Faith is a Gift!

Arc · Apr 19, 2011

JM said:
Can you give us a quote where Johnny Mac states that?

I have Mounce's Basic Greek on my shelf. It's widely used and accepted as faithful and scholarly. He states that faith is a gift.

jm

John MacArthur (debating the no-lordship salvation position) says this in his book "Faith Works" on page 69:

Even faith is "not of ourselves"; it is included in "the gift of God".
Some no-lordship advocates object to this interpretation. They point out that "faith" (pistis) is feminine, while "that" (tauto) is neuter. Grammatically, the pronoun "that" has no clear antecedent. It refers not to the noun, faith, but more likely to the (understood) act of believing. It could possibly refer to the whole of salvation.

I point this out because, unlike the youtube video presentation, John doesn't seem to know of a Greek rule where "and that" was written the way it was on purpose to point at the whole phrase. Yet John can read Greek. Interesting.

Hammster · Apr 19, 2011

Tim Myers said:
"Just faith in God.
"
I disagree....I believe ALL faith comes from God.....

Because God is the One who created us with the ability to have faith in anything.....whether it is faith in God, faith in a bridge, or faith in a chair......

So everybody believes in God and is saved? Cool.

I'm cookoo for Forum Runner.

Hentenza · Apr 19, 2011

Arc said:
This was an answer to the question: What must we do to do the work of God. The work of God is that you must believe. And this is exactly how they understood Jesus, and I think they probably knew Greek too. Otherwise Jesus would have been asking them to do something that they in fact don't do, but God does.

So if the work of believing is God doing the believing then God is in fact believing in Himself. Which is nonsense.

Here is a simple way to put this to the test:

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

How is it that some can believe for awhile, when believing is "the work of God" or "a gift of God". How then can it fail? Be careful with your answer since:

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.

and

John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

So how is it then that some believe the word of God for awhile?

Did they actually believe it? As a deacon in my church I see many a pew warmer.

nobdysfool · Apr 20, 2011

When Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe", He wasn't saying that faith was something that the person supplies themselves, He was saying that the very act of believing is the work of God on that person's heart. As Jesus often did, He answered the peoples' questions, not in the way they asked them, but in the way things truly are. When Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe", He wasn't saying "This is the work of God (that you do)", He was saying the very act of believing in Him was something God caused in their heart. They were asking Him, "What might we do, that we might work the works of God?" They were asking Him how they could do the same miracles He had just done, multiplying food, etc. Jesus answered them with the basic, primary requirement, that they must believe on Him, and that act of believing was a work that God does in their heart, not something that they do by themselves, from themselves.

The work of God He referred to was not something that they do, but something God does.

bling · Apr 20, 2011

nobdysfool said:
When Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe", He wasn't saying that faith was something that the person supplies themselves, He was saying that the very act of believing is the work of God on that person's heart. As Jesus often did, He answered the peoples' questions, not in the way they asked them, but in the way things truly are. When Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe", He wasn't saying "This is the work of God (that you do)", He was saying the very act of believing in Him was something God caused in their heart. They were asking Him, "What might we do, that we might work the works of God?" They were asking Him how they could do the same miracles He had just done, multiplying food, etc. Jesus answered them with the basic, primary requirement, that they must believe on Him, and that act of believing was a work that God does in their heart, not something that they do by themselves, from themselves.

The work of God He referred to was not something that they do, but something God does.

Jesus is the perfect communicartor. Since they asked "what work can we do?" With your explanation Jesus should have said "Nothing".
People "Trust" in something and trusting (faith) in God is something the lowliest mature person on earth can do. "Faith" in not work by the understanding of these first century Jews, but "faith" in the spiritual kingdom might best be represented by works in the earthly kingdom.

nobdysfool · Apr 20, 2011

bling said:
Jesus is the perfect communicartor. Since they asked "what work can we do?" With your explanation Jesus should have said "Nothing".
People "Trust" in something and trusting (faith) in God is something the lowliest mature person on earth can do. "Faith" in not work by the understanding of these first century Jews, but "faith" in the spiritual kingdom might best be represented by works in the earthly kingdom.

