Martin Luther and Positive Confession

[victoryword]

Martin Luther on the Authority of the Believer

Martin Luther believed that every believers authority is equal to that of the Lord Himself. In a sermon on John 19:20-31, Luther says:

Observe, what great transcendent comfort we have in that God awakens in us also the same power he exercises in Christ, and bestows upon us equal authority. As he made him sit in heavenly places, above all power and might, and everything that can be named; so has he invested us also with the same power, that those who believe have all power over heaven and earth. This we have in the words he left behind him; and they are so powerful, that when they are spoken by us, they avail as much as if he himself were on earth and spake them in the majesty and glory in which he now exists. And this is the power we have from his resurrection and ascension; there he gives us power to, kill and to make alive, to consign to the devil and to rescue from him.

While it is somewhat true that Luther may have contradicted this statement with some of his teachings on God's Sovereignty (following Augustine who emphasized that God exercised meticulous control over all events) this does nothing more than just simply reveal his inconsistency. The fact remains that he still held some beliefs that are very much similar to that which is taught in Word-Faith circles. Luther actualy goes beyond the Word-Faith in some instances (that will be covered later).

This is not even the icing on the cake. I have staments by Luther concerning how to deal with the devil, the origin of sickness and disease (Luther did not believe that God is the source), how we are to claim God's promises and expect to receive from god the very thing we asked for, etc. This thread could take several pages before I am done if I give all that I have found.

What's really cool is that many of his sermons and books can be found on the internet, making research very easy.

Anyway, I agree with most of what Andrew has written and I probably have no need to add on to what he said. I may have said a few things differently than Andrew if I had responded to more of the questions above but he and I agree in substance. Luther also seems to agree with Andrew and myself in SOME respects.

 

[pmarquette]

A.K.A: M.C. Hammer 1 John 5.14-18 speak , believe , expect ,
walking upright & the devil can not touch you .....

hammer time ......
can't touch this .... yo devil , keep'n it real .... can't touch this

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Quaffer,

It's not so much whether God being God had to or not, I'm just saying that that is HIS way of doing things. As you already know, the Bible has so much to say about speaking, the tongue etc. Life and death is in the power of the tongue, Calling forth things that are not as though they are, the gifts of tongues, prophesying, interpretation etc all have to do with speaking, -- it is just God's way of doing things. And if he said it in his word, He cannot contradict his Word and do his own thing. His Word and him are one.

I was not dissagreeing with you Andrew. Every instance I can think of God speaks and it exists. Although, he did not speak Adam and Eve into existance. . .he formed them.

 

[look]

There is a difficulty in asserting that God literally spoke words in the Genesis account. At the very least, his first few commandments could not have been spoken words, I think. A spoken word is a disturbance of a created medium, specifically air. If God has to speak to create, He's in a bit of a "catch 22" situation, since He needs to create air before He can create...

How would a WoF expositor handle this dilemma, out of curiosity?

Theophilus7

I believe that just puts God in a box...but if you are right, then it would stand to reason that God doesn't "hear" our prayers if unspoken, e.g., praying with our minds or spirits (hearts). For that matter, how does God communicate with His angels, sound doesn't travel through space, or does it?

How is it possible that people could hear God the Father declare from Heaven, to those around Jesus, "This is My beloved Son..."?

Hmm, I think we just opened a can of worms...?

I am eagerly awaiting your "spoken" thoughts!!!

 

[Andrew]

I was not dissagreeing with you Andrew.

yes I know. great minds think alike *LOL

Every instance I can think of God speaks and it exists. Although, he did not speak Adam and Eve into existance. . .he formed them.

True, but he did speak first...26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,

 

[Theophilus7]

I believe that just puts God in a box...

I don't think so. God cannot do the intrinsically impossible.

But if you are right, then it would stand to reason that God doesn't "hear" our prayers if unspoken, e.g., praying with our minds or spirits (hearts). For that matter, how does God communicate with His angels, sound doesn't travel through space, or does it? How is it possible that people could hear God the Father declare from Heaven, to those around Jesus, "This is My beloved Son..."?

