 |
The Faith of Christ, or Your Faith in Christ?
Many are oblivious to the difference.
Worse, they equate the two. |
The
Faith of Christ, or Your Faith in Christ?
Do
you know the vast difference?
Romans
3 - KJT
21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed
by the law and the prophets;
22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and
upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.
The
gospel is God Himself providing the righteousness needed to justify guilty condemned sinners by
the faithfulness of Jesus Christ in fulfilling the redemption mission.
The
righteousness of God is not by your work of faith in Christ.
If
the righteousness of God is by your faith in Jesus Christ, then salvation is by
your works, and not God's free grace.
Modern
translations have obliterated this vital distinction. The "faith OF
Christ" has all been replaced with man's "faith IN Christ"!
Christ's
redemptive work is attacked, divine grace denied, and man's works exalted.
See
if your Bible has perverted gospel truth! Take
a careful look, won't you?
================
Mark
Thomas
Profound
point! Graphically illustrated!
Mark
Thomas
I
do hope someone, somewhere will come to answer the salient points here. The
distinctions are clear and have been made. Not just now but for the past 200
years. Bring forth the salient points in refutation or please, finally, for all
time, shut the stuff up. I am so over this. And so should any legitimate
thinking mind be over it. If you can't go there, fine, do bring it. I am
waiting and others and yeah, I got 200 years of studied history backing me,
what you have to bring......well, what ever it is, please do bring it. I and
those with me are utterly sick of the deceptions you have brought in the past.
Bring fresh or go home previously having been shown in error.
Mark
Thomas
Spot
the difference?
Cheri
Thomas
um,
well.... one has a bra on, and the other probably should.
both
of em need more clothes.
Johnny
Davis
There
are elements in one of the photos absent the other (a man, and background
elements behind the man). I would have to view the photos on the pixel level
(can't do it with the quality level available on Facebook photo), to know if:
(1) the objects in question were removed from the original digital image; or
(2) if the objects in question, were added to the original digital image. The
notation covering both, have nothing to do with any difference to be
"spotted," yet the use of term "Hard" is unfortunate;
perhaps "Difficult," would be more appropriate, in that innuendo,
intentional or not, would have been avoided. Have I blabbered enough, Sing.
Well, then, some more. I have not read other comments, so as not to be biased
when writing my own, so I will now, read the others. Maybe there is something
in the photos that I missed, and could learn from those writers. Thanks. Great
post.
Johnny
Davis
So,
now, I have read. It took other writings for me to see the connection of the
scriptures, with the photo "differences." And, I suppose I was
correct, in the illustration. Adding to, or taking from, the Word, in
translations, right? If so, my thought on that is correct. The more
translations, in whatever language, Greek, Hebres, etc. were translated from, the
better. Comparing the translations, as we read and study. That way, perhaps
errors, which occur in all, including the KJV, Tyndale, Wycliff, and earliest
of the English translations, the NIV, NASV, ASV, etc., can be realized to the
reader. NONE of the translations should be accepted, over the others (as long
as they are truly translations, and not commentaries or paraphrases), when they
support a previous view. Rather, the view should be CONFIRMED by the others,
then, truth is most likely to be revealed. However, if a translation seems to
not support a previous belief, after comparison of several, then the reader
must pray for guidance. After all, if truly a translation from manuscripts of
the original, one is no more inspired than the others. And yes, the lady is the
same in both photos, and man appears in one photo (along with background in the
man photo, and there is some interest in whether the man should wear more
clothes (assuming he is a man), as his body type in the world's view, is more
grotesque than her's. She, on the other hand, does not need to remove anything;
one who would inappropriately and sinfully lust, would do so, if she were fully
dressed, in all likelihood. That is, unless she wore covering for her beautiful
face and hair. I don't know why baby blue is a favorite color of mine, but it
is, here, and on 1957 Chevrolets, where were never thought to be
"sexy" until that term is no overused, and applies to EVERYTHING.
Sing
F Lau
Johnny,
you do bubble [sic] too much!
The
point is very simple:
Is
there no difference between the faith of Christ, and your faith in Christ concerning God's provision of righteousness for your justification?
If
there is no difference, then there is no difference between the two pictures.
Mike
Reeves
May
The Grace and Peace of The Lord Jesus, The Christ be with you and in you by His
Holy Spirit, now and forever. By the only Holy name of Jesus of Nazareth I
pray.
