John 1:12-13 (Response to Theojunkie)
Theojunkie responded to my post: which comes first, faith or regeneration? His response focused on John 1:12-13, which states:
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
TJ’s explanation seems to be:
A. giving “the right to become children of God” doesn’t refer to regeneration, but rather either adoption or sanctification.
B. The fact that we are born of God’s will, not man’s, means regeneration precedes faith, because faith involves man’s will.
C. “Receiving Christ” is the start of “believing”, so there is no room in-between receiving Christ and believing for regeneration to take place.
Even though adoption and birth are two alternative means of becoming sons and both birth and adoption are used to describe the blessings given us, we have good reason to suspect “A” is unsound. In this context “adoption” isn’t in the picture and it’s unnatural to split being born of God with becoming God’s son. Thus, becoming children of God is a reference to regeneration.
If we accept “A”, I suppose it avoids the consequence that the passage teaches regeneration comes after faith. But if we reject “A”, and I think we should, the passage does teach regeneration comes after faith, because becoming a son follows receiving Christ.
Even though faith precedes regeneration, faith does not cause regeneration. God does. He mercifully regenerates sinners. God was free both to choose and act in such a way that believers remained unregenerate. But in His great mercy, He didn’t. So I disagree with “B”, and would call it a case of “after this, therefore because of this”.
The scripture warns of temporary faith and urges us to continue in faith. (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, Hebrews 3:6-12, Hebrews 10:38-39, Colossians 1:23, Acts 8:13-23) But TJ seems to be attempting to break down the distinction between initial and habitual faith, so regeneration can’t fit between them. TJ seems to be interpreting the passage such that, upon initial faith, without any laps in time, one is an ongoing believer. How can this be? Every action requires a starting and stopping point, and if it’s an ongoing action, it requires more time than that. Believing is an ongoing action, so it can’t relate to one moment without another.
Conversationally, we don’t speak of something as ongoing if it lasts only three seconds, but if it’s been going on over 50 years, we would. And that’s the case here. The Apostle contrasts those that didn’t receive Christ with those that did. (John 1:11) He explains that those that received Christ were believing in Christ at the time he wrote his gospel. So they received Christ around 30-33 AD and were still believers by 90 AD. That’s the point the Apostle is making, not a subtle, almost scientific like point. He’s just saying those that continue in faith were regenerated.
As always, I thank TJ for his kind remarks and tone.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
TJ’s explanation seems to be:
A. giving “the right to become children of God” doesn’t refer to regeneration, but rather either adoption or sanctification.
B. The fact that we are born of God’s will, not man’s, means regeneration precedes faith, because faith involves man’s will.
C. “Receiving Christ” is the start of “believing”, so there is no room in-between receiving Christ and believing for regeneration to take place.
Even though adoption and birth are two alternative means of becoming sons and both birth and adoption are used to describe the blessings given us, we have good reason to suspect “A” is unsound. In this context “adoption” isn’t in the picture and it’s unnatural to split being born of God with becoming God’s son. Thus, becoming children of God is a reference to regeneration.
If we accept “A”, I suppose it avoids the consequence that the passage teaches regeneration comes after faith. But if we reject “A”, and I think we should, the passage does teach regeneration comes after faith, because becoming a son follows receiving Christ.
Even though faith precedes regeneration, faith does not cause regeneration. God does. He mercifully regenerates sinners. God was free both to choose and act in such a way that believers remained unregenerate. But in His great mercy, He didn’t. So I disagree with “B”, and would call it a case of “after this, therefore because of this”.
The scripture warns of temporary faith and urges us to continue in faith. (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, Hebrews 3:6-12, Hebrews 10:38-39, Colossians 1:23, Acts 8:13-23) But TJ seems to be attempting to break down the distinction between initial and habitual faith, so regeneration can’t fit between them. TJ seems to be interpreting the passage such that, upon initial faith, without any laps in time, one is an ongoing believer. How can this be? Every action requires a starting and stopping point, and if it’s an ongoing action, it requires more time than that. Believing is an ongoing action, so it can’t relate to one moment without another.
