Is faith a gift that only God can give us? (Note: I have an answer, but I would like input).

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

atpollard said:
Wrong gender in the Greek.

[Eph 2:8 KJV] 8 For by grace (Noun - Dative Singular Feminine) are ye saved (Verb - Perfect Passive Participle - Nominative Plural Masculine) through faith (Noun - Genitive Singular Feminine); and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift (Noun - Nominative Singular Neuter) of God:

“gift” should be Masculine if “saved” was the gift.
“gift” should be feminine if “grace” or “faith” was the gift.
“Gift” is neuter because all of it, the masculine and the feminine, is the gift from God.

the “gift” is saved and grace and faith ... none of which is from us and all of which is from and to reveal the glory of God.
Soli Deo Gloria! (To God Alone Be The Glory!)

Jesus said, “Beware of the scribes” (See: Luke 20:46).
The scribes are those who TRAN-Scribe the Law or the Scriptures.
Who are those who transcribe the Law today?
It would be the scholars or those who think they know Biblical Hebrew, or Biblical Greek.
Jesus chose men like fishermen (Matthew 4:18-22) and or simple men as His disciples.
They were not all scholars. A simple person just trusts God's Word was preserved as it states (Psalms 12:6-7). There is no need to undo what the Word says plainly.
For where in Scripture does God require us to know a more ancient or older language to understand His Word better? Did not God translate languages for people? We see this in Acts 2.

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
If'n it's not KJV's it's not a real verse

I actually agree with you on that one.

Ceallaigh · May 2, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I actually agree with you on that one.

Not a fan of the Latin Vulgate eh?

atpollard said:
VERSE: proferentem mendacia testem fallacem et eum qui seminat inter fratres discordias

Proverbia 6:19 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)

atpollard · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
This ain't my thread.

Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. If'n it's not KJV's it's not a real verse

I stand corrected.
Sorry for the wide brush and any mud you didn’t deserve.

I get cranky at bedtime.

atpollard · May 2, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Jesus said, “Beware of the scribes” (See: Luke 20:46).
The scribes are those who TRAN-Scribe the Law or the Scriptures.
Who are those who transcribe the Law today?
It would be the scholars or those who think they know Biblical Hebrew, or Biblical Greek.
Jesus chose men like fishermen (Matthew 4:18-22) and or simple men as His disciples.
They were not all scholars. A simple person just trusts God's Word was preserved as it states (Psalms 12:6-7). There is no need to undo what the Word says plainly.
For where in Scripture does God require us to know a more ancient or older language to understand His Word better? Did not God translate languages for people? We see this in Acts 2.

I am more wary of people that celebrate ignorance and reject facts as “from the devil”. If you are determined to believe that Paul didn’t understand the basics of Greek Grammar and the Word of God needed to wait for it to be translated into English before men could understand the REAL meaning and correct Paul’s error ... have at it, but count me out of your folly.

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

atpollard said:
I am more wary of people that celebrate ignorance and reject facts as “from the devil”. If you are determined to believe that Paul didn’t understand the basics of Greek Grammar and the Word of God needed to wait for it to be translated into English before men could understand the REAL meaning and correct Paul’s error ... have at it, but count me out of your folly.

*Sigh* Why do many people (who do not understand divine preservation) erroneously think that just because God preserved His Word for our world language today that it is superior to the original languages? It's not. They are saying the same thing. Granted, I get that there may be added meaning in the original languages at times, but at the heart, the original languages say the same thing as the English in the KJB (Cambridge Edition circa 1900).

The problem is that you are making God's Word overly complicated in that we cannot trust what it says in the English (i.e. today's world language) unless we know the original languages. But James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith (James 2:5). Are you trying to tell me that the poor guy is a rich fat cat scholar who has degrees in various Biblical languages?

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
Not a fan of the Latin Vulgate eh?

Some say “We look to the original languages” but there is the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts, and the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. So which one does a person use?

The Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus) is where most of all your English Modern Translations come from. There are more than 450 modern translations out there (According to Google). The King James Bible (circa 1900 Cambridge Edition) comes from the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts.