I think you've missed the point.

I'm certainly not claiming that God's can't make sounds! How is it possible that people heard the Father's voice proclaim "this is my beloved Son"? - there was an atmosphere! Assuming the sound wasn't subjective (just in their heads), God could easily set up vibrations in the air around them. With regards to angels, sound waves are not the only way of communicating, you know. God could speak to their minds. And no, God doesn't "hear" prayers we pray in silence as sound waves bombarding the throne of heaven. But He does "hear" our thoughts.

I am eagerly awaiting your "spoken" thoughts!!!

Well, these are my written thoughts. Hope that helps.


Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Firstly, we are assuming that "God thought" instead of spoke as the Bible has written. Secondly, we are assuming that the Holy Spirit did not consider the expression "God thought" as adequate for human understnding (why inadequate I do not know).

My choice to interpret "God said" the way I do is not based upon a whim, Andrew, but is grounded, among other things, upon my belief in the rational integrity of biblical revelation. Alas, I am ill-qualified to offer a cogent explanation for the hermeneutical issues at stake here, and no perfect expositor of scripture either. A better understanding than mine and a wiser tongue are what's required for the task I have set myself. Nevertheless, let me play "theologian" for a moment, and forgive me if I make a hash of it. I have just completed an article on this subject which, even if it doesn't change your views, will explain my own and hopefully demonstrate the logic behind them. I began it with our own conversation in mind, but have broadened its scope somewhat. I will paste it in below:

---


Did God really speak when creating?

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. But did He really do it in an audible voice (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26)? It is, when we stop to think about it, impossible to accept the idea that God literally spoke words in the original act of creation. A spoken word requires air in which to speak it and organs with which to produce the sound. Granted, a God who is in control of air molecules could set up the necessary vibrations with a thought, but even God the Almighty cannot produce vibrations in a gaseous medium that doesn't exist yet. That is nonsense.

We may wonder, then, why the Genesis account repeatedly records the creative acts with the words, “God said”, as opposed to “God thought” or some other language that might better befit God’s dignity and true nature. Wouldn’t that have been preferable? Isn’t the choice of words a little crude and irreverent in describing the actions of this transcendent spirit? I believe the answer to both of these questions is “no”. There are good reasons for preferring “God said” to “God thought”, and there are also good reasons for abstaining from any criticisms of biblical anthropomorphisms in general.

Firstly, we must observe that speech is the revelation of thought. In a human being, breath is released from the lungs and passed through the mouth. The sound of the words is determined by the various things to which the air is subjected before it departs between your lips. Essentially, a man wills to think about something and his breath carries the thought outside of himself and manifests it in the form of sound waves. "Speech is the index of what is thought, willed and done". It is a fitting analogue for God’s work in the beginning. God didn’t merely ponder the act of creation - He willed to think creative thoughts, and those thoughts were indeed, in a sense, carried by God’s breath; the Holy Spirit. God made something outside of Himself. His will was wrought in substance. To record that "God said" is a vastly more appropriate means of recalling each creative act than to say merely, "God thought".

It shouldn't be surprising that human speech is employed as a useful analogy in Genesis 1, (no more than that, but no less), as long as we maintain our grasp on two important touchstones. Firstly, like the Roman coin in Mark 12:16-21, stamped with the image of Caesar, man has been created in the image and likeness of God. But a coin does not contain the true nature of the person in whose image it was made. This is the second point. That God is both like us (Gen. 1:26) and unlike us is indisputable (Jer. 10:6-7). He amply testifies to both throughout scripture.