Conversationally, we don’t speak of something as ongoing if it lasts only three seconds, but if it’s been going on over 50 years, we would. And that’s the case here. The Apostle contrasts those that didn’t receive Christ with those that did. (John 1:11) He explains that those that received Christ were believing in Christ at the time he wrote his gospel. So they received Christ around 30-33 AD and were still believers by 90 AD. That’s the point the Apostle is making, not a subtle, almost scientific like point. He’s just saying those that continue in faith were regenerated.
As always, I thank TJ for his kind remarks and tone.
Comments
What then is the "cut off" time for saying that a person has "habitual" faith?
Scriptures (including the ones you provide) do not state such a time... but rather indeed, speak only of enduring to "the end".
It would appear that if "habitual" faith is a reality, then such faith does not "kick in" until "the end"... I am sure you would agree that "the end" refers to the last judgement, glorification, and the beginning of eternity in heaven. (And I would hope you would agree that we at least cannot turn away once we are glorified in heaven).
I also presume you would agree that regeneration occurs this side of the grave (i.e., is not a synonym for glorification).
So... if "habitual" faith does not begin until "the end"... it would appear that I am correct that the passage refers to glorification, and not regeneration.
By the way... other than some semantic quibbles, including whether what we have in heaven could be called "faith", I would affirm that the state of glorification is rather habitual.
What then is the "cut off" time for saying that a person has "habitual" faith?
I can’t give a timeframe, like “a month” or something like that. Luke 8 contrasts those that don’t overcome temptation with those that bear fruit. Perhaps we could say those who overcome their first temptation to stop believing have continual faith. For most, I suppose this wouldn’t be that long of a timeframe. But this post makes me think perhaps for some it could be long periods of time.
Has it cost you to follow Christ?
God be with you,
Dan
huh?
There you go again. Am I misguided by you or did you in fact answer the question?
Just for the record, I like the "don't give up" approach to habitual Faith! I don't want to spend eternity in God's everpresent firey WRATH seeing the law of sin and death in my members!
Oh wretched man that I am, Who will deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
TJ, over at your site I found these words:
[however, when it comes to God, if he gives you "the right" to something, it is as good as done (i.e., it will be done surely, even if not done instantly).]
However, could I conclude that just because God gave the birthright to Esau and Esau sold it, though it was as good as done, Jacob received it because Esau sold it thus sealing his fate with God?
Also as to predetermination, would you open your thoughts up to the remarkable bit about Rebekah and her "Word" so that she could "Truthfully" guide Jacob to "deceive" his father, her husband Isaac? Did not her "word of Faith" expiate all Jacob's deceit before God in the same way Jesus' word of Faith expiates all my sins before God?
cf:
Gen 25:19 These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham fathered Isaac,
Gen 25:20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife.
Gen 25:21 And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren. And the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, "If it is thus, why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger."
Gen 25:24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb.
Gen 25:25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau.
and
Gen 27:5 Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt for game and bring it,
Gen 27:6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "I heard your father speak to your brother Esau,
Gen 27:7 'Bring me game and prepare for me delicious food, that I may eat it and bless you before the LORD before I die.'
Gen 27:8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice as I command you.
Gen 27:9 Go to the flock and bring me two good young goats, so that I may prepare from them delicious food for your father, such as he loves.
Gen 27:10 And you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies."
Gen 27:11 But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.
Gen 27:12 Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing."
Gen 27:13 His mother said to him, "Let your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, bring them to me."
Just for the record, I like the "don't give up" approach to habitual Faith!
Hang in there baby!
Dan
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaa, waaaa waaaaaaa!
As the Bible is silent regarding a specific time frame (or specific marking event or decision) after which someone can be said to have "habitual faith"... and given that we can observe fakirs persisting in apparent works-filled "faith" for 50 years before abandoning it...
... it would therefore appear that any conjecture as to what qualifies as habitual faith would be just that. ... which would suggest that the concept itself is just that.
The biblical concept is a faith that lasts. That's not conjecture, it's taken directly from scripture. Just because I am not dogmatic about "how long?" doesn't mean "ongoing faith" goes away.
