If Calvinism is true....

[chestertonrules]

Faith does not save anyone, its a gift given to those who have been saved by the work of christ..

If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact that the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). So, I agree that faith alone saves on one.


Faith clearly is necessary, however. How do we grow our faith?

Hebrews 11
6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Apparently, faith is a reward for those who eanestly seek God.

Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.

Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.htm

 

[Ormly]

Speaking of Chrystostom:


Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)
Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).
Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)
(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)
In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)
He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.' (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5). And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

After reading all that, one would think Peter was greater and traveled farther than Paul.

 

[Ormly]

Here's a short list I can produce readily.

My own Greek prof., TM Moore
NT Wright.

W. Robertson Nicoll, who cites three native speakers of NT Greek who flatly state that it refers to faith through the grammar, and then he takes the wider view that it refers inclusively to salvation, of which faith is a part.

(Nicoll further points out that Paul never uses "dia" to talk about faith as a cause, but only uses the accusative noun, indicating the instrumentality of faith -- not faith as the cause or basis or ground.)

John Chrysostom, one of the earliest Greek exegetes.
Theodosius.
Handley Moule.

R.C. Sproul, who is emphatic that "the rules of Greek syntax and grammar demand that the antecedent of that be the word faith."

----

There's also a semantic problem with saying this is a system of "saved by faith", still permits faith to be "of yourselves". It thwarts what Paul is trying to establish here. When only part of his statement is "not of yourselves", then Paul really had no reason to state, "and that [one sense] not of yourselves." He's not warning people away from anything.

But in reality Paul's emphasis is constant and repeated: saved by grace, not of yourselves, not of works, and through faith. To take one of these and say, "Well, this one, faith, is really of yourselves", that thwarts precisely Paul's statement: "not of yourselves". He's repeated himself for emphasis, overlapping the concepts so he gets full coverage.

Moule points out "and that" (kai touto) is an idiom for emphasizing something especially important about what's gone before, as in 1 Cor 6:8 and Pp 1:28. It doesn't demand proper gender alignment. It refers to the concept as a whole, but is emphatic about an important attribute of that entire concept especially applying to it.

And so Chrysostom:

In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise thee too high, observe how he brings thee down: “by grace ye have been saved,” saith he,
“Through faith;”
Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,
“And that not of ourselves.”
Neither is faith, he means, “of ourselves.” Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? for “how,” saith he, “shall they believe, unless they hear?” (Rom. x. 14.) So that the work of faith itself is not our own.
“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.”
Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.
​

Of course not even Calvinism asserts faith as a monergistic gift, as if "God could believe for us". That's outside the realm of reality, and Reformed thought denies it as well. (cf. Murray, "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", "Faith and Repentance", p. 106, quoted a number of times -- if you want the quote PM me, I'll add it as well, but I consider it further afield of this conversation.)

So what do you really have here? Native Middle Greek speakers said, "It's about even faith not being of ourselves." You have three Greek exegetes, two otherwise antagonistic, agreeing on this point.

Chrysotom is as confused as any I have read.


The Bible is very simple and very clear on the matter, i.e., Faith comes by listening to be true to whatever it is you are giving your attention. In this case the hearer is listening to the word of God. When one's faith is excercised towards it, he is open for the gift of the grace of God to be received. i.e., Salvation is by faith that releases the gift. It is impossible to be otherwise since only faith from man to Him is pleasing that God then gives of Himself in return.

Is there now a special gift of God, a "gift of truth" to be had, for faith to be established? Is man universally not capable of understanding truth when he hears it, to act upon it either to accept it or reject it? Why would anyone believe that God's word can't be received by faith from man especially since God gave no *special grace to man for his understanding aside from circumstances in which man had to cry out to God for deliverance. [Anyone read the OT accounts of Israel doing that, lately?] No, God, in His creation, equpped man with such faith to believe Him. Cain and Abel prove this to be so from the beginning. Even Adam had faith and then rejected the "Gift" before sin was ever a universal problem for man.

