[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Monday, April 10, 2006

Does Ephesians 2:8-9 say that faith is a gift?

by Rose~

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Bible Knowledge Commentary
Ephesians: Harold W. Hoehner, AB, THM, THD, PHD, (Director of Doctor of Theology Studies, chairman and professor of NT literature and exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary)
offered this exegesis:

These verses explain "the incomparable riches of His grace" (v. 7), expanding the parenthetical statement in verse 5, It is by grace you have been saved, and adding that the means of this salvation is, through faith. Hence, the basis is grace and the means is faith alone. (cf. Rom. 3:22, 25; Galatians 2:16; 1 Peter 1:5). Faith is not a "work." It does not merit salvation; it is only the means by which one accepts God's free salvation.

Paul elaborated, And this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun "this" (touto). Though some think it refers back to grace and others to faith, neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is nueter, whereas "grace" and "faith" are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather, the nueter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ephesians 1:15 and 3:1, touto, "this", refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (2: 4-8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is "not from yourselves"), but rather, its source is God's grace for "it is the gift of God."

Verse 9 reinforces this by showing that the means is not by works since its basis is grace (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:1-5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 2Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5), and its means is faith (Rom 4:5). Therefore, since no person can bring salvation to himself by his own efforts, no one can boast (cf. Rom. 3:27; 1Cor. 1:29). Their boasting can only be in the Lord (1Cor. 1:31).



I was looking into this verse today to see once and for all if it truly says that faith is a gift.(although I know there are other verses that are used by the Calvinist to say that faith is bestowed on a person who is totally depraved, uninterested in the Lord, and God regenerates him, puts faith in his heart, and then he believes the gospel after having already been regenerated.) ... but I just wanted to see if it was in this verse.

60 Comments:

  • The Westminster Shorter Catechism says,

    Q: What is faith in Jesus Christ?
    A: Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

    ~Edwardseanist

    By Blogger edwardseanist, at Monday, April 10, 2006 7:08:00 PM  

  • Hi Edswardsianist,
    Thanks for stopping by here. Welcome!

    Amen to that! I guess some of those earlier reformers knew how to keep it simple at times. I appreciate the contribution. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, April 10, 2006 7:17:00 PM  

  • "I was looking into this verse today to see once and for all if it truly says that faith is a gift.(although I know there are other verses that are used by the Calvinist to say that faith is bestowed on a person who is totally depraved, uninterested in the Lord, and God regenerates him, puts faith in his heart, and then he believes the gospel after having already been regenerated.) ... but I just wanted to see if it was in this verse."

    Oh come on Rose~, everybody knows you just need to read between the lines. ;)

    Thank God he made these verses on salvation so simple. Like I told Bobby, I'm glad the Bible wasn't written by 'brilliant theologians', we'd be forever in a quagmire.

    God bless,
    Jim

    By Blogger Jim, at Monday, April 10, 2006 7:30:00 PM  

  • Hi Jim! I noticed that statement you made at Bobby's and I smiled. Amen. Fishermen and tax collectors, and ... one ... um, ex-Pharisee. Well, so, the whole NT wasn't written by 'brilliant theologians'! Thanks, Jim, I appreciate your comment.

    Re: your thoughts on the salvation verses:
    A very wise man said this to me recently (paraphrase): "Don't use a difficult scripture to interpret or cast doubt on scriptures that are plain in their meaning." Amen to that.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, April 10, 2006 9:29:00 PM  

  • Hi Rose. I am persuaded that the gift is salvation in this verse.

    I am also persuaded that faith is not saving grace but the substance through which that grace is imparted though I have no catechism to support my belief, only scripture. ;-)

    By Blogger Kc, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:41:00 AM  

  • Good work Rose! I like the graphic. I didn't notice that in the BKC when I recently checked the source you sited. Looks great!

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:22:00 AM  

  • It is great that you are bringing some clarity to this subject.

