The Faith of Christ Means “Faith in Christ” and not “Christ’s Faith”

Some Reformed folks are so unhappy with the idea that faith is a condition that also deny that faith in Galatians 3 is the human act of believing. I too deny that faith is an instrumental condition before justification. But take a few minutes to read Gal 2:16, 3:22; Romans 3:22,26; Phil 3:9; Ephesians 3:12. When I look at all the texts together, I cannot deny that faith often means the human act of an individual elect person hearing, understanding, and believing the gospel.

Here’s the question. Is Christ the subject or object of faith? The view I oppose says we should read all these verses as saying, “Christ’s faith.” Some of the Reformed people who say this remind us that God gives us faith, that God is the source of faith.  I agree that faith is God’s gift to the elect. But Christ does not believe for us. Christ makes us both able and willing to believe the gospel so that we do believe the gospel. Christ indwelling in us does not believe, and so I disagree with Primitive Baptists who deny that the elect need to hear or understand or believe the gospel.

But many who agree with me that the elect need to believe the gospel still insist that “faith” in these texts means “Christ’s faith”, either in the sense that He is the source of my faith, or in the sense of Christ Himself believing. But no other texts refer to the act of Christ believing, unless these texts do.

James 2:1 tells us, “show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” I think that Christ is the object of faith, and that our faith is in/toward Christ and not toward His act of believing.

Romans 3:3 does refer to God’s faithfulness. “Does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? The gospel is about Christ’s death as that which satisfies God’s justice. Justice demands death because of the elect’s sins imputed to Christ. To believe that gospel promise is to believe in Christ’s death. We can’t have a gospel which speaks generically about God’s faithfulness without talking about Christ’s death.

Romans 3:25,26. “God put forward Christ as a propitiation by his blood to show God’s righteousness, to be RECEIVED by faith.” The receiving here is the human act of believing. Yes, God is faithful to His law and therefore just, but also God does not justify all sinners, but only of those sinners who have faith in Christ and His propitiation. This language no more makes faith the condition of salvation than does John 3:16. God does not love everybody. God only loves the elect, and the elect are identified as those who believe the gospel. There is no reason not to talk about election in John 3 or Romans 3, but also there is no reason not to talk about “as many as” believe the gospel.

Some Reformed people, to avoid making faith a condition of salvation, tell us that the continual faith in the gospel by the elect is a work. They do this in order to prove that the elect are saved not by believing but by the work of Christ.  For example, Harold Camping quotes John 6:28-28, “ What shall we do to do the works of God? “ Jesus answered and said unto them, “This is the work of God, that ye believe in Him whom He has sent.” Then Camping quotes Phil 2:13, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”

Then Camping goes to James about faith working and then says this proves that our human act of believing is no part of salvation. He claims that it’s Christ’s faith that saves. The logic is clear. The elect are saved by Christ’s work. And then Camping reminds us that Christ’s faith is Christ’s work.

II Peter 1:1,“ To those who have obtained faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Romans 4:24-25 “IT will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised up for our justification.”

1. Christ and His death are the IT. Faith is not the IT. Christ and His death are the object of faith. But Christ and His death are the IT credited by God.

2. We can distinguish but never separate His person and work. Also we can distinguish but never separate his death and his resurrection.

3. God counts according to truth. God counts righteousness as righteousness! a. The righteousness  God counted is  not our righteousness (not our acts of faith) but Christ’s death legally “transferred” to us.   When Christ legally marries us, what is His still belongs to Christ but now ours also. b. Justification means that God imputes this righteousness in time to the elect.