If you were to Google the origin of Arianism (i.e. Anti-Trinitarianism) you would see that the answer is Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, the manuscripts that the Modern Translations are based upon are Alexandrian in origin, and they eliminate the one and only clear verse on the Trinity (Which is 1 John 5:7 KJB). So it's not a coincidence. This proves that the manuscripts Modern Translations are based upon are inferior compared to the KJB and it's line of manuscripts (the Textus Receptus). Granted, I do use Modern Translations and I even quote from them at times (When it aligns with the KJB), but the KJB is my final word of authority. Modern Translations have attacked the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, holy living, and have even removed NT commands, and placed the devil's name in them where they don't belong.

Der Alte · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
This ain't my thread.
Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. If'n it's not KJV's it's not a real verse

Me too. If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul it's good enough for me. When I was in grad school ca. '83 I saw that in a denominational state newspaper. The names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

Der Alte said:
Me too. If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul it's good enough for me. When I was in grad school ca. '83 I saw that in a denominational state newspaper. The names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

There is always going to be seriously uneducated people who make uninformed statements like that. However, it should not undermine the truth of things, though.

Der Alte · May 2, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
There is always going to be seriously uneducated people who make obviously dumb statements like that. However, it should not undermine the truth of things, though.

As ridiculous as it may sound that actually happened. In my denominational grad school. I was in the library killing time there was a large book shelf with cubby holes for the various states. I was perusing letters to the editor for a SW border state and read that.
Shortly after the NIV was first published I was in a Christian bookstore browsing a Full Gospel pastor I was familiar with came in. The clerk asked him if he had seen the NIV. He replied "There is only one version, the King James, everything else is a perversion." I don't happen to think that Moses carried the KJV down from Mt Sinai.

Ceallaigh · May 2, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Some say “We look to the original languages” but there is the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts, and the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. So which one does a person use?

The Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus) is where most of all your English Modern Translations come from. There are more than 450 modern translations out there (According to Google). The King James Bible (circa 1900 Cambridge Edition) comes from the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts.

If you were to Google the origin of Arianism (i.e. Anti-Trinitarianism) you would see that the answer is Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, the manuscripts that the Modern Translations are based upon are Alexandrian in origin, and they eliminate the one and only clear verse on the Trinity (Which is 1 John 5:7 KJB). So it's not a coincidence. This proves that the manuscripts Modern Translations are based upon are inferior compared to the KJB and it's line of manuscripts (the Textus Receptus). Granted, I do use Modern Translations and I even quote from them at times (When it aligns with the KJB), but the KJB is my final word of authority. Modern Translations have attacked the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, holy living, and have even removed NT commands, and placed the devil's name in them where they don't belong.

I don't read the Vulgate much because I'm not fluent in Latin.
The same goes for Bibles translated from Greek into Spanish, French, German etc.
That's why if you really want to go for extreme accuracy, you learn Greek.

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
I don't read the Vulgate much because I'm not fluent in Latin.
The same goes for Bibles translated from Greek into Spanish, French, German etc.
That's why if you really want to go for extreme accuracy, you learn Greek.

I am not against a person learning Greek, but they shouldn't favor the Greek over what the English says in the King James Bible. They say the same thing. If a person chooses to understand God's Word only in light of the original languages, which line of manuscripts will they choose? There are actually two major line of manuscripts. There are many reasons why I believe the KJB is a divine preservation or continuation of God's Holy Word from the original manuscripts.

30 reasons why the KJB is the divine and pure Word of God for today

Without divine preservation of God's Word, divine inspiration of the original manuscripts is pointless. For people have a hard enough time accepting what the Bible says in the English, and folks want to make it even more complicated by learning dead languages. Not even all Greek scholars agree with each other and there is no Apostle Paul alive today to confirm that their understanding on the Koine Greek is correct. There is no Moses alive today to confirm that their understanding on the Hebrew is correct.

The problem I encounter at times is when folks think the Bible says something entirely different in the original languages vs. what my Bible says in the English (i.e. the King James Bible).

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

Der Alte said:
As ridiculous as it may sound that actually happened.

I was not doubting it for a moment.
History has a way of repeating itself (unfortunately).

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

MMXX said:
I don't read the Vulgate much because I'm not fluent in Latin.
The same goes for Bibles translated from Greek into Spanish, French, German etc.
That's why if you really want to go for extreme accuracy, you learn Greek.