    Calvinists throw that verse around as though it were perfectly obvious that it means what they think it means.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:02:00 AM  

  • Rose,

    From MacArthur's commentary on Ephesians:

    "...Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God's giving it
    Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that "faith" (pistis) is feminine, while "that" is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that "that" does not refer precisely to the noun "faith" but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text, if "that" refers to "by grace you have been saved through faith" (that is, to the whole statment), the adding of " and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" would be redundant, because grace is defined as an unearned act of God. If salvation is of grace, it has to be an undeserved gift of God. Faith is presented as a gift from God in...

    2Peter1:1- "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us..."

    Philipians 1:29- "For you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him..."

    Acts 3:16b- "...Yes, the faith which comes through Him..."

    MacArthur goes on..."When we accept the finished work of Christ on our behalf, we act by the faith supplied by God's grace".

    Rose, I am merely trying to present another view point here, no harm intended.

    With much respect,
    Mark

    By Blogger bluecollar, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:34:00 AM  

  • I have a question for you, my dearest Rose.

    http://protestantpub.com/2006/04/11/gods-whithered-crop/

    By Blogger nathaniel adam king, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:21:00 AM  

  • Hi kc,
    I love you, man!

    J. Wendell,
    I love you more! Didn't you see me creating the graphic? Thanks for visiting and thahnk you for letting me enjoy your commentaireis.

    Matthew,
    Yes, I heard that verse used that way in Sunday morning's sermon and I was inspired to study it again, because my brother emailed me and said that the way I interpreted the verse didn't seem to be the obvious meaning. Since I typed all that in to email to him, I thought I would share it with blogdom.
    Every Blessing in Christ to you, my brother.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:32:00 AM  

  • Bluecollar,
    like I said in my post: although I know there are other verses that are used ...

    Thanks for listing those here. I need to study those with an open mind.

    You are always more than welcome to present another point of view and I appreciate it - it is not harmful. I respect you, too, brother. :~)

    As to MacArthur's thought, I think his use of the phrase "act of believing" when referring to "faith" is interesting and maybe a little inconsistent, when considering many of his other writings on the concept of "faith." :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:40:00 AM  

  • Sofyst,
    Thanks for the link. I am not high tech enough to navigate your blog, so giving me a link like that is helpful. I am perplexed at your "my dearest" - but flattered nontheless!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:44:00 AM  

  • Hi Rose,

    The fact that God quickens us to faith does not mean that we are not accountable to believe. I was talking with HK about Davids punishement concerning numbering the people. These verses on faith being a gift, work within a hedge of other scriptures. It is clearly demonstrated throughout scripture in many places that man is accountable for his unbelief and that this is the main thing that grieves the Lord.

    If you read about David in 2 Samuel 24 it looks as though God himself stirred David and gave him the gift of sin in numbering the people. It is a good chapter that demonstrates God's sovereignty, but it also shows David accountable.(BTW it also shows a grieving God in the midst of chastening) It almost though seems as though David was given the gift of sin as a channel to impute judgment to Israel, but if you look in 1 Chronicles 21 you see Satan was actually the one to incite and so again this leaves us wondering at the plans of God. We have verses throughout the bible clearly stating that God is not the author of sin and in like manner he is not the author of unbelief. I have learned to be careful now, not to assume to much as one day many of us are going to get a great deal of pie in our face jumping at the snap too early. I really do believe there are complexities we know not of. Having said that I believe our faith responds to Gods quickening power. I like to leave it at that. Those that place their faith in regeneration, never, as I once did, ever have the faith to believe that they have faith. It seems you go on in an endless cycle wonder if you have faith because you are expecting God to believe for you. This leaves you trusting in your performance instead of the Promise, believing that you can have life because he promises and calls us to believe.
    I you live believing that you can't believe, then the great tragity is, you may indeed never will.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:14:00 PM  

  • Also,

    "Oh faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?" Luke 9:19

    The next verse I find to be one of the most interesting as there are many variant opinions from scribes as to how this is to be translated. It is the man with the demon possessed boy asking Jesus to help him.

    v.22 "But if you can do anything..." He begins

    "If I can?" Jesus doesn't miss a beat in his response. This is how the NU scribes translate this, but oddly in the Reformers translation(ESV) it is translated this way..."If YOU can!" Isn't that something to munch on?

    The most consistent texts(Majority) which the NKJV comes from translates it, "If you can believe, all things are possible to the one who believes.