Explore posts in the same categories: faith


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

25 Comments on “The Faith of Christ Means “Faith in Christ” and not “Christ’s Faith””

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”

    Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

    Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

    Romans 9:31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

  2. markmcculley Says:

    Silva: what light, if any, the use of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Greek Christian literature might shed on the Pauline use of this same phrase, noting, in particular, a number of errors that can be (and usually are) made when weighing the evidence.
    “As far as can be determined, Greek-speaking writers in the early church who commented on Galatians 2:16 (and parallel passages) understood the phrase as a reference to out faith in Christ. To be sure, they do not stop to address directly the question of whether it refers to our faith or Christ’s: they just repeat the phrase, apparently assuming that the meaning is obvious (though this factor itself may be a significant clue). Occasionally, however, they make their understanding explicit. Chrysostom, for example, paraphrases the thought of Galatians 2:15-16 by saying, ‘we have fled for refuge to the faith which is in Christ’ (κατεφὐγομεν εἰς πίστιν τὴν εἰς Χριστόν). More important, both Chrysostom and other writers, in their exposition of the passage as a whole, make repeated references to the Christian’s act of believing in Christ, while never once unambiguously speaking of the πίστις that Christ himself has or exercises*.

    [*Footnote, page 228: “Here again, the question is not at all whether the church fathers believed in the theological significance of Christ’s faithful obedience . . . , but whether they were likely to use the phrase πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to express that truth” (emphasis mine).]

    “The significance of this facts needs to be fully appreciated. It is not a matter of how much weight should be given to an ancient writer’s exegetical opinion. The point is rather that native Greek speakers seem to have perceived no difficulty whatever in understanding the expression as an ‘objective genitive.’ Even if some exceptions were to be found in the literature, the fact would remain that a reference to the believer’s faith did not at all offend the linguistic intuitions of those for whom Greek was their mother tongue—indeed, they preferred such a reference and apparently (as far as we can tell) did not entertain the possibility that there was another option.

    “What this means for the present debate is that one can hardly take seriously certain linguistic arguments that have been advanced against the traditional interpretation, such as the view that the ‘objective genitive’ is not natural, or that a majority of the extrabiblical instances of πίστις with a genitive are ‘subjective,” or that the objective genitive ‘demands a verbal ruling noun . . . whose cognate verb is transitive.’ These and other arguments fail to take into account the point I have emphasized above: genitival constructions merely indicate that a relationship exists between the two nouns in question, and the nature of the relationship can be established only by the reader’s knowledge of the linguistic and historical context.

    “The matter can be easily illustrated with reference to Luke 6:12, which tells us that Jesus spent the night ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. The phrase is, of course, universally understood as a so-called objective genitive and translated, ‘praying to God’ (NRSV, ‘in prayer to God’). Now let us fancy someone arguing along the following lines:

    The usual translation of this phrase does not seem very natural, and in fact the construction cannot be an objective genitive because the verb προσεύχομαι is used with the dative, rather than the direct object, of the person to whom one prays. More important, every other NT use of προσευχή with a genitive is subjective (Acts 10:4, 31; Rom 1:10; Eph 1:16; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm 4, 22; 1 Pet 3:4; Rev 3:8; 8:3-4). As if that were not enough, there are almost sixty occurrences of the construction in the LXX, and all of them (except for the unusual phrase in Isa 56:7; 66:7) are also subjective. The normal way to express an objective relationship would be with the dative, as in Psalm 42:8 (LXX 41:9), προσευχὴ τῷ θεῷ τῆς ζωῆς μου.

    “Superficial statistics of this sort may appear impressive to some, but they totally miss the point and are thus altogether irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that, as both Luke and his readers know, God is never represented as praying (or as possessing prayers or whatever), while people are routinely spoken of as praying to God. Let us then return to πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and ask, What information would have let the Greek fathers to understand this phrase as a reference to faith in Christ?”

    Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck and Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), pages 228-230.

  3. markmcculley Says:

    Pietism preferred a “simpler” faith, a faith in which we simply “followed Jesus.” In part, of course, Pietism reflected a portion of the biblical tradition itself. Jesus is presented in the Bible as an example to be followed, in many ways. He is especially presented as a model or example of our relation to other humans. His “new commandment” is that we are to love one another “as I have loved you.” When he washed the feet of his disciples, this was an example for us, that we would do likewise. However, Jesus is not presented biblically as a model for our relation to God, or for our faith, which is the precise point at hand. Even at Hebrews 12:2, it appears that the point of Jesus’s example is that we should be willing to suffer because of our faith in, and relation to, Christ. Christ is the example, contextually, of patiently enduring suffering. It is not at all clear that he is more comprehensively an example of our faith in general. It is the previous chapter of Hebrews where more-comprehensive exemplars of our faith are presented for our emulation: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, et. al., but, significantly, not Jesus. Despite this, I believe any good German Pietist is going to be attracted to the “faithful Jesus” interpretation, even before the evidence is considered.