Mike
Reeves
May
this be encouraging and uplifting to us all.
C.
The revelation of the righteousness of God.
1.
(21) The revelation of righteousness.
But
now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by
the Law and the Prophets,
a.
But now provides the most glorious transition from the judgment of Romans 3:20
to the justification of Romans 3:21.
i.
But now speaks of the newness of God’s work in Jesus Christ - it really is a
New Covenant. Being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets reminds us that there
is still continuity with God’s work in former times.
b.
Apart from the law: The law cannot save us, but God revealed a righteousness
that would save us, apart from the law. This is the essence of God’s plan of
salvation in Jesus Christ: it is a salvation that is offered apart from the
law, apart from our own earning and deserving, apart from our own merits.
c.
Being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets: This righteousness is not a
novelty. Paul didn’t “invent” it. It was predicted long ago, being witnessed by
the Law and the Prophets. The Old Testament said this righteousness was coming.
d.
Apart from the law: It isn’t that the righteousness of God is revealed apart
from the Old Testament, but that it is revealed apart from the principle of
law. It is apart from a legal relationship to God, based on the idea of earning
and deserving merit before Him.
i.
“The Greek puts to the very front this great phrase apart from law (choris
nomou) and this sets forth most strongly the altogether separateness of this
Divine righteousness from any law-performance, any works of man, whatsoever.”
(Newell)
ii.
God’s righteousness is not offered to us as something to take up the slack
between our ability to keep the law and God’s perfect standard. It is not given
to supplement our own righteousness, it is given completely apart from our own
attempted righteousness.
2.
(22) How this righteousness is communicated to man.
Even
the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who
believe. For there is no difference;
[Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. KJT. See the vast difference?
- One declares that the righteousness of God comes to a condemned man by his faith in Jesus Christ.
- The other declares that the righteousness of God comes to a condemned man by the faith[fulness] of Christ in His work of redemption. sing.]
a.
To all and on all who believe: In Romans 3:21, Paul told us how this
righteousness does not come. It does not come through the deeds of the law, it
is apart from the law. Now Paul tells us how this saving righteousness does
come. It is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.
b.
Through faith in Jesus Christ: The righteousness of God is not ours by faith;
it is ours through faith. We do not earn righteousness by our faith. We receive
righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.
i.
Through faith “points to the fact that faith is not a merit, earning salvation.
It is no more than the means through which the gift is given.” (Morris)
ii.
“But faith is not ‘trusting’ or ‘expecting’ God to do something, but relying on
His testimony concerning the person of Christ as His Son, and the work of
Christ for us on the cross . . . After saving faith, the life of trust begins .
. . trust is always looking forward to what God will do; but faith sees that
what God says has been done, and believes God’s Word, having the conviction
that it is true, and true for ourselves.” (Newell)
c.
For the there is no difference: There is no other way to obtain this
righteousness. This righteousness is not earned through obedience to the law;
it is a received righteousness, gained through faith in Jesus Christ.
i.
“There is a little book entitled, Every man his own lawyer. Well, nowadays,
according to some people, it seems as if every man is to be his own saviour;
but if I had, say; a dozen gospels, and I had to sort them out, and give the
right gospel to the right man, what a fix I should be in! I believe that,
oftentimes, I should be giving your gospel to someone else, and someone else’s
gospel to you; and what a muddle it would all be! But now we have one universal
cure . . . The blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ will save every man who
trusts him, for ‘there is no difference.’” (Spurgeon)
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4503.htm
Sing
F Lau
Mike
Reeves.
Question asked:
"How
this righteousness is communicated to man."
Scriptures
quoted: "Even
the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who
believe. For there is no difference."
May
I ask: which Bible did you quote the passage from?
Which
translation of the Bible do you use?
Question
answered:
"...
it is through faith IN Jesus Christ."
"...
we receive righteousness through faith IN Jesus Christ."
These
sorts of answers are plain FOOLISH. Why?
They
promote the STUPID idea that those without righteousness already communicated
to them by God's free grace is capable of believing! Those without
righteousness applied to them personally at effectual calling out of their
native state are still in the condemnation of death, i.e. dead in trespasses
and sins... THEREFORE with ZILCH ability to believe.