    I guess the bottom line Jesus is stating is BELIEVE!

    If we sit around denying that we can believe and saying it is not possible then we are like this man. That is the whole dilema if you follow this logic through and the great tragedy is that if we say we cannot believe and wait for God to believe for us, always wondering if we believe, then we may indeed never believe.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:40:00 PM  

  • Hi Rose,
    O.k., one edifying time here today. Thank you all. Rose, do you mind if I link this over to my reference storage blog for personal future reference? I've never had any trouble with this verse and this was just a very good study on it. Thanks. Did you here what Matthew said about dogs? Just one little lick from Cookie's precious little tongue-provided he did not just finish eating some horse dung or something- and I think Matthew would soften. Take care.

    Heartily...Todd

    By Blogger Todd, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:45:00 PM  

  • Hi Brian,
    I am going to paste that scripture here.

    Mark 9:23 (New King James Version)
    But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” 23 Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”


    Mark 9:23 (English Standard Version)
    But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." 23And Jesus said to him, "If you can! All things are possible for one who believes."


    That is interesting. The NKJV seems to be saying "If you can believe, you can receive." The ESV seems to be saying "If [I] can? Of course I can - you need to believe."

    Either way, I don't think Jesus was tricking them by mincing words as to whether He was going to grant them faith or not. Just as you've said, he was entreating them to have faith - to believe.

    On your earlier comment:
    one day many of us are going to get a great deal of pie in our face jumping at the snap too early. I really do believe there are complexities we know not of.

    I can definately go along with that. I don't know it all. I wish all Christians could just admit that we can't put God in a box. I am not looking forward to the pie in the face. :~) If Calvinism is true, I wish God would grant me the faith to believe it as well as the gospel that I fully believe.

    I also appreciate what you said:

    I you live believing that you can't believe, then the great tragity is, you may indeed never will.

    I don't think many people probably have this experience except people that learn about Calvinism before conversion. I think Calvinism usually is, and should be, a secret doctrine kept from the unbeliever because of dilemnas like you just stated.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:38:00 PM  

  • Hi Todd, of course - link it.
    I would love to see my sweet Cookie give Matthew a kiss. I would like to see it while I stood there with my shoes on in the house. :~) Matthew has, I'm sure, never had a dog that is why he doessn't like them. Am I right, DF?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:41:00 PM  

  • Rose~, my sister had a puppy for a couple of months when she was a child. She neglelcted it and my parents and I had to look after it a lot. It left very quickly.

    No, I do not like dogs and I never will.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:55:00 AM  

  • Please don't think I'm not engaging this post because I do not value your opinion. I value YOUR opinion. I want YOUR opinion. In YOUR words. :)

    By Blogger nathaniel adam king, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:03:00 AM  

  • Oh come on Matthew, you don't know what you're missing. We have a wonderful dog. They're great for getting rid of leftovers. :)

    By Blogger Jim, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:23:00 AM  

  • Matthew,
    You needs to open your mind. Dogs are not all disgusting. They are quite delightful, the good ones, that is.

    Sofyst,
    If I just spout out MY thoughts, I am accused of being irresponsible, uninformed and not seeing the "obvious" meaning. I don't know Greek, so I think it is helpful to see people who do know it. Read this post, that is what I already thought before I read this commentary and if you want proof of that you can go look here. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:41:00 AM  

  • Amen! At once again I am sorry to have made you feel that turmoil we Calvinists put others through. I have seen it in my life and grieve that it ever was there. thank you all for looking past the shame. Please don't consider me a Calvinist as I don't like to lift a name of a man above the name that is above all names. Y'shua.

    I am about illogical when it comes to Calvinism anyway. I am sure most Calvinist don't want me in the "Camp"either. The blueprint of Calvinism almost seems right, but so much is missing as other scriptures are ignored that hedge me in from becoming a Calvinist.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:28:00 AM  

  • Brian, just a small point, but a significant one- Jesus is the name above all names, not Y'shua, Yeshua, Yashua, Jawshua or Yahshua.

    The Lord gave us a New Testament in Greek and it makes the Lord's name clear. The Messianic types bring confusion by all these other names that are not found in the New Testament.