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Christ’s righteousness is imputed not imparted, and as a result of imputation, faith is imparted, but faith is not imputed
    Christ did not believe for us
    Christ did not repent for us
    Christ was not regenerated for us
    Christ was not our substitute in believing for us
    Christ was not our substitute in repenting for us
    Christ was not our substitute in being born again for us
    Galatians 2:20 I live by faith of the Son of God, does not mean being saved by Christ’s faith imputed to us, it means we have faith in Christ and His righteousness
    What is given to us is not Christ’s faith in place of our faith. Instead a result of God’s imputation is the Spirit giving us faith in Christ

  5. markmcculley Says:

    Torrance argued for an “active obedience” in which Christ repented for us, believed for us, was born again for us, was converted for us, and worships for us. “We must think of him as taking our place even in our acts of repentance” (The Mediation of Christ, p 95)

    Donald Macleod responds—There is a great discontinuity between Christ and sinners. They were sinners and Christ was not. He could not trust in God’s forgiveness because he had no need of forgiveness. He could not be born again because he required no changed of heart. He could not be converted because His life demanded no change of direction.

    If we move from the idea of Jesus as a believer to the idea of Jesus as the one who is believed IN, does Jesus believe, vicariously, in Himself?….It is not his faith that covers the deficiencies of our faith (as it is given to us by God). It is Christ’s death that covers the deficiencies of our faith…Our faith is not in the Son of God who believed for us, but in the Son of God who gave Himself for us.

    p 214, Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified, IVP, 2014—-Christ never fell, had not guilt, and knew no sin. Human nature as individualized in Christ was not fallen. Christ did not suffer from the disease of sin. In what sense then did Christ heal human nature by becoming the patient and taking the disease? As Christ faced temptation and suffering, Christ did so with a mind unclouded by sin…

    Human nature after the cross remains as it was before the cross. If Christ healed our humanity by taking our humanity, then Christ was crucified by the very nature he had healed….

    According to Torrance, Christ condemned sin by saying no to the flesh and living a life of perfect faith, worship and obedience. But this would mean that the condemnation of sin did not take place on the cross, but in the daily life of Christ. But Romans 8:3 says that it not Jesus but God the Father who condemns sin in the flesh. While it was indeed in the flesh of his Son that God condemned sin but it was not only in his Son as incarnate, but in his Son as a sin-offering.. God condemned sin by passing judgement on his Son.

    Theosis (participation in the divine nature, II Peter 1:4) is NOT the reason for God being reconciled to us. We are justified as ungodly (Romans 4:5), not as partakers of a nature which has been united with the divine.

  6. markmcculley Says:

    When we say that Jesus could not illustrate Christian faith any more than God can be religious, are we not denying to Jesus that religious experience which is a necessary element in true humanity? Must not Jesus, if He be true man, have been more than the object of religious faith; must He not have had a religion of His own? The answer is not far to seek. Certainly Jesus had a religion of His own; His prayer was real prayer, His faith was real religious faith. His relation to His heavenly Father was not merely that of a child to a father; it was that of a man to his God. Certainly Jesus had a religion; without it His humanity would indeed have been but incomplete. Without doubt Jesus had a religion; the fact is of the utmost importance. But it is equally important to observe that that religion which Jesus had was not Christianity. Christianity is a way of getting rid of sin, and Jesus was without sin. His religion was a religion of Paradise, not a religion of sinful humanity. It was a religion to which we may perhaps in some sort attain in heaven, when the process of our purification is complete (though even then the memory of redemption will never leave us); but certainly it is not a religion with which we can begin. The religion of Jesus was a religion of untroubled sonship; Christianity is a religion of the attainment of sonship by the redeeming work of Christ.