God be with you,
Dan
You know I am reformed, and you know I affirm not only "a faith that lasts" but indeed perseverance (preservation!) of the saints.
Therefore, I will trust that once you review the conversation to date you will understand in what sense I meant that "habitual faith" is conjecture.
I'm a little surprised that you would take my comments out of context like that.
Thanks
I have been maintaining that real faith shall always endure to the end... that there is no difference between "initial faith" and "habitual faith"... but rather the difference is between "real faith" and "false confession".
There is no biblical warrant for your concept of "real but initial faith" followed only in some cases, at some point in the future, by "real habitual faith".
Coincidentally... no, the passages warning against apostasy do not prove your point either.
There is a subtle difference between "ongoing faith" and "a faith that lasts".
Let's say you’re right and the biblical "temporal faith" is really false professions made by pretenders or the self-deceived. Let's further stipulate that "real faith" is qualitatively different than "fake faith" and this difference isn't just duration.
Thus we can speak of one moment of real faith and tell it apart from one moment of fake faith. Indeed, we can speak of lasting real and fake faith. Perhaps we could even speak of real and fake faith "until the end".
Now it seems to me your argument hinges on there being no difference between real faith for one moment and real faith that continues for some span of time. While I agree it's not qualitatively different, my contention is that the Apostle speaks of faith over a period of time. This period of time allows for a sequencing of regeneration and ongoing faith.
God be with you,
Dan
The first question goes to what you will read quoted by the Lutheran. Do you agree with his explanation of John 3:16?:::>
Pastor Tom writes:[[Every theological verse in the Bible can be understood by this Romans 6:14 paradigm of either being under the Law or under grace; that is, the Gospel. Let's use John 3:16 as an example. Those who live under the Law interpret this verse to mean that God does His part--loving the world and sending His Son--and we do our part--believing in Him. Those who live under the Gospel interpret this verse to mean that God does both parts. Through His love He not only sends His Son but He also creates faith in the heart that receives the benefits of salvation. God gets ALL the credit!]]
The Apostle Paul writes:::>
Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
What do you mean by "the obedience of faith" and is it what the Apostle means?
You are correct that faith spans a period of time. I presume that when you say "the Apostle says", that you are still talking about John, and are still referring to the book of the Gospel according to him.
Yes, John is talking about faith over a period of time.
If there is no qualitative difference (insofar as it's "realness") between real faith at the beginning, and real faith at the end... then there is no room for regeneration at a point after the initiation of real faith. Why? Because regeneration changes the quality of things-- as I think you have said yourself.
It seems that you are confounding the absolute reality of things (objective reality), with our ability to discern that reality (subjective reality). While it is true that we ourselves become more confident in the truth of a person's claim to faith, as that faith endures ever longer... this (our discernment) has nothing to do with the objective reality of the person's claim. In other words, we might want to observe someone a little longer in the faith before ordaining them to pastor... but this does not alter the truth as to whether the faith they have right now is real or not. Likewise, we might think so-and-so is surely a mature Christian, and think this even as they go to the grave, and yet never see them in heaven because they were a great charlatan and fooled us all. (We are easily fooled in either direction... but God cannot be).
By the way, just a side note... fake faith does not endure "to the end".
I think you are addressing Dan... if not, please let me know.
jump on in, the water is deep in here! :)
Dan, or anyone else.
It's hard to pin down what it's all about.
I "sort of" agree with the Lutheran pastor. I agree that when we make the paradigm shift in our thinking from "law-based" to "grace-based" thinking, the whole bible takes on a new tone. Some passages take on a completely new meaning.
However, the pastor speaks in terms of "those under law" and "those under grace". All believers are under grace and not under the law... The paradigm shift in thinking is (usually) more of a question of maturity than a question of whether a person is a real Christian or not. Of course a hard-core legalist might not be a Christian in reality (might not truly trust the Gospel)... most others, though we argue up and down, I think are just dealing with old habits and/or the results of getting bad teaching in former years. The pastor's comments would lead one to believe that anyone who makes a legalistic interpretation of a passage is really not a Christian-- this I do not agree with.