For the benefit of all mankind, the Bible frames God’s thoughts and actions in human terms. The Infinite describes Himself in language composed out of the stuff of human life, which we can all readily relate to. Because man is in God’s image, there is sufficient God-likeness within him for the Absolute to draw upon. But if we also hold within our minds the counter-balancing truth, essential to a worshipful and reverential mind, that God is also unlike us, that He is higher than us, that He is, in fact, a transcendent being and not a man, we are not at risk of taking the analogue and making an idol out of it. For the good philosopher knows how earth-bound human language is, carved out by experience in the realm of the five physical senses, yet indispensable in describing the realities that exist on higher plains. There is no difficulty in, say, relating a historical account of the appearance of earth and sky, vegetation and animal life in quite literal terms (cf. Gen. 1-2). But when we wish to discuss mental things we are obliged to borrow almost all the words we apply from the material world. "Learning enlightens the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things before hidden." [1] In this way, by appropriating phraseology from a lower sphere, we are able to discuss the metaphysical together. And this holds true for the ways and workings of the divine too, which we can only as yet comprehend “as through a glass darkly”. But only “let there be in our minds proper notions of God, and the tropical language we must and ought to employ in speaking of divine things will derive no taint of error from its original application to their human analogues" [2] -- Our assurance of God’s omnipresence in Psalm 139 forbids us to take literally the image of the earth as a stool for His feet to rest upon (Is. 66:1). Our belief in God’s omniscience (Job. 37:16) prevents us from interpreting God’s “repentance” in Genesis 6:6 as the admission of an error in divine wisdom. And note this assertion: God does not really “whistle” when He wants to send a plague of flies (Is. 7:18)! - Anymore than He literally speaks words when He creates! The kingdom of heaven is “like a farmer sowing a seed”, but will you really push the analogy to the point of absurdity?

How indeed can the Bible tell you and me, simple fellows that we are, anything at all about God and the unfamiliar, without drawing upon the familiar? What other bridge is there over which we may pass to the unknown? To demand that the description precisely conform to the reality of the thing described is to end with nothing higher than our own thoughts and experiences - no God at all, in fact, and no faith.

For this reason, a slavish literalism is inexcusable when the Holy One is in the hotspot of biblical revelation. When the God of the Bible condescends to describe His thoughts and actions to us, stooping into the realm of human language and scooping up the earthly materials of our experiences to compound them into a mosaic of images containing “the likeness of the appearance” of shapes and pattern we’ve witnessed in creation, let us be careful not to press the language under our feet and trample on the divine nature by thoughts of God that are no higher than our muddy boots.

---

[1]Webster’s Dictionary
[2] Albert Barnes, Bible commentator

 

[Theophilus7]

Theophilus7, you should know by now that I lean towards OPen Theism.

I knew you were in sympathy with it. I didn't know you had actually committed yourself in any respect.

Sorry if that shocks you (hehehehehehee).

I'll get over it.

Disclaimer: Not all, probably not even most Word-Faithers are Open Theist. Nevertheless, their theology, as Theophilus7 well points out, contradicts with their Arminian views. I find that much of the teaching with Open Theism is consistent with the Word-Faith model of God and faith and is very much in line with the LITERAL rendering of Scripture.

We must start a discussion thread on this some time, victoryword. That would be interesting.

Now if you are familiar with OV (and you seemed to indicate that in your comments on The A. B. Simpson thread) then you should know what responses I would give to your questions. Are you still wanting me to answer this is is this sufficient for you?

I know a little about it. If the future is partially veiled from God's eyes, and if He isn't in complete control (in the meticulous sense), then the possibility of a God who needs faith takes on considerably more substance. That's all I have concluded on that matter to date...I would have to really sit down and don the thinking cap to explore this issue any further. WoF teaching would sit better within an OV theological context. I think I can see that much.

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Theophilus7

I don't think of you as a WoF basher at all. I usually enjoy your posts though I know that we disagree on some things. I also enjoy your challenges to my beliefs. I personally need them because they will either cause me to be more grounded as I confront your questions or I will have to chuck them when I have no valid Scriptural defense for them.

Thank you, victoryword.

