Did Noah find favor or grace?

[beloved57]

Noah found favor in the eyes of God

Thats what the scripture says..undeserved favor..

 

[frumanchu]

I do not argue from silence, Noah found favor in the eyes of God means he had a one or more characteristics that God found favorable. If God had created these characteristics in him, then the verse would not say Noah found favor.

Folks, it's really quite simple. Van argues that because it says Noah found "favor" that it must necessarily mean Noah had characteristics which earned him that favor. Yet both the definitions of favor ("something done out of goodwill") and grace ("unmerited favor") clearly present the possibility of favor being the result of something other than merit or some other characteristic of the recipient. Indeed, for Van's definition of "favor" (which he insists is the only possible one) to hold true, the very definition of grace becomes a contradiction...literally unmerited merited goodwill. Such is absurd, and thus renders his argument equally so.

Thus the Anti-Calvinist simply wishes to ignore all possible definitions of both "favor" and "grace" which do not fit his preconceived notion, which notion itself is merely contrived for the purpose of defeating a position at all costs regardless of the actual truth of the argument.

QED

 

[Epiphoskei]

Hi Epip, scripture not men says Noah found favor in the eyes of God. Play it where it is.
God gives grace to the humble, but opposes the proud. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish. Lean not on your own understanding.

And stop trying to change the subject of the thread, introducing red herrings like Catholic dogma.

What you are arguing is Catholic dogma. Pure, unadulterated, in-whole-agreement-with-the-counsil-of-trent's-condemnation-of-Sola-Fide Catholicism.

So will it be Rome, or will it be Reformation? Because what you are saying, that Noah was saved because he had somthing meriting favor, is not Sola Fide.

 

[moonbeam]

What you are arguing is Catholic dogma. Pure, unadulterated, in-whole-agreement-with-the-counsil-of-trent's-condemnation-of-Sola-Fide Catholicism.

So will it be Rome, or will it be Reformation? Because what you are saying, that Noah was saved because he had somthing meriting favor, is not Sola Fide.

Van is not interested in Sola Fide....just.....Sola Van

 

[Van]

Hi Epip, I have no interest in your red herring. Noah was not saved because he found favor in the eyes of God. But Noah did find favor in the eyes of God, and therefore he was striving with his corrupted heart to please God. If he had been regenerated, then the text would not say he found favor, but rather he was found wicked and was made righteous, not what the text says.

Did Noah find "grace" or "favor." Favor, according to the NASB, but other translations use grace, such as the KJV or the NKJV, or YLT. The Hebrew word is translated both as grace and favor by the KJV and so the context must be used to discern which way to translate the Hebrew word. And in the opinion of the modern translators, in Genesis 6:8, the word should be translated as favor. This is how the NIV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB translate the word in Genesis 6:8.

Calvinism is so flimsy a premise it must be supported by translation shopping to make its points. Why would Calvinists "favor" translating the word as grace? Because that would support the fiction that God did not find him a righteous man, but made him righteous using irresistible grace. But that idea is without merit. And since Noah did find favor because of his character, then the Calvinist premise that Genesis 6:5 phrase "every intent of the thoughts of the heart are continuously evil" means fallen men are unable to seek after God and strive to obey him is false.

Folks when you see the phrase "found favor (or grace) in the sight or eyes of God or a person" the idea is something in the characteristics of the person looks good or favorable to the other. In our case Noah was a righteous man and thus found favor in the eyes of God.

Bottom line, Total Spiritual Inability is not supported by Genesis 6:5 in light of Genesis 6:8.

 

[beloved57]

Hi Epip, I have no interest in your red herring. Noah was not saved because he found favor in the eyes of God. But Noah did find favor in the eyes of God, and therefore he was striving with his corrupted heart to please God. If he had been regenerated, then the text would not say he found favor, but rather he was found wicked and was made righteous, not what the text says.

noah was a sinner saved by grace..the undeserving favor of God..

gen 6:


8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

[MamaZ]

So when God said that there was none righteous? Favor and grace have the same meaning. For God will show mercy on whom He will show mercy.

 

[Van]

Noah obtained approval through faith. He became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith, Noah received his commendation. But Noah found favor in the eyes of God.