    Let us lift up the name of Jesus.

    Sorry, to switch fromt the subject, Rose~.

    My mind is not closed to dogs, Rose~. After 25 years of life experience, I have seen enougth of dogs to know that I do not like them and they do not like me.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:42:00 PM  

  • "Brian, just a small point, but a significant one- Jesus is the name above all names, not Y'shua, Yeshua, Yashua, Jawshua or Yahshua."

    Matthew, I have always felt uncomfortable as well when people purposefully use the messianic version for Jesus. No harm intended Brian but I must agree with Matthew here.

    At the name of Jesus every knee will bow.

    BTW Matthew, do you like hot dogs? :) The're a favorite over here.

    By Blogger Jim, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:23:00 PM  

  • Guys study the Hebrew. It is a real treat. I don't see the harm there. Yes Jesus is also his name, but do a study on His name. It is a real joy. His name is Y'shua rejoice in *who He is* and don't let traditions get in your way...a little puzzled as well. I will drop it though and remember to use Jesus on this site.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 6:09:00 PM  

  • Matthew, Jim and Brian,
    Personally I find the use of His name in Hebrew to be the opposite of irritating. It makes me think of what they called Him when He walked the earth. I think you are fine to use that name here, Brian.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 6:20:00 PM  

  • Oh, and I really like a lot of Calvinists. Many of them do not cause any grief. Bluecollar comes to mind. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 6:21:00 PM  

  • Thanks Rose and you are correct as the Aramaic dialogue is the sister semitic language to Hebrew which is what they spoke. This should actually be a strong point for you Matt as the Syriac texts are well favored by many KJV only people. Thanks

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:58:00 PM  

  • Brian, thanks for that bit of clarification. I guess if we can see the connection between the OT and NT, we would probably see Jesus as well manifested in the OT more often.

    God bless,
    Jim

    By Blogger Jim, at Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:31:00 PM  

  • The New Testament was written in Greek. This is the inspired text.

    The liberal critics want to destroy this, as do the Romanists.

    The Messianic movment is colluding in this. Some of the more radical claim that the Greek is not inspired but some Hebrew or lost Aramaic text.

    Jesus is never called Y'shua. Yeshua, Yahshua or Jahshua in the New Testament. He is called Jesus.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:58:00 AM  

  • I think I shall continue to refuse to read the post just to be anal and difficult. NOOOO!!! you can't make me!!!! :)

    By Blogger nathaniel adam king, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:13:00 AM  

  • DF,
    Still, the Messiah's disciples didn't call Him by the Greek name.

    Sofyst,
    You're a bad boy!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:11:00 AM  

  • Rose, are you sure?

    The Bible says Jesus.

    I think this whole Yeshua thing is deadly. People are effectively implying that what we have in the inspired Word is not sufficent.

    We are saved by believing on the name of Jesus. Let us notstart calling into doubt His name.

    The Word says Jesus, not Yeshua or anything else. To imply that this is not good enougth is to question the inspired word.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:50:00 AM  

  • Matthew?

    It is not how you pronounce his name but what his name means. He is the living word. Are you sure you are not committing the same analysis that the Messianic movement does? They claim that if you don't call on, what was it?? Yehoushuah, then you can't be saved. They are scared of the greek implications of the Lords name derived from Isis and Zues and they somehow feel this is threatening, but we know who he is, by what He told Moses. I Am That I Am. YHVH. Yeshuah means I Am That I Am saves. When Tyndale transliterated YHVH he put the vowels in it and made it Yehovah. The letter J was used but back then it pronounced with a Y sound. We people down the line confused the pronunciation and say it with a J. So Jesus should actually sound like Yesu, hence 'Jesu joy of mans desiring from the Latin. The Language that Pilot wrote the first testimony of Christ in the midst of a crowd that spoke greek, hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin.

    Don't restrict the grace of God brother as this would be the same thing *some* of the Messianic Jews do in their anxiety of the Greek God's. His Word is his name. Revelation 19:13. He came as the living word and He is grace and truth. I am sensing some of the Riplinger teaching...this borders on what Calvinists do brother. I speak this to you as one who appreciates how you have helped me in other areas. Please consider this as help for you.