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

This isn't really relevant, Andrew. We are not disputing the language itself, but how God intends us to understand it. When the Bible calls God a rock, it uses the Hebrew word for a normal chunk of rock, but that doesn't mean God expects us to believe He's a glorified hunk of stone.

Pip pip,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Mark 11: 22***And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God; [YLT] I belive the Greek construction here is faith OF God, as explained b4 by disdaskalos.

The Greek text reads echete pistin theou, which, I believe, can be translated "have faith in God" (objective genitive) or "have faith of God" (subjective genitive). Either seems to be a valid translation of the Greek. The question is, which is the most appropriate, given various contextual and theological considerations. Naturally, I gravitate towards the objective genitive.

Why should there be a compromise? If we say that God has perfect faith, does it make him less omnipotent, omniscience, omniwhatever? It is like saying that if God has love or joy, he is no longer omniscience.

But it isn't. Faith and omniscience do not sit well with one another because they both have something different to say about what God can "see". "Faith" is the antithesis of "sight" ("for we walk by faith and not by sight), it is the "evidence of things not seen". The traditional definition of God's all-seeing omniscience refuses to mix with faith in the divine nature because of the implications about future-knowledge. Ask victoryword.

God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[victoryword]

(Concerning Open Theism) I knew you were in sympathy with it. I didn't know you had actually committed yourself in any respect.

For the past two and a half years I have been researching it and the Scriptures supporting it. My biggest obstacles for embracing it fully was the books of Daniel and Revelation.

It's only recently that I have made up my mind to "come out of the closet" about my beliefs whereas before I only showed sympathy towards it. I have found that it just simply makes more sense and explains things much better. I think the thing that has grabbed me the most is that those who opposed Open Theism have not given me the best arguments against it, from my perspective anyhow.

We must start a discussion thread on this some time, victoryword. That would be interesting.

I have planned to write a paper on why I believe Word-Faithers should embrace Open Theism. I will probably include it as an appendix in a book I plan to write in the near future offering a defense against the anti-WoF stuff. I am debating right now whether I want to write a book as a rebuttal to Hank Hanegraaf's CinC or if I want to attempt to tackle all anti-WoF books (or most of them). No decision yet. Nevertheless, I may include the OV paper with it.

However, a thread on this just might help me to think through some of these implications. I tried starting one on another forum that is primarily Word-Faith, but it seemed like the WoFers there saw it as one of those hot potatoes that they did not want to touch.

I know a little about it. If the future is partially veiled from God's eyes, and if He isn't in complete control (in the meticulous sense), then the possibility of a God who needs faith takes on considerably more substance. That's all I have concluded on that matter to date...I would have to really sit down and don the thinking cap to explore this issue any further. WoF teaching would sit better within an OV theological context. I think I can see that much.

Theophilus7

In brief ...

The Open Theists believe that God knows all things that are ACTUAL. They believe that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and present. They believe that he has exhaustive knowledge of every one of His creations. He knows us so well that He can accurately predict what we would do in a given situation or under certain circumstances.

However, as far as the future is concerned, this is not an ACTUAL because the future has not yet occurred. Science fiction Time Machine movies would make it seem as this were so but the Open Theists argue against this theory. They believe that since the future has not yet occurred God cannot have exhaustive knowledge of the future, except where He has stated that He will cause certain things to occur (for example the book of Revelation).

However, if you believe that God lives in the ETERNAL NOW and that He experiences no succession of time, you could never accept the above. Most of Christianity believes that God experiences all of history at one moment. We have always been taught that the past, present, and future is all the same to God and He experiences all three at the same time.

God is all powerful so if He declares that He will do something then it will get done because His Word shall not return unto Him void.

 

[victoryword]

The Greek text reads echete pistin theou, which, I believe, can be translated "have faith in God" (objective genitive) or "have faith of God" (subjective genitive). Either seems to be a valid translation of the Greek. The question is, which is the most appropriate, given various contextual and theological considerations. Naturally, I gravitate towards the objective genitive.