    —J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 78–79.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    1. John Murray (appendix in Romans commentary) notices the parallel of Isaiah 53 (by knowledge of him) to Hebrews 10

    by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    The “will” is God’s purpose that Christ came to do

    2. the alleged “repetition” actually shows that Rom 3:22, 26, Gal 2:16, 3:22 etc “faith of Jesus Christ” should mean “faith with Jesus Christ as object”. In these verses, Paul uses phrases like “those who believe” without specifying the object of faith – this is because the object of faith is specified in the phrase “faith of Jesus Christ”. So this was not “repetition”, but clarification.

  8. markmcculley Says:

    Tianqi Wu—- In the scripture, “faith” can refer to the object of faith. This is why I do not feel obliged to read “Christ’s faith” everywhere salvation is said to be “through faith” (justification, preservation, etc). Here’s an example. Luke 7:47 For this reason I say to you, Her many sins are remitted, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.
    48 And He said to her, Your sins are forgiven. 49 And those reclining with Him began to say within themselves, Who is this who even forgives sins?
    50 But He said to the woman, YOUR FAITH has saved you. Go in peace.
    The text explicitly says “your faith” . The Arminian view would be that the sinner’s faith is the condition of salvation, which here is about the forgiveness of sins. But the context shows us that “your faith” has Christ as the object of her faith.
    The passage above is one of the several accounts of Christ forgiving sins on earth before He died on the cross because of the sins of his people .Romans 4: 23 Now IT (the object of faith, not only Christ but His righteousness) was credited to him was not written for Abraham alone, 24 but also for us. IT (the object of faith, His righteousness) will be credited to us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered up because of] our trespasses and raised because of our justification. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 We have also obtained access through Him through faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

  9. markmcculley Says:

    Many of those who contrast “Christ’s faith” with our faith in Christ’s death say that there is no difference between law and gospel, but only a right way and a wrong way of pursuing the law, and that Christ’s faith was the right way of pursuing the law.But see the essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): “Why Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32.”

    Gordon writes that the verse should be translated “because the law is not of faith” in line with Gal 3:12. “The qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32.”

  10. markmcculley Says:

    Lee Irons: The phrase pistis Christou in Paul’s writings (e.g., Gal 2:16, 20; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9) is grammatically ambiguous. The genitive Christou could be taken in an objective sense (“faith in Christ”) or a subjective sense (“Christ’s own faith”). Since the Greek word pistis can also mean “faithfulness,” most who hold to the subjective genitive interpretation render the phrase “the faithfulness of Christ.”

    Traditionally, translators and commentators have seen the genitive as objective, have taken pistis to mean “faith” rather than “faithfulness,” and have regarded the implied subject as the believer. So, for example, Romans 3:21-22 would read: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (ESV). This has been the traditional interpretation as far back as Augustine and Chrysostom and was the assumed interpretation until fairly recently. Although there was a German scholar who advocated the subjective genitive as early as 1891 (Johannes Haußleiter), it wasn’t until 1981 that the issue became a lively debate among Pauline scholars, sparked by Richard B. Hays’s influential dissertation, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11.

    Why did I address this topic in a book on the righteousness of God? The reason is because of the verses I just quoted—Rom 3:21-22. The pistis Christou phrase occurs in direct conjunction with “the righteousness of God.” One of my arguments for taking it as “the righteousness that comes from God as gift” is the fact that Paul repeatedly states that this righteousness is “by faith” (ek pisteōs) or “through faith” (dia pisteōs), implying that it is “received” by faith, or “comes” to those who have faith.

    But in Rom 3:22, this only works if the contentious phrase dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou is understood as our faith in Christ (the objective genitive interpretation). If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted as Christ’s own faithfulness (the subjective genitive interpretation), a crucial support for my interpretation of the righteousness of God in Rom 3:21-22 is removed. Conversely, some New Perspective scholars, notably N. T. Wright and Richard B. Hays, are attracted to the subjective genitive interpretation of pistis Christou because it comports with their reading of dikaiosynē theou as God’s covenant faithfulness. Romans 3:21-22 has special importance in their construction of Paul’s theology since they would interpret Paul as affirming that God’s faithfulness to his covenant is revealed in the faithful obedience of Christ.