[*though, on this forum, I believe it is indeed, needed]

 

[beloved57]

If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact that the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). So, I agree that faith alone saves on one.


Faith clearly is necessary, however. How do we grow our faith?

Hebrews 11
6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Apparently, faith is a reward for those who eanestly seek God.

Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.

Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.htm

Faith is a gift from the imputed righteousness of Jesus christ. All for whom Jesus christ died will have faith distributed to them..

 

[Ormly]

Faith is a gift from the imputed righteousness of Jesus christ. All for whom Jesus christ died will have faith distributed to them..

Since Christ died for all then it must be, in your estimation, all have it.

I can buy that but as one of Pentecostal gifts of the Spirit otherwise you are contradicting/denying, John 3:16.

 

[MamaZ]

After reading all that, one would think Peter was greater and traveled farther than Paul.

I have to agree with you here..

 

[Ormly]

I have to agree with you here..

You have to agree with me esleware also. . . . but you won't. You have to give up too much depriving doctrine for that to ever happen.

 

[heymikey80]

Can it be assumed your sources are Calvinists which would reveal a definite leaning toward Calvin, yes?

I know R.C. Sproul is.

John Chrysostom? Theodosius? Calvinists? Fourth and Sixth Century bishops that form the anchor of most Christian orthodoxy. They precede Calvin by over 1000 years.

This is a very simple extract as well. Of course Augustine would be included, I just forgot to mention him. I'm told that as to regeneration preceding faith, Thomas Aquinas also qualifies in this category, even granted his concept of prevenient grace.

 

[heymikey80]

I would be interested any sources by N. T. Wright. I have heard of a couple of the other persons you site, and I suspect they have Calvinist predispositions, but do pass along Wright's sources so I can check them out. And if I have to, I'll try to contact my professor acquaintance to get his opinion of these other sources, but again, I suspect they are reformed which explains their interpretations - they have to claim this verse say that faith is the gift.

Wizzer

First, you might check out my response above. To think three bishops a millenium ahead of Calvin were Calvinists, that just plays flatly into my hands. On this point Calvinism is actually Paulinism.

And I can add to this list of early bishops quite a bit. Y'know how many bishops attended the Council of Orange?

If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers. Canon 5, Council of Orange
​

The number of Greek speakers of this time who point out this verse is ... rather long.

Second, it's odd to presume my answer is somehow tainted without investigating it. You asked for my answer, and then quickly deny it. Do you really know anything about Sproul's training? Do you know why he's a Calvinist? How about me? Wizzer, you just prejudged they're all people who "have to claim this verse". It's not true. As I pointed out in my initial posting, I couldn't care less about one particular verse. There're plenty where that came from.

That's not even a good argument. You didn't even investigate the heritage of these people. If you were to do this with an Apostle ... where would you be? And what if one of these guys is saying precisely what the Apostle said? Hm?

Third, I've heard NT Wright actually say this flat-out. He's also written it out in his books this verse states it clearly as a foregone conclusion. So it's no sense denying it. Write him and ask.

If you'd like more support:

Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation. 'New Perspectives on Paul', (in Justification in Perspective, ed. Bruce McCormack, (Grand Rapids, Baker and Rutherford House, 2006) p. 256-257.
​

If you need more support, I'll consider it. But I've no reason to make an effort if you've no reason to check whether these things are true. Your incredulity is really an indication you hadn't expected what I actually provided -- a well-rounded, historical list of people who point out the heritage of Christianity and the Church Catholic is alongside Calvinistic, Reformed theology on this point.

It's also fairly ironic you'd pick out this bishop of Durham and reject a prior bishop of Durham, Handley Moule.

Robert Nicoll is the primary assembler of "The Expositor's Greek New Testament". Read all about it, it's a widely distributed source for understanding the Greek New Testament.

 

[MamaZ]

You have to agree with me esleware also. . . . but you won't. You have to give up too much depriving doctrine for that to ever happen.

I have to but I won't?