Sorry, but that doesn't address what I said at all. Jesus' purpose in the way He answered them was to refocus them. They were looking at what Jesus did, and wanting to know how they could do the same, not for God's glory, but for their own benefit. They were focused on "doing", and Jesus told them that the work of God was that they would believe, a work that God would do in them. It's obvious that older English idioms and grammatical structure are lost on you. The people were asking about doing the works of God. Jesus' answer was about the work of God, so it is clear that His answer was not according to the question they asked. He refocused to the real issue, which was faith in God, not doing miracles.

heymikey80 · Apr 22, 2011

Arc said:
If faith is a gift, and God gives us faith, then it is God believing in Himself. Does God need to believe in Himself?

It's gramatically incorrect to say "it is the gift of God" refers to the word faith in Eph 2. Even John MacArthur agrees (and he's a Calvinist).

The gift of God is salvation. We access grace by faith (rom 5:2).

The wider context:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast ( 2:89 ). Faith is our response, not the cause of salvation. Even faith is not of ourselves; it is included in the gift of God.

Some no-lordship advocates object to this interpretation. They point out that faith ( pistis ) is feminine, while that ( touto ) is neuter. Grammatically, the pronoun that has no clear antecedent. It refers not to the noun, faith, but more likely to the (understood) act of believing. It could possibly refer to the whole of salvation.

Either way, the meaning is inescapable: Faith is Gods gracious gift.

Didja catch that last sentence? It's flatly clear. Even in Eph 2, it's not grammatically incorrect. And note MacArthur's qualification: "Some no-lordship advocates object". That's not MacArthur's assertion that it's grammatically incorrect. That's MacArthur's assertion that other people object.

But the grammar does not make the view grammatically incorrect. It means there's a language usage covering this.

Arc said:
I point this out because, unlike the youtube video presentation, John doesn't seem to know of a Greek rule where "and that" was written the way it was on purpose to point at the whole phrase. Yet John can read Greek. Interesting.

Hm, how can "Even faith is not of ourselves; it is included in the gift of God." be converted into "John doesn't seem to know a Greek rule .... to point to the whole phrase."?

No, John does seem to know the Greek rule that makes faith a part of "and that not of yourselves".

And that is not surprising given that most languages aren't precise in all modes of speech. The grammar's fine, the interpretation's fine, MacArthur understands Greek grammar through his training, and this line of assertions is overthrown.

I don't even particularly like MacArthur's mode of rhetoric. But that's the facts.

bling · Apr 22, 2011

heymikey80 said:
The wider context:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast ( 2:89 ). Faith is our response, not the cause of salvation. Even faith is not of ourselves; it is included in the gift of God.

Some no-lordship advocates object to this interpretation. They point out that faith ( pistis ) is feminine, while that ( touto ) is neuter. Grammatically, the pronoun that has no clear antecedent. It refers not to the noun, faith, but more likely to the (understood) act of believing. It could possibly refer to the whole of salvation.

Either way, the meaning is inescapable: Faith is Gods gracious gift.

Didja catch that last sentence? It's flatly clear. Even in Eph 2, it's not grammatically incorrect. And note MacArthur's qualification: "Some no-lordship advocates object". That's not MacArthur's assertion that it's grammatically incorrect. That's MacArthur's assertion that other people object.

But the grammar does not make the view grammatically incorrect. It means there's a language usage covering this.

Hm, how can "Even faith is not of ourselves; it is included in the gift of God." be converted into "John doesn't seem to know a Greek rule .... to point to the whole phrase."?

No, John does seem to know the Greek rule that makes faith a part of "and that not of yourselves".