    So the two interpretive debates go hand in hand. How you read the one phrase will affect how you read the other. I should point out, however, that James D. G. Dunn is unique among New Perspective scholars since he advocates the “covenant faithfulness” interpretation of dikaiosynē theou, but defends the traditional objective genitive interpretation of pistis Christou.

    In any event, in the book (pp. 329-34), I provide a number of arguments in support of the objective genitive interpretation, “faith in Christ,” relying heavily on the arguments of scholars who defend the traditional reading. I am convinced that the traditional reading, “faith in Christ,” is exegetically well grounded and that the arguments against it aren’t compelling.

  11. markmcculley Says:

    When the only thing ever said about assurance is that faith is the object, and any question about if you yourself believe(verb) is discouraged, some preachers seem to teach that being sure that you have true faith is clinging to a “perceived internal work”. ………….. And the solution to this is what? They want an “objective justification” of all the elect at one time, But 1. justification does not happen apart from faith. But some reactionaries worry about me talking about my conversion, about my repenting, about my believing (verb) the gospel.
    2. And who knows, they suggest, the people right now who are rejecting the gospel might be already justified, already imputed with Christ’s righteousness, but as yet with no resulting new life or believing. So we are told is “look to Christ, don’t look to yourself, don’t examine yourself to see if you have repented or believed”
    Like · Reply · Just now

  12. markmcculley Says:

    Hebrews 11:6 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this Noah condemned the world and BECAME an heir of the RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT COMES THROUGH FAITH

    Romans 10: 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: The one who does these things will live by them 6 But the righteousness that comes from faith speaks like this: Do not say in your heart, “Who will go up to heaven?” that is, to bring Christ down

    Romans 3:22 –“the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe”.

    Romans 4:13–“the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….

    Phil 3:9–“and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that righteousness which comes through faith in Christ.”

    Robert Haldane, p194–“there are some who, strongly impressed with the great evil of making faith a work, have plunged into a contrary extreme, as if justification were independent of faith, or as if faith were merely an accidental or unimportant thing in justification. This also is a great error. Faith is as necessary in justification as the sacrifice of Christ itself, but necessary for a different purpose.”

  13. markmcculley Says:

    John Gill–Many sons are brought by him to glory. This shows that they are not a few, which serves to magnify the grace of God, exalt the satisfaction of Christ, and encourage distressed sinners to look to him for justification of life; and yet they are not all men, for all men have not faith, nor are they saved; though all Christ’s spiritual seed shall be justified, and shall glory: and this is “by” or “through his knowledge”; the knowledge of him, of Christ, which is no other than faith in him, by which a man sees and knows him, and believes in him, as the Lord his righteousness; and this agrees with the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith

  14. markmcculley Says:

    Witness Lee- This faith is not of ourselves but of Him who imparts Himself as the believing element into us that He may believe for us” (Recovery Version, Heb. 12:2, note 3). This means that for our justification by God, we believe in Jesus Christ through Him as our faith. Paul, therefore, speaks of “the faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22)…

    …We would emphasize the fact that to believe in Christ is actually to believe into Him (John 3:15-16, 18, 36). When we believe in the Lord Jesus, we believe into Him. By believing into Him, we enter into Him to be one with Him, to partake of Him, and to participate in all that He has accomplished for us… Faith in Christ brings us into an organic union with Christ, and it is in this union that we are justified by God.

  15. markmcculley Says:

    Bruce McCormack—“The image of vine and branches might easily be seen to connote an organic connectedness of Christ to the believer. The early church thought of an ontological union of a ‘person” in whom being is mixed with non-being (that’s us) with a ‘person’ in whom being is pure from non-being (Jesus). Where that occurs, the life communicated from the vine to the branches flows organically. (To be sure, it would be difficult to understand, on this view, why the Holy Spirit would be needed as the bond joining us to Christ…)

    “The difference between the relation between a vine and a branch and the relation between Christ and the believer is that the first relation is impersonal and the second is personal. The flow of nutrients from the vine to the branches take place automatically. It does not require a legal act of the will. But in the case of Christ and the believer, we are dealing with a willed relation. The ethical ‘bearing of fruit’ takes place on the foundation of justification. John 15:3–’You are already clean BECAUSE OF THE WORD I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU.’