 

[Ormly]

John Chrysostom? Theodosius? Calvinists? Fourth and Sixth Century bishops that form the anchor of most Christian orthodoxy. They precede Calvin by over 1000 years.

This is a very simple extract as well. Of course Augustine would be included, I just forgot to mention him. I'm told that as to regeneration preceding faith, Thomas Aquinas also qualifies in this category, even granted his concept of prevenient grace.

Foolish me. Sorry.

 

[chestertonrules]

If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers. Canon 5, Council of Orange

Absolutely true.

Where Catholics and Calvinists differ is that catholics accept all scripture, and the bible teaches us that God's grace reaches out to all and we can accept and follow this initial grace or reject it.

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47


2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51

2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.


51 St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 31

 

[Van]

The underlying Greek word for "lawlessness" or "iniquity" in Mt 7:23 is 'anomia'. This same Greek word is also found in 1 Jn 3:4 where it is translated "transgression of the law", so 1 Jn 3:4 reads 'sin is transgression of the law' or 'sin is anomia'.
Sin is anomia or transgressing the law, so what's the difference between sinning and practicing sin, both are transgressing the law, both can cause one to be lost...or is "stumble", by your definition, really not sinning[transgressing the law]? If it is not sinning [transgressing the law] what is stumbling?

The idea of practicing something refers to a continual effort in that direction, rather than an occasional misstep. For example, a person who practices sin, works at sinning, it is the object of his or her effort, whereas someone who practices righteousness, works at being faithful to God, and strives to avoid sin.

And sin is missing the mark, and refers to thoughts and actions not in accord with the will of God, whether it is a transgression of the Law or not. Sin reigned before the Law was given, so to define it narrowly is unbiblical, or in other words, all transgressions of the Law are sin, but sin includes omissions that do not violate the Law, i. e. to know what is right but not do it is sin.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Just for those who are interested, maybe to shed some light on the interpretations set forth as possibilities:

Chafer, Eph 2:1-10


[ga»r] The means by which believers are saved by grace is through faith (8).

Format: This begins a new sentence, but for connects it to the preceding sentence. This conjunction indicates that this sentence elaborates on the semantic subject of the preceding sentence. Thus, this clause is the semantic complement to the main clause of the sentence in vv. 1–7.

Content: The phrase by grace you are saved parenthetically summarizes the three main verbs of the preceding sentence. Paul re-introduces the semantic subject of vv. 1–7 as the continuing topic of discussion here. He tells the Ephesians that their by-grace salvation, (i.e., their being made alive, raised and seated together with Christ) happens by means of faith. This does not make faith the motive power which saves—Paul already pointed out the motive power for salvation is grace. However, if some are saved and others lost, something must separate the two. A means must exist by which a lost person becomes a beneficiary of God’s saving grace. That means, Paul says, is faith.

[CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 35]

[wash my mouth]

[kai« touvto] The result of [by-grace salvation being through faith£ is that salvation is not (accomplished) by man, but rather it is a gift from God, not something obtained through work (8b–9a).

Content: Debate rages here. What is the antecedent of touto? What, exactly, is this? Wallace lists four possible answers:

The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as antecedent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai« touvto having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”).

The first and second options suffer from the fact that touvto is neuter while ca¿riti and pi÷stewß are feminine. Some have argued that the gender shift causes no problem because (a) there are other examples in Greek literature in which a neuter demonstrative refers back to a noun of a different gender, and (b) the touvto has been attracted to the gender of dw◊ron, the predicate nominative. These two arguments need to be examined together.