As for "obedience of faith"... I think we can see from similar phrasing in Rom 10:16, 1 Pet 4:17, and others, that the phrase is a synonym for "choosing to believe".
We see in Hebrews 11 that faith is rather like a state of being (and not a work)... but "choosing to" believe is a work. And so this part of the equation can be properly termed "obedience to the gospel." All people are commanded to "repent and believe" (1 John 3, etc). If it is a command, then obedience (or disobedience) is the response.
So... it is a work to change your mind.
In Rom 1:5, the "we" in the verse is referring to Paul (perhaps Paul and the other Apostles)... but here "we" does not mean "everybody" or even "we believers". So, in Rom 1:5, Paul is saying that Paul received grace (etc etc).
However, other passages DO show that when we (all believers) obey the gospel by choosing to believe, it is only because God has provided us with the grace to do so.
thanks for your openness and honesty!
I was amazed at something this morning when reading the Word of God, Psalm 59.
I have just recently picked up the ESV translation of the Scriptures, reading them.
I have about 20 or so translations I read from.
I have been with both Hebrew and Greek and even Aramaic Scholars who have studied what are replicated translations of original texts. Each seem to have their own spin on what the Scriptures mean. So, when reading the ESV this morning I was amazed at these verses and how they have taken on new meaning to me! Maybe I am growing in the Grace and the Knowledge of the Truth about the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Maybe not. We shall see, huh? :)
The verses then and a comment or two about what you wrote in response to the Lutheran Theologian:
Psa 59:10 My God in his steadfast love will meet me; God will let me look in triumph on my enemies.
Psa 59:11 Kill them not, lest my people forget; make them totter by your power and bring them down, O Lord, our shield!
Psa 59:12 For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter,
Psa 59:13 consume them in wrath; consume them till they are no more, that they may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth. Selah
What? Huh? Wait just a minute here. It would "seem" logical that God would "take away" our enemies from us instead of what we see King David request of God to do in his request to "keep them around" lest we "forget" they exist, ah, our enemies!
My prayer has always been: Lord, "kill" "destroy", or at least "remove" the threat of our enemies from us, not that that we read here at Psalms 59:11!
I see this right relationship with our enemies as does this Lutheran Pastor as a "passive" Righteousness. It does not make logical sense this either when we read this from Paul's letter to the Romans:
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
It seems to me the issue is this is it not: what do I contribute now or ever with regard to my security and safety from the eternal damnation that awaits those who think they contribute something to their "being" saved by Grace through Faith? All the Law of Righteousness does is reveal to me my sin! And also it reveals a "law" called the "law of sin and death" in my members, or, even this admission of guilt:
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
One person reads John 3:16 and thinks there is a part God requires them to play in their passing from death to Life.
I am one, who, when I read John 3:16, realize there is absolutely nothing I am being required to offer God when it comes to me passing from the death I deserve to suffer because I fit the bill, "none righteous, no not one", "my righteousness is as filthy rags and not one part or one fraction of a part of it merits God's acceptance" in conveying me, or tranferring me over from my own personal death to His Life Eternal, in this life and in the next.
I have been listening to the debaters, both sides and those who don't even take sides, [as if that were possible], that there is something we are to do or there is nothing we can do to inherit Eternal Life.
Well, anyway, thanks for stepping to the plate and delivering! :)
If there is no qualitative difference (insofar as it's "realness") between real faith at the beginning, and real faith at the end... then there is no room for regeneration at a point after the initiation of real faith. Why? Because regeneration changes the quality of things-- as I think you have said yourself.
There does seem to be room… from a time standpoint. I am not sure what you mean by the quality of things. Regeneration cause perseverance in faith (i.e. overcoming temptations to stop believing). But I don’t see why that removes the “room” for a conversion > regeneration > habitual faith sequence.
