constructions that could possibly mean two or more things within the flow of the language.
If Romanians, however, hear those grammatical constructions in only one way, then I know that I’m correct in translating the ambiguous phrase according to its unambiguous meaning in its original language and the receptor language. The same principle applies to native Greek speakers.
Barry Matlock writes: “It is not that the subjective genitive reading is explicitly rejected among early Greek readers… but rather that no awareness is shown of this option nor indeed of any problem, and so the objective is read without polemic or apology. Silence can be very eloquent, and here it fairly sings.”
2. The “repetition” problem isn’t as big a problem as it first appears.
In Rom. 3:21-22, Paul probably intends to place the emphasis on the “all”: -that is, God’s righteousness through trust in Jesus Christ, to all who trust.
It is also likely that Paul uses repetition intentionally. In an oral culture, this is a common technique at getting across one’s point.
3. Grammatically, there are other places where the genitive refers to Christ as the object.
In Philippians 3:8, Jesus Christ is described as the object of knowledge. In 1 Thessalonians, he is described as the object of hope. In both these cases, it is clear from the context that Paul is not talking about Christ’s knowledge or Christ’s hope. There is no grammatical reason why the same can’t be true of pistis christou.
4. We should not do exegesis with a bias toward “what is theologically attractive.”
Though I love the emphasis the “faithfulness of Christ” view places on Christ’s obedience, I can’t let my exegesis be driven by what appears to support my theological position. The key issue is “what did the author intend to communicate?”, not “how does this boost what I already believe?”
Regarding my thoughts above on Christ’s faithfulness to the covenant, I should reiterate that Paul’s emphasis on “faith in Christ” does not undermine the truth that God is the One doing the saving.
Michael Bird writes: “Faith in Christ means entrusting ourselves to the event of the gospel, which includes the theocentric act of deliverance wrought by God in Jesus which includes his coming, faithfulness, death, and resurrection. Thus, I would say that Jesus’ faithfulness is implied not in the noun pistis but in christos.”
The more I study, the more I am convinced that pistis christou should be translated “faith in Christ.” What about you? Have you considered this debate? Which way do you lean?
(For more information on this debate, I recommend reading The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Also of interest, a post from Collin Hansen that summarizes the views of several New Testament scholars.)
Thanks brother-
J.
-
1
- Show all
If you would actually study the verse.
it says through faith, was accounted to Abraham righteousness.
This is confirmed in the rest of chapter 4 when we are told over and over it was Abraham's faith, and everyone after who walk in that same faith that Abraham in which we are accounted or imputed the righteousness of Christ.
Your making paul contradict himself.. This should warn you that you are in error. But it does not. why not?
it says through faith, was accounted to Abraham righteousness.
This is confirmed in the rest of chapter 4 when we are told over and over it was Abraham's faith, and everyone after who walk in that same faith that Abraham in which we are accounted or imputed the righteousness of Christ.
Your making paul contradict himself.. This should warn you that you are in error. But it does not. why not?
-
1
- Show all
lol you raised that point, not me, so you should be the one explain what you meant.
Nevertheless, I'll take a quick cut at it:
I think the world Christ that died for is the world to come and all those who are to inhabit it.
Anything justified under Christ's death, whether people or worlds, by that, cannot be destroyed otherwise,
His death would not have achieved that for which it was intended.
Christ informs us that His kingdom is not of this world:
[Jhn 18:36 KJV] 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Nevertheless, I'll take a quick cut at it:
I think the world Christ that died for is the world to come and all those who are to inhabit it.
Anything justified under Christ's death, whether people or worlds, by that, cannot be destroyed otherwise,
His death would not have achieved that for which it was intended.
Christ informs us that His kingdom is not of this world:
[Jhn 18:36 KJV] 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
lol. I have explained it so many times I lost count.
It means the world.. If jesus meant it to mean something else he would have said so.
Then Jesus statment that whoever in that world believes will not perish is nonsensical.
It does not refute anythign i have said
Jesus died for the WORLD. so whoever in that world BELIEVES will not perish but has eternal life.
This same eternal lie based on faith is spoken in most of the chapters of John.. Based on that same faith.
It means the world.. If jesus meant it to mean something else he would have said so.
Then Jesus statment that whoever in that world believes will not perish is nonsensical.
It does not refute anythign i have said
Jesus died for the WORLD. so whoever in that world BELIEVES will not perish but has eternal life.
This same eternal lie based on faith is spoken in most of the chapters of John.. Based on that same faith.
-
1
- Show all
[Eph 1:1, 3-5, 7 KJV]
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: ...
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, ...
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: ...
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, ...
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
No, it's not whatever. It's what the Word says and you are twisting it beyond all means to make it say what you want it to. I've never heard of a doctrine as twisted as you have made it. You are not elite, you are not special or above anyone else. You're a sinner saved by grace. And if we have faith and trust in Him we will go to meet Him. That is what the Word says.
-
2
- Show all