There are actually two major Latin Vulgates that one should take notice of.

The one that came from the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts (Which is where the KJB came from).
The other comes from the Roman Catholic church (Which I do not agree with).

Bible Highlighter · May 2, 2021

Anyways, getting back on topic to the thread:

I believe the ability to have faith is not something God has to gift to us in order for us to have it.

Not too far after the most famous verse of in the Bible (i.e. John 3:16), we read this:

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18).

If Calvinism was true when it suggests that God gives (gifts) a person to have the ability to believe or have faith in Jesus by Uncondtional Election, then John 3:18 should say this instead...

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he was not been elected or hand picked by God alone.”

But that's not what the Bible says. It says the reason they are condemned is because he has not believed. So the responsiblity falls on the person for not believing as to why they are condemned.

Ceallaigh · May 2, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Anyways, getting back on topic to the thread:

I believe the ability to have faith is not something God has to gift to us in order for us to have it.

Not too far after the most famous verse of in the Bible (i.e. John 3:16), we read this:

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18).

If Calvinism was true when it suggests that God gives (gifts) a person to have the ability to believe or have faith in Jesus by Uncondtional Election, then John 3:18 should say this instead...

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he was not been elected or hand picked by God alone.”

But that's not what the Bible says. It says the reason they are condemned is because he has not believed. So the responsiblity falls on the person for not believing as to why they are condemned.

Does it really matter since you say "beliefaloneism" isn't enough to save anyone?

Bible Highlighter · May 3, 2021

MMXX said:
Does it really matter since you say "beliefaloneism" isn't enough to save anyone?

Psalms 119:104 says,
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.”

So yes, it does matter.

It matters because Belief Alone-ism is the same problem inherent in Calvinism. For some Calvinists will say that a person who believes that a person must exercise a belief alone in Jesus (so as to be saved) is a work. At the heart of the problem: It is a lack of responsibility or in obeying the Lord. Doing something for God is looked upon as being a bad thing in regards to being in His Kingdom. Yet, committing sin and or doing nothing (i.e. disobedience) is regarded as being favorable when it comes to be in His Kingdom (See: Isaiah 5:20). At the heart, they believe they can be saved by a belief in Jesus alone + nothing. But even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). We are told to follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (See:Hebrews 12:14).

Granted, many may protest or object that a believer will not live an unholy life because they will say that a believer will show forth fruit and not justify sin proving they were saved (past tense). But when push comes to shove, and the right questions are asked, they believe that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Their wrong interpretations on 1 John 1:8, Romans 7:14-24, 1 Timothy 1:15 is proof that they justify sin (When they don't think it is justifying sin because they think they cannot overcome mortal sin in this life). Maybe they may not believe they can shoot a bunch of people and be saved while doing so like George Sodini believed, but they do believe that sin does not separate them from God if such sins are not confessed and forsaken (with a godly sorrow). All that is required for salvation is a belief alone in Jesus according to most Christians today, and they will say that this leads to a changed life, but when looking closer at what Scripture says, their view of sin and salvation does not match up with what the Bible says. They think future sin is forgiven them (Thereby giving them a license to sin in some level). They may not murder, but they may think they are in God's good graces even if they willfully break God's 1st greatest commandment. Jesus is God (John 20:28); And Paul says if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22). For why would God let people into Heaven who do not love Him? That makes no sense.

HosannaHM · May 3, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Jesus said, “Beware of the scribes” (See: Luke 20:46).
The scribes are those who TRAN-Scribe the Law or the Scriptures.
Who are those who transcribe the Law today?
It would be the scholars or those who think they know Biblical Hebrew, or Biblical Greek.
Jesus chose men like fishermen (Matthew 4:18-22) and or simple men as His disciples.
They were not all scholars. A simple person just trusts God's Word was preserved as it states (Psalms 12:6-7). There is no need to undo what the Word says plainly.
For where in Scripture does God require us to know a more ancient or older language to understand His Word better? Did not God translate languages for people? We see this in Acts 2.