In any case when we look at “ongoing faith” in the passage at hand (John 1:12) in an “conversational way” we would understand it as something lasting and impacting our life. But this sense leaves room for regeneration after initial faith and before ongoing faith. If on the other hand we read it in a “scientific way” we might conclude that ongoing faith means two moments of faith. In which case perhaps we could conclude that the first moment of faith and regeneration are simultaneous and thus regeneration precedes ongoing faith.
But the “conversational sense” is better than the “scientific sense” because John the Apostle is relating historic events. John the apostle is contrasting the Jews who didn’t receive Christ with the Christians who did. “Who were born not of blood” seems to be directed at the Jew’s Abraham is our father claim...
It seems that you are confounding the absolute reality of things (objective reality), with our ability to discern that reality (subjective reality).
In 1 John 5, yes, it’s about our ability to assure ourselves that we have eternal life. In John 1:12, I am not so sure that’s the point. Seems more like a historic narrative (with a spiritual point of course) to me.
By the way, just a side note... fake faith does not endure "to the end".
I don’t see why not. Let’s take Ananias and Sapphira… Seems like they died fakers. If you mean the church will figure them out… maybe, but I am not sure about that either.
God be with you,
Dan
i agree with you on most except this
By the way, just a side note... fake faith does not endure "to the end".
which to me looks as a bit of an unfortunate wording, for it is hard to define what perseverance to the end suppose to mean in actual terms.Or IOW, how much sin is too much..?
We can't sin away salvation and cancel new birth.
Even truly saved believers can often fall into some pretty bad sin. And fake believers can, to the outsider, appear as really loving mature children of God. But of course we as humans cant discern salv status, only God knows.
But to me true /fake faith is not determined by "perseverance" whatever that means, but (occured in a true believer) regeneration and new birth.
Dan, appreciate the Hodge link.
O.
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with the wording of my statement there either...
What I was trying to get at is: Fake faith can't "endure" because it is not faith in the first place. The outward charade can endure for a long time, even unto death. But this gets them no where. At any rate, when the bible speaks of "faith that endures to the end" it is only speaking of real faith-- not falsely proclaimed faith.
The amount of sin in a person's life is irrelevant (that is not what determines whether a person's faith is real or not).
We need to be sure to keep the distinction between "evidence for human observers" and "evidence for God."
Works are not evidence for God... because he sees the faith (or lack thereof) itself.
I was talking about logical "room" -- or scriptural "room".... not about room in time.
John 1:12 may be a historical statement. However, it applies to all humans because the plan for and way to salvation is the same for all humans.
You wrote this in response to O's comments of your earlier comments:
[[What I was trying to get at is: Fake faith can't "endure" because it is not faith in the first place.]]
I was struck by those words because of something I heard in a sermon or a teaching or a talk on a Sunday gathering of Believers not to long ago. What I heard was something like this that "Satan", when he comes before God to accuse us of wrong doing, comes before God with the exact same Faith all Believers come before God with. He uses this "True" "Real" Faith to accuse us before God of things God already knows we are guilty of!
When we come before God with "True" "Real" Faith we come before Him standing accused according to the Law! The promises of God are what motivate us to come before Him to receive the forgiveness of sins and the inheritance.
We do not need to accuse ourselves before God. What accusation of guilt because of our wrong doing could we bring before God that He would not already know about?
There is absolutely nothing Satan can accuse us of before God that would stick seeing God is already ready to answer for our guilt in Christ seeing He is always "Just" in all He does. Without His "justification" what is there for us to receive? Justification to Life comes to us by His Faith working in us!
Well then, I have to agree with you both and especially when you wrote this TJ in response to O as well: [[Odeliya,
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with the wording of my statement there either... ]] :)
It would seem that I am having some extreme difficulty communicating... or understanding. So it's probably time for me to bow out of this conversation.
I was not making a statement about satan, or discussing whether or not believers have any reason to be accused or whether they are under the law. (I agree that believers-- because of Christ-- cannot be accused legitimately... I agree that God is omniscient... and I agree that believers are justified in Christ).
Real faith is the kind of faith that saves. Saving faith involves trust in God, that He will stand by His promises to save us in Christ from His Wrath, and that-- though we are sinners and deserving of hell-- that God's in His mercy will spare us from hell but give us eternal life.