The
PRIOR communication of the righteousness is necessary for the ability to
believe. Righteousness is communicated to a man by God's free grace when he is
still dead in trespasses and sins.
Righteousness
is secured by Christ and IMPUTED LEGALLY to all elect at the cross.
Righteousness
is APPLIED PERSONALLY to each elect at his effectual calling out of the native
state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation... obviously by God's free
and sovereign grace! What was LEGAL now becomes PERSONAL.
Righteousness
- already IMPUTED LEGALLY and APPLIED PERSONALLY - is EXPERIENCED PRACTICALLY
through faith IN Jesus Christ at conversion, and throughout life on earth.
Therefore,
Morris, Newell and Spurgeon are speaking NONSENSE on this particular point!
Sing
F Lau
@Mike
Reeves, There
are three sets of distinctions in the doctrine of justification. Unless a man
appreciates them, he has not begun to rightly divide the word of truth on
justification.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/05/three-distinct-sets-of-contrast-in.html
Things
New and Old: Three Distinct Sets of Contrast in the Biblical Doctrine of
Justification
Johnny
Davis
@Sing.
As Elvis would say, "Thank you. Thank you, very much." Maybe I'll try
speaking in tongues, that even I don't understand. I'll confess, my rambling
was intentional. But, for a purpose, which if considered rambling, then
certainly will not be looked upon for purpose. The question asked about the
difference in the photos. This, I described to the best of my ability,
considering that you where asking "WHY" the photos were different,
because they obviously are different characters in them. So, that was the
literal, ask the question asked, "speak where the scriptures speak"
answer, because heaven forbid, if an answer was not in agreement with pre-conceived
notions or beliefs. But, just in case, I took a shot at the lesson-teaching
intent of the question (not the literal, mechanical differences as the question
literally asked), and suggested two things, that I thought you might have had
in mind, for me, your loyal Facebook friend, to come to. No. 1. "Add to,
or take from" the word. Evidently, that was not it, as not only did you
not comment on the error made, you didn't comment at all (except the rambling
bit, of course). So, I suggested another. Outward appearances. Then, the sexual
inhibitions removed by the world, with the lady wearing a bikini. And maybe a
couple of others (I, too, grow weary in reading my responses, when they are not
considered). So, the reason for the two pictures has something to do with
"faith" and "righteousness." I'm going to have to place
myself in the mindset of the apostles, on that one.
Sing
F Lau
@
Johnny, you are way too wordy and sophisticated for me.
Who
is Pelvis? I am not sure if I know him. Sorry for my ignorance!
Johnny
Davis
An
American rock and roll icon, of the 50-70, would have had to have "been
there" for that one to come through. He said that often. Very shallow
attempt at humor, and by the way, I am the chief, when it comes to being a
novice, in just about everything I try to do. There is nothing sophisticated provided for being at the milk level, where I am. And I do appreciate what you
teach me, through Him, of course. I have found though, in several status
comments from various ones, that they are happy to do one of two things, when
it comes to comments made about THEIR comments: (1) accept praise and good
words, when nothing is said in return other than that; or (2) counter, if
something said is not in line, and I mean, the identical of geometric points
making up that line, with extreme disagreement. Otherwise, nothing is said. At
least, you are not in the far majority of writers, yet I suspect, that rather
than attempting to absorb the rationale, or even scriptures given, you pass it
off, as wordy, or "over your head." The first one, I accept as
reason, the second one, nope, I could not be over your head in spiritual
thought, or anything else, most likely.
Johnny
Davis
Oh,
and just in case you intended to write "Pelvis," for Elvis, that's a
good one. If you didn't know, he was denied from TV, as he wiggled his butt,
facing the audience, and was banned for that. Imagine that. He would have been
shot, had he grabbed his crotch, as Michael Jackson, and many American
entertainers, back then.
Sing
F Lau
I
grew up in a remote little village... quite ignorant of what went on in the
world beyond the little village. I did have an old copy of the KJT... (its
English was quite hard for me then) and attended a Methodist Mission school.
Never had any interest in such entertainers... no exposure to them anyway.
Don't even know who MJ is. The only thing I heard is that he was a black man
who bleached himself into a white man! Black sure loves to become white.
Chasity
Hughes
Sing,
off topic I know but you have no ideal how much I wish I could raise my
children in a remote little village away from this horrific world...