And that is not surprising given that most languages aren't precise in all modes of speech. The grammar's fine, the interpretation's fine, MacArthur understands Greek grammar through his training, and this line of assertions is overthrown.

I don't even particularly like MacArthur's mode of rhetoric. But that's the facts.

OK I did not want to do this but

I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:

And that not of yourselves - That is,salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance

"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.

This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This

You call look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.

heymikey please look carefully: More then just the grammar you have to explore all the context: Eph. 2: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

The gift is taught to not be gotten by works, so if the gift was faith how would someone even consider getting faith by working for it? That is not a plausible concept that would need to be expressed and especially taught against. We are taught in scripture other places that you can not earn or work for salvation and it is a gift. But where else is it taught to not work to earn faith? We understand faith as trusting in God for our salvation and not working to earn salvation.

Hammster · Apr 22, 2011

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

BrotherBob · Apr 22, 2011

Do you agree that Jesus is the author (originator) and finisher of our faith? as it states in Hebrews 12:2.

heymikey80 · Apr 22, 2011

bling said:
OK I did not want to do this but

I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:

And that not of yourselves - That is,salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance

"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.

And that's simply not the case.

Were we to be so strict, "salvation" doesn't appear as an antecedent noun in the sentence either, so the referring pronoun wouldn't be to "salvation", either. In fact, "salvation" is similarly feminine in gender, so "and that" wouldn't match up with such a noun, either.

You begin to see the point of this whole controversy. There is no antecedent noun that is neuter in gender.

So "and that" is free to modify anything, as far as the gender is concerned.

And that is the point. And that means that the language permits it, because "and that" modifies something. The writer had an intent.

The precedent for that is obvious & clear. You cite Chrysostom: he's a native speaker of Greek -- and that's quite an argument in favor of his position. For the record, so did the Council of Orange, in 529 AD. Native speakers of Middle Greek knew what was being said.

But there's another example of this phrase being used characteristically for the nearest antecedent:

conduct yourselves simply worthy of the good news of the Christ, that, whether I've come and seen you or being absent I may hear of the things concerning you, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the good news, 28and not terrified in anything by those opposing, which to them indeed is a token of destruction, but to you of salvation, and that from God; Pp 1:27-28

There's no neuter noun "and that" modifies here either. Expand the antecedents of this verse and that will demonstrate an increasingly convincing argument in favor of Calvinism the further afield you place the antecedent. It can't be salvation, so it must be their destruction. Oh, wait, that's also feminine, too. Next one's masculine, feminine ... nope, not a single noun antecedent to this neuter pronoun.

Oh, but wait: say you made it the concept here -- Paul is using imperitives to command us to do all this stuff -- but then he says "and that from God"? Really. So the things we do are actually occurring at God's initiative. Hm. Sounds very Calvinistic to me.

It's inconsistent to even argue about this -- because we do this kind of thing all the time in common English usage -- and that, it's not even unclear. It's common usage. It's a formulaic phrase introducing a new meaning to the sentence on the antecedent noun or concept. It's linguistically not even a problem at that.

And if you've understood me so far, you know that to be true. I've been using "that" as a pronoun without an antecedent throughout this explanation. Pronouns don't need to align in gender when they convey additional meaning such as, "Think about this idea as well." No one pays heed to simple grammar rules in all cases, as Churchill said of "one rule up with which I will not put." No, this verse conveys added meaning through the use of a formulaic phrase, "and that".

bling said:
This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This

You call look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.

Couldn't care less about grammarians. I do care about linguists and native speakers. They're effectively unanimous on this point.