Hello again Bible Highlighter! I'm not arguing, just reading your discourse with MMXX. Isn't this a bit of a "No True Scotsman?" When someone else besides yourself or your camp digs deep into the scriptures, which is what you've been condoning (and is good to condone!), shouldn't we consider what they are saying? Labelling someone as a Pharisee or a scribe for analyzing bible passages in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE is a bit ridiculous my friend. I have to say, and I'm saying this with love: I believe the problem is the way you are handling authority. When you use scripture, you speak of it as authoritative. Which it is authoritative, but our interpretations are not always correct. Scripture can be twisted (Matthew 4, Luke 4). The scriptures ARE authoritative, we are not. I want you to be fully persuaded in your mind. I want you to "know in Whom you believe" but understand that you yourself sir, are not the authority.
Observation (this is what it looks like, and yes God knows your heart): It looks like you argue authoritatively when you handle the scriptures, but when someone else does the same thing, given they don't agree with you, they are wrong or even worse- a legalistic Pharisee. Brother, examine yourself. Again, I say that with love, and I know fully well that I need to examine myself in several ways too.

So I encourage you, myself, and others with this: Put on love and humility. Understand that while it is true that your opponents could be wrong, so could you. I know you have strong convictions, but so do other brothers and sisters. If they are highlighting their ideas from the scriptures in good faith, then they are drawing from the same authority you are- the authoritative Word of God.
May the Lord bless you

Ceallaigh · May 3, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Psalms 119:104 says,
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.”

So yes, it does matter.

It matters because Belief Alone-ism is the same problem inherent in Calvinism. For some Calvinists will say that a person who believes that a person must exercise a belief alone in Jesus (so as to be saved) is a work. At the heart of the problem: It is a lack of responsibility or in obeying the Lord. Doing something for God is looked upon as being a bad thing in regards to being in His Kingdom. Yet, committing sin and or doing nothing (i.e. disobedience) is regarded as being favorable when it comes to be in His Kingdom (See: Isaiah 5:20). At the heart, they believe they can be saved by a belief in Jesus alone + nothing. But even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). We are told to follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (See:Hebrews 12:14).

Granted, many may protest or object that a believer will not live an unholy life because they will say that a believer will show forth fruit and not justify sin proving they were saved (past tense). But when push comes to shove, and the right questions are asked, they believe that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Their wrong interpretations on 1 John 1:8, Romans 7:14-24, 1 Timothy 1:15 is proof that they justify sin (When they don't think it is justifying sin because they think they cannot overcome mortal sin in this life). Maybe they may not believe they can shoot a bunch of people and be saved while doing so like George Sodini believed, but they do believe that sin does not separate them from God if such sins are not confessed and forsaken (with a godly sorrow). All that is required for salvation is a belief alone in Jesus according to most Christians today, and they will say that this leads to a changed life, but when looking closer at what Scripture says, their view of sin and salvation does not match up with what the Bible says. They think future sin is forgiven them (Thereby giving them a license to sin in some level). They may not murder, but they may think they are in God's good graces even if they willfully break God's 1st greatest commandment. Jesus is God (John 20:28); And Paul says if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22). For why would God let people into Heaven who do not love Him? That makes no sense.

I'm asking if it matters, because what you seem to be saying is belief itself is no better than being an unbeliever. So it wouldn't matter if God causes people to believe or if people choose to believe, because belief won't get them anywhere.

Ceallaigh · May 3, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Granted, many may protest or object that a believer will not live an unholy life because they will say that a believer will show forth fruit and not justify sin proving they were saved (past tense). But when push comes to shove, and the right questions are asked, they believe that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Their wrong interpretations on 1 John 1:8, Romans 7:14-24, 1 Timothy 1:15 is proof that they justify sin (When they don't think it is justifying sin because they think they cannot overcome mortal sin in this life).

As far as I know, they along with most other Protestants, believe all sin is "mortal" sin. Rather than "can sin and still be saved on some level", it more like even a person who's living righteously still sins on some level. The scripture says that Jesus was without sin. Does that mean that Jesus just never committed "mortal" sins?

Is faith a gift that only God can give us? (Note: I have an answer, but I would like input).

Is faith a gift that only God can give to us?

Yes (Only God can give us the gift of faith).

No (God already makes man with the capacity to excercise faith without any help from God).

Other (Please explain)

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

May God be with you and bless you.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

May God be with you and bless you.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Christian Saved by Grace

May God be with you and bless you.

May God be with you and bless you.

Similar threads