Fake faith is not faith, because it does not involve the positive element of trust in God's promises.
Real faith involves knowledge of the facts of the Gospel... affirmation that the Gospel is good and good for me... and trust that it is true.
Fake faith is lacking one or more of those elements.
you used a term above with the word "fake" in it, "fake faith".
My point is to isolate where "fake faith" is possibly used, who uses it and why?
Satan is the only one, he and his minions who would "fake faith".
They wouldn't fake faith before God.
They cannot fake faith with one another.
Faith is the "substance" of "things" ""hoped"" for, not things "possessed".
What do I possess? I possess by "True Faith" the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance.
What does the devil possess?
What do you possess? You also, you too possess the same "forgiveness of sins" and the "same inheritance", right?
Well according to Scripture I possess Faith, not "fake" Faith, Hope, not "fake" Hope and Love, not "fake" Love.
Satan has all these things. Does he use them truthfully? No.
When he does this, the verses I will quote next, what does he use to do them but with "fake" faith?
The verses:
2Co 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
2Co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
What is the Apostle getting at but the use of "fake" Faith by "fake" apostles, yes?
What is odd is why men would succumb to "fake" Faith when the "Real" "True" Faith is available through Jesus Christ and His sacrifice, His death, burial and resurrection from the dead, wouldn't you agree?
Only those with "fake" faith would not accept this free gift of Eternal Life through Jesus Christ Our Lord offered by the Sanctification work of the Holy Spirit.
Why are some saved and some are not?
I believe the reason lies in something about what is "fake" that is not destroyed in them.
I believe. You believe. We have True Faith. We are not offering hereon "fake" faith to anyone.
I am not.
You are not.
I think I see what you are saying.
What I meant by all this is merely a "false profession of faith"... that is, someone who claims to have faith in Christ, but does not.
This kind of situation happens... my early life is an example. I called myself a Christian... I even thought I was... but I now realize that I did not have faith at that time.. my profession was false.
Thanks be to God, things have changed in me for my good.
I apologize for my casual use of the language.
Appreciate the explanation, i apologize. I see what you meant, sure.
Probably the way i perceive english words is not always right. I understand "endure" as in "last"
I saw " fake faith doesnt endure" therefore being a bad choice of words just as " Fake ID( banknote) doesnt last" is a bad choice of words,
It doesnt work form the very beginning,the problem with fakeness is not lack of endurance but lack of ability to even "start" to do truly good things in Gods eyes.
We are clear. :)
I was being a pain in the neck, to put it short.
Best,
O.
I was praying this morning and something came to me to post here.
When we read:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
and:
Col 1:11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,
Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
....we read about "an inheritance".
It came to me this morning to say what that "inheritance" is.
Here is the way I am going to explain it.
What did Adam have "possession" of before he partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
He has the Eternal God's "righteousness".
As we know, an inheritance is given to "heirs" at the "death" of the one who had possession of something.
In Adam's case, when he died, what did he pass on to his children and us?
He certainly did not pass on to us as his rightful "heirs" that that he possessed, the Eternal God's "righteousness".
He passed onto us the sin nature and death because of sin:
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
The question then can be asked, "when is the Eternal God's righteousness" available for us to inherit?
There has to be the death of the possessor of "righteousness" for their heirs to inherit it.
When Adam partook of the fruit in the garden that produced death, that is what he passed on to us, his heirs.
Isn't that odd when you think about it?
He was in possession of "righteousness" before he partook of the forbidden fruit. But when he died, he did not pass on to us that possession, "righteousness" but he passed on to his living heirs, sin and death instead!
God's eternal purpose is in play here.
When Jesus "died" on the cross, we learn that we become heirs of the Righteousness of God. By His death, the curse of the Law of Righteousness is removed from us and we now receive several things. According to this verse we receive two passive things and two active things and all these four things we receive as an inheritance after the "death" we receive by and in the Lord Jesus Christ once He died on the Cross:
Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
by His Grace
michael
That's interesting... will continue to ponder.