Grammarians have missed the forest for the trees. Ultimately, if the neuter pronoun is looking for a neuter noun to refer to, it's not there. Therefore this quite competent Greek writer either knows more about writing Greek than grammar scholars objecting to his expression. Either that or he's just committed a grammar error.

bling said:
heymikey please look carefully: More then just the grammar you have to explore all the context: Eph. 2: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

The gift is taught to not be gotten by works, so if the “gift” was “faith” how would someone even consider getting “faith” by working for it? That is not a plausible concept that would need to be expressed and especially taught against. We are taught in scripture other places that you can not earn or work for salvation and it is a gift. But where else is it taught to not “work” to earn “faith”? We understand “faith” as trusting in God for our salvation and not working to earn salvation.

Oh, but it was especially taught against:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Rom 4:1-7

30What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33as it is written,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 9:30-33

So -- objections noted and accounted ... for.

bling · Apr 22, 2011

heymikey80 said:
And that's simply not the case.

Were we to be so strict, "salvation" doesn't appear as an antecedent noun in the sentence either, so the referring pronoun wouldn't be to "salvation", either. In fact, "salvation" is similarly feminine in gender, so "and that" wouldn't match up with such a noun, either.

You begin to see the point of this whole controversy. There is no antecedent noun that is neuter in gender.

So "and that" is free to modify anything, as far as the gender is concerned.

And that is the point. And that means that the language permits it, because "and that" modifies something. The writer had an intent.

The precedent for that is obvious & clear. You cite Chrysostom: he's a native speaker of Greek -- and that's quite an argument in favor of his position. For the record, so did the Council of Orange, in 529 AD. Native speakers of Middle Greek knew what was being said.

But there's another example of this phrase being used characteristically for the nearest antecedent:

conduct yourselves simply worthy of the good news of the Christ, that, whether I've come and seen you or being absent I may hear of the things concerning you, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the good news, 28and not terrified in anything by those opposing, which to them indeed is a token of destruction, but to you of salvation, and that from God; Pp 1:27-28

There's no neuter noun "and that" modifies here either. Expand the antecedents of this verse and that will demonstrate an increasingly convincing argument in favor of Calvinism the further afield you place the antecedent. It can't be salvation, so it must be their destruction. Oh, wait, that's also feminine, too. Next one's masculine, feminine ... nope, not a single noun antecedent to this neuter pronoun.

Oh, but wait: say you made it the concept here -- Paul is using imperitives to command us to do all this stuff -- but then he says "and that from God"? Really. So the things we do are actually occurring at God's initiative. Hm. Sounds very Calvinistic to me.

It's inconsistent to even argue about this -- because we do this kind of thing all the time in common English usage -- and that, it's not even unclear. It's common usage. It's a formulaic phrase introducing a new meaning to the sentence on the antecedent noun or concept. It's linguistically not even a problem at that.

And if you've understood me so far, you know that to be true. I've been using "that" as a pronoun without an antecedent throughout this explanation. Pronouns don't need to align in gender when they convey additional meaning such as, "Think about this idea as well." No one pays heed to simple grammar rules in all cases, as Churchill said of "one rule up with which I will not put." No, this verse conveys added meaning through the use of a formulaic phrase, "and that".

Couldn't care less about grammarians. I do care about linguists and native speakers. They're effectively unanimous on this point.

Grammarians have missed the forest for the trees. Ultimately, if the neuter pronoun is looking for a neuter noun to refer to, it's not there. Therefore this quite competent Greek writer either knows more about writing Greek than grammar scholars objecting to his expression. Either that or he's just committed a grammar error.

Oh, but it was especially taught against:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Rom 4:1-7

30What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33as it is written,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 9:30-33

So -- objections noted and accounted ... for.

We are not trying to use English linguistics to determine what a particular verse says, but try to figure how the first century Greek reader that the letter was written would understand it. Strict grammatical rules were not always followed for poetic reasons and for emphasis, but neither of those reasons seem to apply here. Grammatically the gift being faith does not fit but the whole phrase with salvation by faith. Do you have any resents Greek scholars supporting your conclusion?