    Remember that in Spain it is 'Jesu as in other countries they do not say Jesus but another transliteration or translation of what Self Existant Eternal God Saves...means. That is what is important....Who He is.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:02:00 PM  

  • Have a meaningful + blessed Easter! :)

    By Blogger cybeRanger, at Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:03:00 PM  

  • True, Brian, but we need to be aware that many in the Messianic movement are colluding with critics who seek for a lost Aramaic New Testament.

    Did you know that the Greek language was completley omitted from the Passion film, even on the Cross of Christ where 'King of the Jews' should have been in Greek as well as Latina dn Aramaic.

    Let us go with the name we find in the word, not seek some mystical Jewish name.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, April 14, 2006 2:21:00 AM  

  • Perhaps I am not understanding Matthew's point, but the Scripture DOES NOT say Jesus. Jesus is English. The Scripture was not written in English.

    By Blogger nathaniel adam king, at Friday, April 14, 2006 3:17:00 AM  

  • Thank you cyber ranger - happy ressurrection day to you as well!

    Sofyst,
    Isn't "Jesus" the Greek tansliteration or am I washed up on that?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, April 14, 2006 4:59:00 AM  

  • Matthew,
    Are you implying that Mel Gibson is influendced by the Messianic Jews? hahaha ;~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, April 14, 2006 5:00:00 AM  

  • Soyfst, Jesus is a latinization of the Greek name Ieous.

    The name Yeshua and its variations are not found in the Greek New Testament.

    Rose, the removal of Greek from the Passion reflects the trend of Catholicism to downpaly the Greek text. It has always favoured its own corrupt Latin Vulgate.

    Some within the Messianic movment have adopted a similar tendency in seeking a lost Aramaic or Hebrew New Testament, just like the liberal critics did.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, April 14, 2006 7:34:00 AM  

  • Soyfst, Jesus is a latinization of the Greek name Ieous.

    So why don't we use the name "Ieous"? Do we want a latinization? I think this may be coming from the KJV onlyism that you hold. Am I wrong? Could some accuse you of Bible worship?
    :~) your friend over coffee and doughnuts!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, April 14, 2006 7:38:00 AM  

  • Doubt it.

    Jesus is the closest approximation to the Greek name. Iesous would just look weird in English usage.

    Anyway, the ones who think that Yeshua and its variations are correct are the ones who have a problem with the Biblical text.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, April 14, 2006 11:57:00 AM  

  • Unbelievably cool post, Rose.

    Hilariously awesome graphic. :)

    LOL

    It cracks me up that one diagram could take it from confusing to so totally clear. This is what I have believed about this verse but the graphic really clears up exactly how the verse works. Or seems to work IMO.

    God bless,

    Jodie

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at Friday, April 14, 2006 3:04:00 PM  

  • I'm so glad I didn't watch the "Passion..." movie. I just didn't want that Hollywood junk in my head. Or the apochrypha of that nun's dreams and Gibson's imagination. Hopefully it brought more of the world's attention to Christ.

    Heartily in there with you in Christ! Todd

    By Blogger Todd, at Friday, April 14, 2006 6:14:00 PM  

  • The stunning irony is that some KJV onlyist actually push for the version written by Matthew in Hebrew as one was in Greek and one in Hebrew as well as the Peshitta(Aramaic)as it pre-dates the Siniaticus and Vaticanus and harmonizes more with the Textus Receptus. The Arabs copyied much like the Masorites did from the O.T. Very meticulous and careful. What is sometimes so odd is that even within the KJV camp they differ on these points. I am actually glad though to see that Matthew believes the greek texts are inspired because some in the camp say that because they are copies the KJV is the true inspiration now since the original greeks are missing.

    Also Matthew did you know that Erasumus could not find a greek copy of the book of revelation(Erasumus was the former of the Textus Receptus) and all they could find was a latin commentary of it. Erasumus disected the Word and translated it back into greek so that it could be used for the Latin texts.

    I am not attacking the Word brother. I encourage you to keep studying and behold the beauty of how over 200,000 variants can come together in agreement. It is quite an amazing thing.