Here are some articles that you may find interesting:
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godkind1.html
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godkind2.html
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godfaith.html
http://www.jarom.net/greek.htm

But it isn't. Faith and omniscience do not sit well with one another because they both have something different to say about what God can "see". "Faith" is the antithesis of "sight" ("for we walk by faith and not by sight), it is the "evidence of things not seen". The traditional definition of God's all-seeing omniscience refuses to mix with faith in the divine nature because of the implications about future-knowledge. Ask victoryword.

God bless,

Theophilus7

Well, actually, omniscience is NOT the problem. It is how omniscience is defined. There is no doubt that God knows all things. 1 John 3:20 tells us, "For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."

The debate is not as to whether or not God knows all things but the debate is really about what is the all things that God knows. See my response to you above concerning what Open Theism believes on this matter. So I see omniscience as knowing all that can be known.

Let's just say that we know that God is omnipotent and can do all things. But even this must be defined. For example, God cannot make 4 + 4 = 5. God cannot create a square circle. God cannot blow Himself out of existence, etc. So we see LOGICAL limitations to God's omnipotence. The same can be said about His omniscience, or better yet, the implication that He possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. God cannot know a future that is not there except that future that He has declared will be.

But as I stated earlier, if you believe that God lives in the ETERNAL NOW and that He experiences no succession of time, you could never accept the above.

 

[victoryword]

Martin Luther on Health and Prosperity

While discussing Martin Luther's Word-Faith leanings on another forum I was given this statement:

I don't think that you could truthfully say that Luthers emphasis was on "how do we get our stuff". Much of WOF certainly lines up with scripture, but I guess I could start the "First church of Cana", invite winos and drunkards and be in the "word".
What is a WOF guy doing with hermeunuttiness anyway? I thought that was for the heretic hunters.

Below is my response to the above:
Weeeelllll, I guess it all depnds on how one might interpret Luther. Allow me to quote you a passage from Luther on the Lord's prayer and you determine for yourself what Luther may have been saying:

Let this be a very brief explanation and sketch, showing how far this petition extends through all conditions on earth. Of this any one might indeed make a long prayer, and with many words enumerate all the things that are included therein, as that we pray God to give us food and drink, clothing, house, and home, and health of body; also that He cause the grain and fruits of the field to grow and mature well; furthermore, that He help us at home towards good housekeeping, that He give and preserve to us a godly wife, children, and servants, that He cause our work, trade, or whatever we are engaged in to prosper and succeed, favor us with faithful neighbors and good friends, etc. Likewise, that He give to emperors, kings, and all estates, and especially to the rulers of our country and to all counselors, magistrates, and officers, wisdom, strength, and success that they may govern well and vanquish the Turks and all enemies; to subjects and the common people, obedience, peace, and harmony in their life with one another, and on the other hand, that He would preserve us from all sorts of calamity to body and livelihood, as lightning, hail, fire, flood, poison, pestilence, cattle-plague, war and bloodshed, famine, destructive beasts, wicked men, etc. All this it is well to impress upon the simple, namely, that these things come from God, and must be prayed for by us.

Now Luther believed that prayer included asking God for MATERIAL things, including HEALTH and PROSPERITY. I am not sure if anyone sees it the way I am seeing it but I can't get any other understanding from his words. He may not have taught EXTREME PROSPERITY, but then neither do I and many other moderate Word-Faithers. To me, just what he stated above is excellent coming from an ex-catholic priest whose religion taught them to make "vows of poverty."