    “The term ‘ingrafting’ is used in Romans 9-11 to speak of inclusion in the covenant of grace, which results in a share in all the gifts and privileges. That Paul would preface his use of the horticultural image with the affirmation that the adoption belonged to the Israelites before the Gentiles suggests that the image of ‘ingrafting’ is used as a synonym for adoption. The horticultural image is subordinated to the legal….

  16. markmcculley Says:

    Christ’s death for some sinners is the fruit of God’s election of these same sinners in Christ, and what happens to cause these same sinners to believe the gospel is part of the good news, because even though this believing is not the cause of Christ’s death, this believing the gospel is the fruit of Christ’s death.

  17. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 4:13–“the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….

    Phil 3:9–“and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that righteousness which comes through faith in Christ.”

    Robert Haldane, p194–“there are some who, strongly impressed with the great evil of making faith a work, have plunged into a contrary extreme, as if justification were independent of faith, or as if faith were merely an accidental or unimportant thing in justification. This also is a great error. Faith is as necessary in justification as the sacrifice of Christ itself, but necessary for a different purpose.”

  18. markmcculley Says:

    the Barthians and the antinomians
    ask us not to think about the assurance of our own salvation
    they say that asking about our own salvation
    distracts our attention from Christ
    the Barthians think everybody is already saved
    and the antinomians say, don’t ask yourself if you believe the gospel
    think instead about the faith of Christ and not about if you have faith in Christ
    since our works are excluded in salvation, preachers say, our faith in Christ is also a work
    so don’t even think about your own faith in Christ
    I am not only talking about Barth
    but all who say faith is faith so faith is not assurance
    preachers say, look to Christ don’t look to yourself
    but end up separating Christ and Christ giving us faith
    though the elect do not receive faith by faith,
    the elect receive both Christ’s death and assurance from Christ’s death
    but some preach justification already for those without faith in the gospel
    preachers say, don’t look to yourself looking to Christ
    look to Christ alone, but without looking at your looking
    preachers is still preaching
    but i don’t know exactly what it means to look to Christ
    while trying hard not to look at yourself looking to Christ
    Christ was there then, I am here now
    does this mean, since i was not there then, I cannot here now look to Christ?
    you were already born saved, they say, before you look, without looking
    so they say to look without looking, faith is faith but not assurance
    preachers explaining why it cannot be explained
    but i have closed my ears
    forget it
    looking to Christ without looking at me looking to Christ????
    Christ, I trust you not only for the salvation of the elect whoever they may be
    Christ, I look to you for MY salvation

  19. markmcculley Says:

    Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes through faith.

    Romans 4:11 And Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while still uncircumcised. This was to make Abraham the father of all who BELIEVE but are not circumcised, in order that righteousness will be credited to them also.

    Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that Abraham would inherit the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness that comes through faith.

    Romans 4:16 This is why the promise is by faith, in order that it would be according to grace

    Romans 9:30 Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness— the righteousness that comes through faith

    Romans 10: 3 They disregarded the righteousness from God and attempted to establish their own righteousness. They have not submitted themselves to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of doing law for righteousness to AS MANY AS WHO BELIEVE. 5 Moses writes about the righteousness that is from doing law: The one who does these things will live by them. 6 But there is a righteousness that comes through faith faith

  20. markmcculley Says:

    John Coe—If all your sins are truly imputed to Christ so there is no condemnation, then come out of hiding in your prayer life and be honest with God. You have nothing to lose but to open more deeply to your need of Him and the daily forgiveness of the cross.
    If Christ’s righteousness, not your own, has really been imputed to you so that you are totally accepted by the Father as in the Son, then stop trying to cover your badness by being good but in full confession of your badness and failure, obey in light of your failure and what He has done for you.

    Stanley, p 94–believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful.