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks, it's really quite simple. Van argues that because it says Noah found "favor" that it must necessarily mean Noah had characteristics which earned him that favor. Yet both the definitions of favor ("something done out of goodwill") and grace ("unmerited favor") clearly present the possibility of favor being the result of something other than merit or some other characteristic of the recipient. Indeed, for Van's definition of "favor" (which he insists is the only possible one) to hold true, the very definition of grace becomes a contradiction...literally unmerited merited goodwill. Such is absurd, and thus renders his argument equally so.

Thus the Anti-Calvinist simply wishes to ignore all possible definitions of both "favor" and "grace" which do not fit his preconceived notion, which notion itself is merely contrived for the purpose of defeating a position at all costs regardless of the actual truth of the argument.

QED

When one believes that God's choice of an individual can only have something to do with that individual, they are in effect saying that God cannot choose for reasons within Himself (and unknown or unrevealed to us), or cannot choose an individual to become what He has purposed. Such a view insists that the individual must already possess that which God purposes and desires. It is merit-based with regard to the individual, and a denial of the absolute Sovereignty of God with regard to why and how God chooses. This idea being put forth by the anti-Calvinists is wrong on several different levels. Given the Open Theism and other errors of such individuals, it is not surprising, nor should the vehement denial of their standing in error be surprising.

They cannot accept that God could choose Noah for His own reasons, having nothing to do with who or what Noah was before and at the time of God's choosing of Noah. They want to believe that Noah merited God's choice, by some quality within him, some strength of character, or "something", that would allow God to justify His choice of Noah (as though God needed to justify such a choice) to other men.

I truly believe that the anti-Calvinists think that God is making this all up as we go along, that He does not truly have an over-arching master plan, an already decreed and ordained Purpose, but that He must wait to see what men will do, then adjust His Plan accordingly, and try to maneuver things around to get things moving in the right "general direction" He wants. Why? Because of man's all-important, inviolable, "autonomous free will", which He will not over-ride, because God is so concerned that man love Him freely, so He dare not influence man in any direct way, lest that man be "coerced" into something. This paints God as a neurotic, uncertain, love-starved, hand-wringing, lonely Being, incapable of being the self-existent Being that He clearly by definition is, and the self-fulfilled Being that He by definition is. It is trying to squeeze God into the definition of love that is meant for man.

Fru, you have quite clearly shown the error of those who promote a merit-based choice of Noah. Let God's Word be true, and every man found to be a liar if they do not receive the Truth.

 

[Van]

Good question MamaZ, how can a sinner like Noah be considered a righteous man? Through faith. Noah found favor in the eyes of God because he was striving to obey God. He was blameless in his generation. That suggests he was not perfectly righteous, but simply the best of the lot, more upright in conduct than those who did not find favor in the eyes of God. Good question MamaZ, the more you study the text, the more it sings God's praise.

 

[frumanchu]

Calvinism is so flimsy a premise it must be supported by translation shopping to make its points.

Quite the contrary...you are so desperate to attack Calvinism at all costs that YOU rely on translation shopping to support this pathetic attempt. You have to pick and choose your translations, ignoring the ones that say "grace" because they are so obviously devastating to your critique in favor of those that say "favor" in the hopes that through sheer obstinance and repitition everybody will swallow the fallacious insistence that "favor" can only be received as the result of merit (even though the plain dictionary definition of the term contradicts you).

It would be funny if it weren't so saddening.

Why would Calvinists "favor" translating the word as grace?

Because it's more specific, more fitting to the context, and doesn't leave room for ridiculous arguments like the one you're trying to propagate.

Folks when you see the phrase "found favor (or grace) in the sight or eyes of God or a person" the idea is something in the characteristics of the person looks good or favorable to the other.

As has already been demonstrated thoroughly, this argument is born of willful ignorance of the plain definition of the terms "favor" and "grace" and a complete lack of logical consistency. True to form though, we can expect the same false argument to be repeated ad nauseum in the hopes that attrition will trump truth.

QED

 

[Steve Petersen]

A lot of posts, but so far no reference to the original language.

The word translated 'grace' in Gen. 6:8 is the Hebrew chen. This word has been variously translated as 'grace', 'favor', and 'goodwill' throughout the OT.

When Jewish leaders translated the OT into the Greek (the Septuagint) they used the Greek charis as the nearest equivalent to the Hebrew chen.

Charis, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon has many meanings. In fact there are two pages of definitions around this word. One of the definitions is identical to the Hebrew chen, 'goodwill, kindness, favor.' Thayer makes it clear that the NT writers seem to have added a layer of meaning to the charis that is not found in the Greek.