Anyway, as you read the next paragraph of this sermon, Luther goes on to teach that it is Satan himself who tries to prevent God's people from getting their material needs met:

But this petition is especially directed also against our chief enemy, the devil. For all his thought and desire is to deprive us of all that we have from God, or to hinder it; and he is not satisfied to obstruct and destroy spiritual government in leading souls astray by his lies and bringing them under his power, but he also prevents and hinders the stability of all government and honorable, peaceable relations on earth. There he causes so much contention, murder, sedition, and war also lightning and hail to destroy grain and cattle, to poison the air, etc. In short, he is sorry that any one has a morsel of bread from God and eats it in peace; and if it were in his power, and our prayer (next to God) did not prevent him, we would not keep a straw in the field, a farthing in the house, yea, not even our life for an hour, especially those who have the Word of God and would like to be Christians.

So we can see that often we are engaged in warfare for our material needs. It is not God withholding anything but it is Satan's attacks. Prayer is God's means for overcoming Satan's attacks and receiving God's blessings.
You can read the rest of this by accessing the link below:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-12.html

 

[pmarquette]

As a word of Faith Bible student , I understand where you are at and going with this . Some times we " fast foward " in our theology and lose some of our brethren....

If you break up long posts with spaces or colors , it makes it easier to read and conprehend ....

Might insert the following scripture references into " Luther's " text " where appropriate for those less familiar with the biblical doctrine / word of faith position ...

sowing and reaping : 2 Corinthians 9.6-9 ; Galatians 6.7 ; Luke 6.38 , 11.9
deliverance : 1 John 5.18 ; James 4.7
faith words - wrestle with devil : Mark 11.23-4 ; 1 Jn 5.14-17 ; Isaiah 43.26
condition of heart = return on investment: 2 Corinthians 9.6-8 ; 1 Peter 3.4 ; Isaiah 55.10 ; Galatians 6.7
favor / grace : Nehemiah , Deuteromomy 28.11-6 , 1 Peter 3.4

 

[victoryword]

You are right pmarquette. I am making some assumptions that many may already be familiar with these isssues, and you know what happens when we assume.

Last night I was thinking about making sure that I inserted both Scriptures, topic, and some actual Word-Faith teacher quotes when I prepare my REAL Martin Luther essay which I might place on my webpage later this year. So I am with you. I just assumed that those on the forums were somewhat familiar with the Word-Faith issues.

Again, thanks for the correction.

 

[Theophilus7]

Here are some articles that you may find interesting:
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godkind1.html
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godkind2.html
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/godfaith.html
http://www.jarom.net/greek.htm

Actually, I have already read all of these before, though I shall have another look at them.

Well, actually, omniscience is NOT the problem. It is how omniscience is defined.

Though I could accuse you of quibbling, I suppose I shall let you get away with that. You may call the OV concept of God's knowledge omniscience if you wish. (I'm in an indulgent mood today.)

Let's just say that we know that God is omnipotent and can do all things. But even this must be defined. For example, God cannot make 4 + 4 = 5. God cannot create a square circle. God cannot blow Himself out of existence, etc. So we see LOGICAL limitations to God's omnipotence. The same can be said about His omniscience, or better yet, the implication that He possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. God cannot know a future that is not there except that future that He has declared will be.

Thank you for that explanation. I see what you are saying, and I suppose OV advocates can keep the term omniscience. It's an interesting point of view. I wouldn't wish to reject it out of hand... I shall look into it some more.

But as I stated earlier, if you believe that God lives in the ETERNAL NOW and that He experiences no succession of time, you could never accept the above.

Quite.

God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

What a very interesting Christian you are, victoryword. I am trying to figure out whether you are a die-hard WoF Christian looking for a theology, or a truth-seeker who has genuinely reached the conclusion that the WoF message is pretty much the best out there. Or perhaps a mix of both. None of my business of course, but I can't help wondering what makes you tick...

I will read your book, when it appears.

 

[victoryword]

What a very interesting Christian you are, victoryword. I am trying to figure out whether you are a die-hard WoF Christian looking for a theology, or a truth-seeker who has genuinely reached the conclusion that the WoF message is pretty much the best out there. Or perhaps a mix of both. None of my business of course, but I can't help wondering what makes you tick...

I will read your book, when it appears.