    Dr. Stanley repeatedly speaks of those who lose or abandon their faith, as if that might be a normal thing. He needs to explain how a true believer loses or abandons their faith, a faith that was the gift of God. The Bible speaks of Christ being the “author and finisher of our faith” in Hebrews 12:2. Charles Stanley undermines the omnipotence of Christ in the life of His saints by saying that a believer can lose or abandon the faith that was initiated by Christ Himself. If that were true, then Christ might “author” the faith of a believer, but not be able to “finish” their faith

    Stanley, p 98–John did not possess saving faith at that time in his life. He was no longer sure that Christ was the Savior of the world.

    We are informed that John did not possess saving faith at this point in his life. If that is true, then John was a lost man in Luke 7:17-20. That would mean that prior to being put in prison he possessed saving faith, but while in prison he came to a point where he no longer possessed saving faith. Logically, that would mean that John lost his salvation while in prison.

    p 99–Satan wants to destroy your faith. Once that is weakened or gone altogether, you are powerless against him.

    Exegeting 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Dr. Stanley speaks of believers who have no time for the things of Christ, but choose to live their lives for themselves (p. 120). –This passage is so powerful because we are presented with a Christian who AT NO POINT IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE BORE ANY ETERNAL FRUIT. And yet his salvation is never jeopardized. There is never any question about where he will spend eternity.

    William Tyndale—“If thy faith induce thee not to do good works, thou hast not the right faith: thou only thinkest that thou hast it. For St. James saith, that faith, without works, is dead in itself. He saith not, that it is little, or feeble: but that it is dead: and that which is dead, is not. Therefore, when thou art not moved by faith to the love of God, and, by the love of God, to good works, thou hast no faith.”

    Consider Stanley’s interpretation of the worthless slave that is spoken of in Matthew 25:30. Jesus described the servant as being unprofitable, cast into outer darkness, weeping and gnashing his teeth. The final verse of this parable is so severe that many commentators assume it is a description of hell. It is not. (p. 124)

    If Dr. Stanley is correct in his interpretation, then heaven is described in Matthew 25:30 as a place of darkness, where people weep and gnash their teeth. —To be in the “outer darkness” is to be in the kingdom of God, but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority. (p.126)

  21. markmcculley Says:

    Universalists teach that Chrsit has faith for you. has faith in your stead, not sure what they think the object of faith is.

  22. markmcculley Says:

    John 1:6 There was a man named John
    who was sent from God.
    7 He came as a witness
    to testify about the light,
    in order that sinners would believe
    8 John was not the light,
    but he came to testify about the light.

    Romans 1:17 The righteous will live by faith

    Antinomiaans teach that only Christ lives by Christ’s faith and
    that Romans 1;17 is not about anybody else believing

    Neonomians say that faith includes works, that faith is righteousness.
    On the other hand, antinomians say that sinners are justified before and without faith

    Antinomians say that sinners are justified regardless of their faith in Christ
    Antinomians argue that saying that we can’t be justified without faith in the gospel means a salvation not by grace

    But Romans 4:16 This is why the promise is by faith, IN ORDER THAT IT BE ACCORDING TO GRACE

    Antinomians teach that our faith must be in Christ’s faith

    but Romans 6:17 teaches that not only is Christ the object of faith but that Christ is present in power to create our faith in Christ

    Romans 6:17 you obeyed from the heart that gospel doctrine to which you were transferred

    Galatians 2:16 no one is justified by the works of the law but by
    faith in Jesus Christ.

    Isaiah 28:16 aa many as who believe on Him will not be put to shame

  23. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Witness Lee profesess that we are justified by faith, but redefines what faith is—he says that faith is Christ’s faith and that we “receive” not justification but “divine spiritual life”

    “This faith is not of ourselves but of Him who imparts Himself as the believing element into us that He may believe for us”. This means that for our justification by God, we believe in Jesus Christ through Him as our faith. Paul, therefore, speaks of “the faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22)…

    …We would emphasize the fact that to believe in Christ is actually to believe into Him. By believing into Him, we enter into Him to be one
    with Him, to partake of Him, and to participate in Him. Faith in Christ brings us into an organic union with Christ

    Faith is Christ. Because the unique faith is Christ Himself, we who believe into Him have a common faith. When Christ was revealed in us through the preaching of the gospel, He became the believing element and ability within us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: