You respond:
In my post, notice the period between the two sentences? It separates the two statements. Eph 2:8-9 was not given as an example of imputed righteousness.
There was no punctuation in the Greek writings at this time.
As to your interpretation of the passage, it is not talking about our faith resulting in the gift of salvation. It says that the faith that saves is a gift from God. If faith that we produce from our fallen thoroughly sinful nature while we are at enmity with God, and dead in our sins, is produced from within us, then it is a work. There is no way to successfully dance around that. It becomes something that we add to the work of Christ that makes his work effective. And if we don't add our faith to his work, his work becomes idle---it effectivenss waiting on actions by a human.
People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (it is to quit working, trying to do it yourself and start trusting). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.
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.
Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:
9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)
Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:
(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)
Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:
(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)
"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 can 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.
I do agree “natural faith” which all mature adults have is a gift from God and, as we know from scripture: people do place natural faith in lots of things and people even worshipping rocks and wood.
The question that needs to be asked: can this God given natural faith be directed toward the Creator, just to believe in the possibility of God’s existence? Since it takes more faith and really foolishness to believe a god does not exist.
You also need to remember the Greek word translated “Faith” in the English is also translated faithfulness. I would say one of the gifts of the Spirit is faithfulness and not faith itself.
You also seem to be assuming that if the nonbelieving sinner has just some kind of “faith”, he will make the noble, honorable, worthy, righteous and holy choice to follow God, but that type of “faith” comes much later and is part of the unbelievable wonderful gifts God showers on the sinner.
The “faith/trust”, autonomous free will choice the sinner makes is between: being macho, hanging in there, being a good soldier, and being willing to take the punishment you fully deserve or wimping out, giving up and surrendering to your enemy. Like any soldier who surrenders to his enemy, you hate your enemy, but are just willing to humbly accept undeserving charity from your enemy. That little questionable “trust” in the possibility of your enemy having an unbelievable Love that could help you is all the faith you need.
What do you consider to be man’s objective while here on earth, since the Bible has lots of “commands” to follow and any scripture given command has scriptural support for being “man’s objective”?
I never said the indwelling Spirit was Christ's righteousness being imputed to us. The indwelling is a mode- of- presence, not a localization of essence, so be clear on that.
I did not say you did, but is the Holy Spirit dwelling within us righteous and would he not provide righteousness within you?
Yes. Do I still sometimes sin? Yes. Do you? His righteousness is imputed to us and we are sealed in him for that very reason. Otherwise, he would lose all that the Father gave him instead of none that Father gave him.
We aren't sinners behind a cloak of Christ's righteousness. We are given his robes of righteousness to wear. We are his. We belong to him. It has nothing to do with whether we want to quit sinning. The reason a person wants to quit sinning is because they are in him and it is a fruit of being in him. Now we recognize sin. Before we didn't. Now we hate sin. Before we loved it. You are confusing the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us with teaching antinomianism. The imputation of Christ's righteousness should be a great comfort to you and deepen your love for him. It should be something that spurs you towards pleasing God. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if you have that imputation then you won't care if you sin or not and won't desire to please God. Such a thing is impossible for one who has been united with Christ.
All the marvelous gifts God has showered on me including Godly type Love, salvation, the indwelling Spirit, home in heaven, forgiveness, fellowship and Christ as my older brother compels me to do good.
Would it be harder (more Loving) for God to forgive you, gift you with growing Godly type Love and place His Spirit within you so you now not only have forgiveness, but the power not to sin, than it would be for God to look at you and somehow see Christ’s righteousness? Would you prefer to become righteous yourself or be seen as having Christ’s righteousness?
No and he doesn't. I feel certain that you acknowledge that you do sin sometimes so why do you keep making arguments as though yu don't?
When and if I sin it is totally my fault, I of my own free will quenched the Spirit and it is not because: “I am only human”. Is there a benefit to knowing, “I can do better, by allowing the Spirit to have more control”?
Would you want the power to be able to not sin again?
You need to tell me what YOU think quenching the SPirit is?
You quench the Spirit when you make the free will choice to: go it alone, be on your own and be selfish.
God "type" love is perfectly logical. It is human love that is not. God "type" love is the normal order of creation that was lost in the fall. And we still only have human love. It is the love of God poured into us that causes (not compells) us to desire to do good
Carnel, worldly, instinctive and selfish type Love, is natural, you’re doing something to get something. Godly type Love is totally unselfish, needing nothing in return and even, not expecting anything good in return. The Godly type Lover, loves another not because of who they are, what they have done or even what they will do, but because they are Lovers (who they are). God forgives/Loves us because of who He is.
What does someone get out of being totally unselfish?
It changed me from a God hater and scoffer, a rebellious person who sought to be in control of my own life and destiny into one who trusts God and wants thanks him for being in control of my life. From one who did not know Jesus into one who even though I do not now see him, love him. Who knows he is the greatest of all treasures. One who would give up everything for him. And one who is moldable and pliable in his hands as he shapes me and directs me through his word. Who listens to his word and learns from it and allows him to grow me up. To a person who wants to know the truth, even if I don't like it, because he is the truth.
Thank you.