Patience. Those things and more shall be revealed.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The verse which we start our study is Mark 11:22
Mark 11:22 (KJS)
"And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God."
{Have...: or, Have the faith of God} <<< translation note in KJ

As you can see in this quote, the KJV adds a footnote indicating that the Greek reads "Have the faith of God". Young's literal translation also supports this reading.

Mark 11:22 (YLT)
And Jesus answering saith to them,
`Have faith of God;
A note in the Treasurey of Scriptural Knowledge also supports this translation:
Mark 11:22
* Have. 9:23 2Ch 20:20 Ps 62:8 Isa 7:9 Joh 14:1 *** 1:1
* faith in God. or, the faith of God.
The Greek Wording of this verse is:
Mark 11:22 (GTR)
kai apokriqeis ihsous legei autois
and answering Jesus says to them
ecete pistin qeou
have faith of God

The word qeou is transliterated "theou" is found in the NT over 650 times. Greek is similar to English in many ways, and this phase is not always translated "of God". The Greek word is in the genitive case, which usually denotes possession.

Of the 652 times the word is found in the NT,
it is or could be translated:
· "of God" a total of 617 times
· "from God" a total of 15 times
· "before God" a total of 10 times
· "to God" a total of 4 times
· Other meanings- 6 times

The numbers alone are compelling. But numbers alone are not proof enough. As with all language, use is determined by context. That is what the words say are detemined to some extent by how the words are used in the sentence. Looking at our list of 652 examples of the word theou (of God) we see that the vast majority (617 or 95%) of the time the word denotes possession.

Such as:
· "...the kingdom of God.." or "..God's kingdom..."
· "...the Son of God..." or "...God's Son..."
· "...the throne of God..." or "...God's throne..."

Other times the use indicates that something is coming from God.
Such as:
1Cor 1:3 grace to you and peace from God
Hebr 6:7 blessing from God

In every case, the use is detemined by the context. The first example would not really make sense if we tried to translate it "grace to you and peace of God". You might figure out that the grace and peace were initially God's and were being extended to you. We could say "God's grace and peace to you", and not do damage to the meaning. Looking at the examples which can not be literally translated "of God", we see a geneal rule emerge. Translate theou "of God" unless the context does not support the wording. Theological or religious meaning should play no part in the translation. If "pistin theou" makes grammatical sense, this is how it should be translated. There is no grammatical or contextual reason to change the words, add words, or take away words.
Returning to our passage, let us look again at the exact wording:

Mark 11:22 (GTR)
kai apokriqeis ihsous legei autois ecete pistin theou
and answering Jesus says to them have faith of God

Some versons insert the word "in" between faith and God, and remove the word "of"... hence: "have faith in God". Of course we should have faith in God, and this thought is supported by many other passages in scripture. But this particular verse is very specific in it's wording. The Greek word "en" (in) is not found in the Greek and there no grammatical reason to insert the English word "in". The sentence makes perfect sense as is, and any variation is done for purely theological reasons. In other words the omission of the word "of" and insertion of the word "in" is done to further a theological position.
Some have taken this verse and changed the wording for a theological reason. They claim that God does not have, or exert faith. Because of this position, they change the wording of this verse from "have faith of God" to "have faith in God".
If we look at every instance of the word "theou", we see that this is never done in any other verse. The insertion of the word "in" violates the basic genitive meaning of the verse, and forces it to assume the objective meaning. Jesus was not telling us to have faith in God in this particular verse (though He does in other places). He is telling us to have the faith of God, or God's faith, or the same kind of faith that God has.
If Jesus wanted to tell us to have faith in God in this verse, He certainly could have using the normal and accepting phrasology that is used many times in the NT.
That God actually has, and operates as a faith being is evident from a casual study of the scriptures.
Why is it that people refuse to accept that God as a spirit possesses the spiritual attribute of faith in the same way He possesses love, joy, peace, and other manifestations common to spirit beings?