This is where I think the confusion comes. Applying a NT paradigm into a fairly straight forward OT narrative causes problems.

 

[heymikey80]

Hi Epip, I have no interest in your red herring. Noah was not saved because he found favor in the eyes of God. But Noah did find favor in the eyes of God, and therefore he was striving with his corrupted heart to please God. If he had been regenerated, then the text would not say he found favor, but rather he was found wicked and was made righteous, not what the text says.

Well no, that's the red herring actually. The text isn't forced to say something about Noah's sinfulness. If it were, then by your admission it would have to say, "Noah was corrupted but also found favor with God".

It says neither because it doesn't make any distinctive comment about either.

Noah discovered favor with God. Those who don't look for it sometimes find it, and vice versa:

That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Rom 9:30-31
​

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

They cannot accept that God could choose Noah for His own reasons, having nothing to do with who or what Noah was before and at the time of God's choosing of Noah. They want to believe that Noah merited God's choice, by some quality within him, some strength of character, or "something", that would allow God to justify His choice of Noah (as though God needed to justify such a choice) to other men.

The odd thing is that they believe this, yet God is the one who created them. Whether they would like to accept it or not, the fact is that since God created us the way we are, there is a sense of sovereignty and control in that alone. None of us are free to do as we wish, because we are limited to the confines of who God created us to be.

Thus, this idea of God finding "favor" in an act of man that was completely self determined and independent from Him altogether is impossible, because the idea that He created us warrants the necessity that God has a purpose. If God did not have a purpose in creation, then He would not have created anything. Therefore, to deny that God can ALWAYS bring about His original intended purpose in each and every man and woman that He planned to create is a direct denial of God's sovereignty, as well as His omnipotence, and possibly His omniscience (due to the fact that God wouldn't have a purpose that He knew couldn't or wouldn't be fulfilled). Such a denial leads to even greater issues, specifically, that God may not fulfill His promises to us. We know He will fulfill His promises primarily because of two things - His omnipotence, and His immutability (He has the ability to carry it out, and He will not change His mind about doing so). But to deny that God has the power over His creation to carry out His original intended purpose is to deny the fundamental doctrine that God has absolute power and sovereignty over creation, and for that very reason, we can trust that what He says WILL HAPPEN. But the one who believes that he has the power to act out a self-determined, fully independent, meritorious work must believe that God's ultimate purpose in creation IS that freedom given to them, because all of God's actions must not infringe upon it in order to provide fairness and equality among the creatures. If this is the case, then God's promises and actions can only be based upon man's actions! God cannot promise that He will do something if it violates the free-will of the creation. That is a direct contradiction with the nature of God, namely, that He is holy and sovereign over His creation, and that He has the ability and power to do as He pleases.

 

[Hismessenger]

To throw a monkey wrench into some of the arguements given agains't
it being by God's grace I point you back first to Adam and Eve who were granted unmerited grace/favor when God did not destroy them for their disobedience. Grace began before mankind was even created ala Satan who is truly the first to fall and drag the creation with Him. Why did God not destroy the creation and start over. Because it was by His will that these events were purposed so that mankind would see the love of God for what He has created for His purpose.

Then we moved forward to Abraham who found grace in the eyes of God. Abraham was a gentile saved/chosen by grace to be the father of the true church. Those of the promise by faith through grace in Jesus Christ. Our works are as filthy rags before God and He is no respector of person. So how is it that He chose Noah and Abraham by the merits of their works and not by grace. There is none righteous, no NOT ONE.

As another poster has said, they were a foreshadow of the salvation brought to man by the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus who was also chosen to be the lamb slain before the foundations of the world. This is why there was grace in the garden for Adam and eve and for the creation after the fall of Lucifer. It must be so or else the word of God would fail to perform what it is sent forth to do and the word cannot fail. Christ is the lamb slain before the foundations of the world and the word of God is truth

hismessenger

 

[Epiphoskei]

Noah obtained approval through faith. He became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith, Noah received his commendation. But Noah found favor in the eyes of God.

Exactly!

And, if the salvific faith of Noah had to come after God told him somthing to believe (to build an ark)

And if Noah was saved by faith only.

Then nothing before God told Noah to build an ark mattered.

And, if Noah found favor before he had faith

And nothing besides faith can, even in your construction, merit favor

Therefore, there was nothing worthy of favor in Noah when he was shown favor

Therefore, God's favor for Noah was unmerited.

 

[beloved57]

Noah obtained approval through faith. He became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith, Noah received his commendation. But Noah found favor in the eyes of God.