I have a bigger problem with your two sections os scripture addressing the concept of trying to work .to obtain faith.
Romans 4: 1-7 talks about working to obtain justification (which is not faith); Believe (faith) provides righteousness (again nothing about trying to work to gain faith; You work to be paid (again not faith); BUT it does talk about faith (believing) without works producing righteousness (which again does not suggest anyone ever tried to work for faith.

Romans 9: 30-33 talks about the gentile not working to obtain righteousness (righteousness is not faith) but faith produces righteousness; the Israelites tried to work for righteousness (again they were not working for faith). Faith can produce righteousness.

Think about it: how and what would a person do (work at) to obtain faith (yes people could try to work at obtaining righteousness or salvation or justification but not faith)? It is not a logical concept. Faith in the form of trust is like giving up on working (trying to do it yourself) and putting works down to fall on your face trusting only God which is kind of the opposite of working for it.

heymikey80 · Apr 22, 2011

bling said:
We are not trying to use English linguistics to determine what a particular verse says, but try to figure how the first century Greek reader that the letter was written would understand it. Strict grammatical rules were not always followed for poetic reasons and for emphasis, but neither of those reasons seem to apply here. Grammatically the gift being faith does not fit but the whole phrase with “salvation by faith”. Do you have any resents Greek scholars supporting your conclusion?

Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but all the antecedent nouns are feminine. To encompass them all the following pronoun should not be neuter. It should be feminine plural.

That's the grammar rule. It's violated, too.

But then: explain Pp 1:29. Then we'll talk.

Ultimately some Greek scholars say it refers to the phrase because it violates every rule, and they feel they should provide something to harmonize the violation with semantics. But they've provided a razor (as in Occam's "simplest answer rules"), not a viewpoint supported with other texts. Any other razor can easily suffice: especially when native speakers so often cite Eph 2:8 as saying exactly what Calvin, nay even Aquinas, and Chrysostom, and Augustine, and the Council of Orange said. Do I need to expand on it? Pelagius is not known to have explained how Eph 2:8 could harmonize with his view, and he was confronted with this verse again & again. Apparently it took another 1500 years, during which time native speakers all died out, to where Eph 2:8 could be reinterpreted to understand it this way.

The scope of the rule is awfully obvious in Pp 1:29. At least it better be if you're going to get by without embracing Calvinism, hook-line-sinker. It's referring to the vindication of the Philippians by God. That's the immediate antecedent: and gender doesn't match it

But expanding any further would clinch the Calvinistic argument for the destruction of people by God, for the compatibilistic argument of agreement between human will and Godly will, for God's work in human motives.

So for the sake of preserving anything non-Calvinistic, someone's really got to relent that it's not the whole antecedent phrase. Otherwise Pp 1:29 provides the support. Right now you're just losing faith as a gift. With Pp 1:29, you lose the whole ball game.

bling said:
I have a bigger problem with your two sections os scripture addressing the concept of trying to work .to obtain faith.
Romans 4: 1-7 talks about working to obtain justification (which is not faith); Believe (faith) provides righteousness (again nothing about trying to “work” to gain faith; You work to be paid (again not faith); BUT it does talk about faith (believing) without works producing righteousness (which again does not suggest anyone ever tried to work for faith.

Romans 9: 30-33 talks about the gentile not working to obtain righteousness (righteousness is not faith) but faith produces righteousness; the Israelites tried to work for righteousness (again they were not working for faith). Faith can produce righteousness.

Think about it: how and what would a person “do” (work at) to obtain faith (yes people could try to work at obtaining righteousness or salvation or justification but not faith)? It is not a logical concept. Faith in the form of trust is like giving up on working (trying to do it yourself) and putting works down to fall on your face trusting only God which is kind of the opposite of working for it.

OK, I missed that you're asking something about working to obtain faith. They're poles apart, that's what Paul is pointing out. But -- Paul is pointing it out. That's an issue Paul is constantly harping on: the theologies Paul is reacting against have mixed faith & works as a kind of "invitation" to God to give His gifts for the release of God's people, Israel.