While it is true that on rare occasions there is a gender shift between antecedent and pronoun, the pronoun is almost always caught between two nouns of different gender. One is the antecedent; the other is the predicate nom….The construction in

[CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 36]

Eph 2:8, however, is not parallel because dw◊ron is not the predicate nom. of touvto, but of the implied “it” in the following clause. On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either “faith” or “grace” is the antecedent of touvto. While some Reformed commentators and theologians argue for faith as the antecedent, it has been roundly rejected outside Reformed circles for the reasons that Wallace mentions. Using a neuter pronoun to refer to the feminine noun faith would be an oddity, requiring considerable defense. The same objections apply to grace (feminine) as the antecedent. Either constitutes special pleading. Further, within the Pauline corpus, the neuter of {outos never has a feminine referent. Wallace’s fourth option, translating kai touto as “and especially,” hardly solves the issue. Suppose the verse did say, “For by grace you are saved through faith, and especially not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” The debate would continue, but instead of arguing over the antecedent of touto, scholars would debate the identity of the gift of God. If legitimate, this rendering would change the grammatical detail at issue, permitting the conclusion that faith is the gift without resorting to a special pleading regarding gender agreement.
However, this option suffers fatal difficulties. Even accepting Wallace’s analysis of the construction, its adverbial use would be rare, requiring validation that this passage has an adverbial use. Furthermore, none of the four examples Wallace cites as evidence that kai touto can be an adverbial frozen form, actually bears out [CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 37] his point. Each has a clear conceptual referent. In fact, every neuter use of houtos in Pauline literature has a referent (usually conceptual) in the context. Wallace appeals to a category of usage for touto which Paul simply does not evidence. Ultimately, this option substitutes one special pleading for another.
Wallace’s third option, “grace-through-faith salvation,” is not quite right either. Paul summarizes the subject for this paragraph in verse 5, via by grace you are saved. This clause neatly summarizes verses 1–6. Paul reintroduces this clause at the beginning of verse 8 (as the semantic subject) to add the new information (complement) that being saved by grace occurs through faith. The continuing subject of discussion, then, is salvation by grace. Neuter forms of houtos virtually always have conceptual referents, so readers would look for a conceptual (multi-word) referent when Paul opens a new clause with kai« touvto. A clause repeated twice in the immediate context as the continuing subject of discussion would be impossible to miss (see diagram below).

What is the Gift of God?

[wash my mouth]

[CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 38]

[wash my mouth]

[iºna mh] The purpose of [salvation being a gift] is so that no one can boast (9b).

Format: The in order that clause here is complement to the rest of 8b–9a. “Salvation is a gift” adequately summarizes 8b–9a for the purposes of this outline statement.

Content: This picks up the thread of v. 7. God saved us by grace in order to display the overwhelming riches of His grace. Our salvation is not produced by our own work, but solely His, so His grace is truly being displayed because no one else can claim credit for our salvation.

 

[chestertonrules]

Format: The in order that clause here is complement to the rest of 8b–9a. “Salvation is a gift” adequately summarizes 8b–9a for the purposes of this outline statement.

Content: This picks up the thread of v. 7. God saved us by grace in order to display the overwhelming riches of His grace. Our salvation is not produced by our own work, but solely His, so His grace is truly being displayed because no one else can claim credit for our salvation.[/quote]


The grace of God initially makes salvation possible, and he will sustain us if we endure.

However, enduring through his grace is a collaboration required of us.

He won't leave us, but we can walk away from him.

 

[Ormly]

The idea of practicing something refers to a continual effort in that direction, rather than an occasional misstep. For example, a person who practices sin, works at sinning, it is the object of his or her effort, whereas someone who practices righteousness, works at being faithful to God, and strives to avoid sin.

. . . . having to do with the heart.

And sin is missing the mark, and refers to thoughts and actions not in accord with the will of God, . . . . . ..

. . . and this having to do with loving God which is God's will that establishes one in the process of son-ship.

 

[MamaZ]

How can one walk away from Christ who lives in us through His Spirit? For wherever you go you carry Christ in you.

 

[Ormly]

How can one walk away from Christ who lives in us through His Spirit? For wherever you go you carry Christ in you.

Why was Jesus tempted in the wilderness?

 

[MamaZ]

Why was Jesus tempted in the wilderness?

Heb 2:16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

 

[Ormly]

Heb 2:16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

That is not an answer. I asked you for an answer to "why" and not for "spammed up prooftext" of some kind that doesn't answer my reason for asking which is based on you remarks.