Noah found grace in Gods sight, a sinner saved by grace..he was an elect..

 

[nobdysfool]

The odd thing is that they believe this, yet God is the one who created them. Whether they would like to accept it or not, the fact is that since God created us the way we are, there is a sense of sovereignty and control in that alone. None of us are free to do as we wish, because we are limited to the confines of who God created us to be.

Thus, this idea of God finding "favor" in an act of man that was completely self determined and independent from Him altogether is impossible, because the idea that He created us warrants the necessity that God has a purpose. If God did not have a purpose in creation, then He would not have created anything. Therefore, to deny that God can ALWAYS bring about His original intended purpose in each and every man and woman that He planned to create is a direct denial of God's sovereignty, as well as His omnipotence, and possibly His omniscience (due to the fact that God wouldn't have a purpose that He knew couldn't or wouldn't be fulfilled). Such a denial leads to even greater issues, specifically, that God may not fulfill His promises to us. We know He will fulfill His promises primarily because of two things - His omnipotence, and His immutability (He has the ability to carry it out, and He will not change His mind about doing so). But to deny that God has the power over His creation to carry out His original intended purpose is to deny the fundamental doctrine that God has absolute power and sovereignty over creation, and for that very reason, we can trust that what He says WILL HAPPEN. But the one who believes that he has the power to act out a self-determined, fully independent, meritorious work must believe that God's ultimate purpose in creation IS that freedom given to them, because all of God's actions must not infringe upon it in order to provide fairness and equality among the creatures. If this is the case, then God's promises and actions can only be based upon man's actions! God cannot promise that He will do something if it violates the free-will of the creation. That is a direct contradiction with the nature of God, namely, that He is holy and sovereign over His creation, and that He has the ability and power to do as He pleases.

Well said! You caught the intent of what I was saying, and expanded on it! Bravo!

 

[Van]

On and on it goes folks, with a half dozen Calvinists claiming the opposite of what the text says. "Noah favor in the eyes of God" means some characteristic of Noah God found favorable. All this effort to claim this refers to God bestowing grace upon Noah is a ridiculous argument.

Lets go over the efforts. One, the characteristic was Noah was in inbred. But this does not address that Noah was obedient for he walked with God. So an effort to undercut the context.

Next, an effort to reverse the order, Noah was given grace, then became righteous. Not what the text says, for Noah found favor in the eyes of God, rather than God bestowed favor or grace upon Noah.

Next I am charged with "translation shopping" but I stick with the NASB. And while I sometimes quote what I consider a better translation of a particular verse, all my points are fully supported by the NASB. For example, it says "favor" in Genesis 6:8.

Next we have the claim that a sound defense of the Calvinist view has been offered in the past, the "as has already been demonstrated" ploy. Folks they play the same cards, because they cannot defend their false views.

Steve's observations were quite valid, the effort to turn favor into saving grace is unsound. The sad fact is Calvinism is built on unsound hermeneutics.

Next another effort to rewrite the text, this time we have Noah supposedly discovering God's favor, rather than Noah finding favor in the eyes of God.

Next we have the ol change the subject to Abraham or Adam and Eve, anyone but Noah!

And next, we have Epip's valid observation that Noah's salvic faith had to come after God told him something to believe. The whole point of the thread is that Noah found favor in the eyes of God before God told him to build the Ark.

Folks, wherever you see the phrase "found favor or grace in the eyes" of God or a person, it means the person had characteristics that God or the other person found favorable. Therefore Total Spiritual Inability is not supported by Genesis 6:5 in light of Genesis 6:8.

 

[frumanchu]

Lets go over the efforts.

IOW, let's resort to ad hominem attacks because my defense is failing.

Next I am charged with "translation shopping" but I stick with the NASB. And while I sometimes quote what I consider a better translation of a particular verse, all my points are fully supported by the NASB. For example, it says "favor" in Genesis 6:8.

LOL! Yes...you shopped around and found that the NASB suited your purpose.

Next we have the claim that a sound defense of the Calvinist view has been offered in the past, the "as has already been demonstrated" ploy. Folks they play the same cards, because they cannot defend their false views.

At best this one makes you a hypocrite since you simply answer this supposed ploy as though you've already refuted the demonstrations when in fact you haven't.

It's been shown that you clearly ignore the plain dictionary definitions of terms that don't support your anti-Calvinist attack. It's there for all to see.

QED