    I myself weigh more on the Majority text(Which is a Hodges thing as well) with some compulsion to understanding the eclectic method that some at Dallas hold to. I am still researching this, but see the Byzantine text type as being more favorable and oddly the Syriac texts from the east seem to support this as well as what many in the KJV only position see, although not all of them.

    Oddly I have been accused of being to staunch and KJV only, when in reality I am not KJV only...so I find it interesting that you are comparing me to a liberal and a Roman...ah LOL. Sometimes you just gotta laugh rather than take it personal. I am not mad at you...in one sense I understand your earnestness here, but I plead with you to keep studying on this. Those books by Riplinger and Jasper James Ray and all can be fun, but there are holes in their data. I encourage you to even consider maybe some research that Antonio has done as there is a wealth of info by some of these Dallas professors. I think this to be their strong point as they are well studyied in this.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Friday, April 14, 2006 6:31:00 PM  

  • Brian, I am not comparing you to those bad guys, but I think the Messianic trend of calling Jesus all sorts of Judaized names is connected to a conspiracy (or at least waht seems liek one) to undermine the inspired text.

    I am very glad that you favour the Majority or the Byzantine text as opposed to the Critical text.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:27:00 AM  

  • Dyspraxic,
    I agree with you that we need to focus on Jesus as His name is the one which saves and He is to whom every knee will bow. I think however you are swinging the pendulum too far.
    Jesus is ONLY our saviour because he is the Messiah. If He is not the Messiah then He is not God. Focusing on the Old Testament alone will never reveal Christ but Ignoring th Old testament because Jesus is now in our Hearts is foolish.
    We nedd to Examine the Old Testament in light of Jesus, everything in there points to Him. Jesus is the Fulfillment of the Law or Old Testament.

    MDM

    By Blogger Modern Day Magi, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:20:00 AM  

  • rose good post on salvation being solely a Gift of God.

    MDM

    By Blogger Modern Day Magi, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:21:00 AM  

  • Thanks Matt,

    >I am very glad that you favour the Majority or the Byzantine text as opposed to the Critical text.<

    Amen and there are some strong reasons why I do. Cerain texts that are deemed questionable by the Critical and many in the reformed who would seek to obscure the differance between the O.T and N.T. The seed of Satan verses the seed of Christ.

    The account of the adulterous that Satan seeks to see removed from the texts is foundational to discerning the differance. It is no coincidenc that many of the Wescott and Hort tradition would not see the importance in that the woman was told to go and sin no more after she was delivered from the curse of the law and only after she was saved. This is very important in breaking the tie between covanents. It is important to read the O.T but to trace the seed of the woman throughout and ovserving the reflection of Christ vs the ordinances of the Law. On this we agree. The reformed tradition dilutes and seeks to graft these two covanents together. You are so right in being aware of this Matthew and for this I herald what you are discerning.

    As far as the name of YHVH, Yeshua and Jesus. The study of his name brings chills to my spine and if understood correctly helps to seperate the enmity even more. Please consider this. The Jews did not understand his name as they were unwilling to believe in the seed. It was the Law they hoped in...not The Name. Please give this some consideration.

    Take care brother of promise who hopes in the name of Jesus(I AM THAT I AM SAVES),

    Brian

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:13:00 AM  

  • One other thought as I just looked over at Antonio's post. Making the true Jesus is known is just as important as Salvation. this is biblical...Paul shared this concern:

    "For if he that cometh preacheth
    *another Jesus* whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or *another gospel*, which ye have not accepted, ye might bear well with him."
    2 Cor 11:4

    Making the meaning of His name known is of uptmost importance as making the gospel known. God said, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    Why is this important? Islam shifts the seed to Ishmael and in the same vein Covanental Theology takes the name of Jesus and shifts it to the Law. This is no small matter as only the New Covanent has life. Only the seed of Sarah the daughter of Eve. The seed found in the woman is the true Jesus not the Covanent with Adam. This is so crucial this fact of I Am That I Am saves. The Word became flesh. Logos became flesh. Living Word.