The citations show Paul constantly forces the issue: faith is not works. Faith is not work. Faith isn't working. They're two different things. I understand though that Judaic texts from the period do tend to mix grace and works, faith and law, and that's why Paul reacts so often against these concepts. So they're not inherently separated from one another: people are actually thinking this.

And they did so later, it's certain. Pelagius comes to mind again.

Plus, faith is considered a gift of the Spirit, and a fruit of the Spirit. So the concept of faith being a gift -- that's already established. The only question that this is really narrowed to is whether saving faith is a gift.

billybtennessee · Apr 23, 2011

"Faith without works is dead" The body without the spirit is dead. Both the same. This is what the Bible says. Same exact words. People can use all sorts of man made words and definitions, write a book about the subject, write till their fingers turn blue or bleed, and it will not change what the verse says one letter. The dead part is what people do. Almost the entire Bible is about believing what it says and acting on it. Anyone who chooses to argue about that will be arguing their entire lives, and when they leave they will have changed nothing, scripture will still be the same. We earned nothing God did for us. There would be nothing to have faith in without God. So both sides are right when we realize this. What is one doing with faith, all that God did for us, is what we will answer for, not God. Faith without works is dead.

student ad x · Apr 23, 2011

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith. - Romans 1:16-17 ESV

Hammster · Apr 23, 2011

billybtennessee said:
"Faith without works is dead" The body without the spirit is dead. Both the same. This is what the Bible says. Same exact words. People can use all sorts of man made words and definitions, write a book about the subject, write till their fingers turn blue or bleed, and it will not change what the verse says one letter. The dead part is what people do. Almost the entire Bible is about believing what it says and acting on it. Anyone who chooses to argue about that will be arguing their entire lives, and when they leave they will have changed nothing, scripture will still be the same. We earned nothing God did for us. There would be nothing to have faith in without God. So both sides are right when we realize this. What is one doing with faith, all that God did for us, is what we will answer for, not God. Faith without works is dead.

Where does faith come from? That's the issue being discussed in this theology sub-forum.

BrotherBob · Apr 23, 2011

billybtennessee said:
"Faith without works is dead" The body without the spirit is dead. Both the same. This is what the Bible says. Same exact words. People can use all sorts of man made words and definitions, write a book about the subject, write till their fingers turn blue or bleed, and it will not change what the verse says one letter. The dead part is what people do. Almost the entire Bible is about believing what it says and acting on it. Anyone who chooses to argue about that will be arguing their entire lives, and when they leave they will have changed nothing, scripture will still be the same. We earned nothing God did for us. There would be nothing to have faith in without God. So both sides are right when we realize this. What is one doing with faith, all that God did for us, is what we will answer for, not God. Faith without works is dead.

Hi brother,

The question seems to be are we justified by faith (Romans) or by works (James)? Since this is not the OP I suggest you start a new thread, which I would enjoy posting my take on it. The context of James is interesting and worth exploring. What is your take on faith being a gift?

RisingSpirit · Apr 23, 2011

billybtennessee said:
"Faith without works is dead" The body without the spirit is dead. Both the same.

Odd how the Chinese claims the body without Qi (Chi) is dead. They do go deeper and claim that the Qi isn't spirit.

(Shen- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_(Chinese_religion))

silvanus · Apr 23, 2011

chris:

God brings the person to the point where they WILL repent and they WILL believe and WILL be saved.

God makes them alive first, then they believe.

swordmaster · Apr 23, 2011

What is a passage of scripture that says God give men faith as a gift?

Faith is a Gift!

Lover of the Truth

Psalm 144:1

I will fear no evil for You are with me

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Regular Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Regular Member

Psalm 144:1

Zealot

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Regular Member

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Newbie

Senior Contributor

Psalm 144:1

Zealot

:-)

Newbie

swordmaster

Guest

Similar threads