    Bobby Grow was right to speak of the true Jesus as their are many differant Jesus' preached today. We must make the one know through the seed of the Woman and only this one known. The Law was given through Moses but *Grace* and *Truth* came from Jesus. Both are equally important. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not Hagar and Ishmael. It is crucial that we seperate from the Covanental, Infant Baptismal thoughts and embrace only the God of Grace through the seed of the Bride of Adam if we are to be the Bride of Christ.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:59:00 AM  

  • MDM, I was not aware that I was urging peole to ignore the Old Testament. Please show me where I do.

    As only the New Testament gives us the personal name of the Messiah, I fail to see the relevance of the Old Testament to the 'name' issue.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:20:00 PM  

  • perhaps I swung my pendulum too far aswell.
    I didnt mean to put words into your mouth dyspraxic.

    MDM

    By Blogger Modern Day Magi, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:30:00 PM  

  • >I fail to see the relevance of the Old Testament to the 'name' issue.<

    ???

    I'll give you a mulligan and pretend you didn't just say that.

    " I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed." Genesis 3:15

    When Cain was born Eve mistakenly called Him a man from YHVH. Luther translates the Hebrew meaning as I have begotten YAHWEH.

    Eve needed to understand her mistaken identity as Cain became a murderer of Abel instead. Wrong Messiah. Her seed would continue though through Seth.

    "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(God is with us)." Isaiah 7:14

    "For God so loved the world that He gave his only *begotten* son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

    Psalm 138:2"Thy word and thy name you have magnified and exalted."

    Revelation 19:13"...And the name by which he is called is The Word OF God."

    "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14

    The New Covenant was established in the garden of Eden through the seed of the woman, but the Word needed to manifest Himself and fulfill all prophecy and become the Kinsman redeemer that the Law bore witness of as well. It is a wonderful truth. He fulfilled the New Covenant and we are in Him in the resurrection life and our sinful nature is put to death at the cross through this Messiah. He is the only Messiah and He made manifest his Name for that reason. To bear witness of Who He Is and to redeem us as His bride. The Kinsman redeemer Allegorically made known in the book of Ruth. So many wonderful truths found in His Name. I AM THAT I AM SAVES.

    I don't know about you, but that puts a chill down my spine everytime I meditate on this beloved truth.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:56:00 PM  

  • That is all right, MDM.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:56:00 PM  

  • Brian, in that sense it does.

    I meant in terms of whether to call our Lord Jesus or Yeshua/ Y'shua or Jeshua or any of the other variations.

    I do not think I agree about the New Covenant in the Garden of Eden. I hold the New Covenant to be a future Covenant to be made with Israel, though the spiritual benefits of it are mediated to believers in Christ in this dispensation.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:00:00 PM  

  • I believe the New Covenant was there before the foundation of the world and was promised to Adam and Eve through her seed in the garden and fulfilled when Jesus died on the Cross by his inherent/resurrection life- a righteousness that was given to us in His obediance. What a Saviour. What a God.

    We can agree on that can't we?

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:18:00 PM  

  • There was a promise of the Messiah given to Adam and Eve, but this is not the same as the New Covenant.

    The New Covenant is the promise of restoration and spiritual renewal given to Israel.

    The spiritual aspects of this convenant are mediated to all believers in Christ throug His shed blood.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Sunday, April 16, 2006 6:42:00 AM  

  • Matthew...He is the New Covenant. Jesus Himself. The very person of Christ. He is the hope of David.

    Both Jews and Gentiles have this hope and in part I agree, He will fully appropriate to Israel one day when the gentiles are cut off.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:58:00 PM  

  • Jeremiah 31
    31 ¶ 'Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

    32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:

    33 but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.'

    The creation of the New Covenant is an event that was future to this text and arguably is still future.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:04:00 PM  

  • Brother you can read about this Covenant in Psalms 89 and all throughout the O.T and it is in the Garden of Eden as well. Jesus Himself revealed it when He came.

    You need to read up on Galations 3 and see that the Mosaic Law actually came after as well as the Covanent with Adam which the Mosaic law was a continuance of.

    The New Covanent was before the foundation of the world. He was slain before the foundation of the world. All men who had their eyes on this Covanent(In the seed of the Woman) were saved by grace and will always be saved by grace.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Monday, April 17, 2006 5:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home