If Calvinism is true....

[Ormly]

so if we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ouselves but a gift from God. Why would the scriptures not say. We are saved by grace not of our selves but a gift from God through faith?

They just did that to confuse you. . . . and your friends.

 

[MamaZ]

They just did that to confuse you. . . .

I am not the one confused..

 

[Ormly]

I am not the one confused..

Then you are the one who needs to define those words, right? And have made your decision. Live by it. Stop arguing with others who don't agree with you; who see you twisting scripture just to stay alive in the argument. What is your point?

 

[Hismessenger]

There is only one condition which salvation is dependant on, and that is the choice of God. I will be merciful to whom I want And harden whom I want. Who can say different or stay His hand.

hismessenger

 

[nobdysfool]

This is just a rehash of another identical posting.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7246281&page=5

Of course. They have nothing new or original to say. They just keep repeating the same tired old canards over and over again, hoping that somehow they will become true if they just say them enough times....I am convinced that the anti-Calvinists actually believe in "magic".

 

[Van]

2. If perseverance of the saints is true, then no amount of subsequent sins will separate a person from the love of God. Yes, that is true, but if a person practices lawlessness, that is evidence they were never set aside (thus never a saint). In other words, this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question where neither yes or no presents the truth.​

These verses seem to indicate to me that a person can be a true follower of Christ and be "saved" but still later walk away and lose that salvation:

2 Peter 2:20-21 "They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them."

2 Timothy 2:12 "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us".


Hebrews 3:12-14 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

First, I want to say how nice it is to discuss Soteriology with someone who makes his points biblically, rather than just claim the points were made in the unreferenced past. How refreshing!

2 Peter 2:20-21 (NASB) For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them." What had those in view received? Does the passage say salvation? They had received knowledge of the Lord and Savior, which is the gospel of Christ, which includes the holy commandment to love God with all our heart and hold nothing back. But they did not obey, they turned away. Thus this passage refers to being enlightened with the gospel, and hence escaping the defilements of false teachings, yet rather than accepting the truth, they turned back to the false teachings.

2 Timothy 2:12 says "if we endure" which addresses whether we are born again or not, for those God causes to be born again, He protects and keeps for their inheritance reserved in heaven for them, which includes reigning with the King of Kings. If we do not confess Him as Lord, we were never saved, and so on that day He will say, "I never knew you."

Hebrews 3:12-14 addresses the tares within the audience, and says take care there is not an unbelieving heart in any that falls away from the living God. Many folks make a superficial commitment to Christ and hang in the local church for some time before they "rededicate themselves" which is to say they put their complete faith in Christ and are born again. During this initial stage, while on the doorstep so to speak, they need to be encouraged, built up, (cultivated and watered). Those on the doorstep can fall way, because they are not yet born again and protected by God. But if they become partakers of Christ, referring to being born again and protected, then they will endure, which can be stated as "if they endure, they are partakers.

The key stake holding my view in place in that God causes us to be born again, and therefore we cannot cause ourselves to be "un-born again." Paul said if what was begun by the Spirit, then it will not be sustained by the flesh, or words to that effect somewhere in Galatians.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Of course. They have nothing new or original to say. They just keep repeating the same tired old canards over and over again, hoping that somehow they will become true if they just say them enough times....I am convinced that the anti-Calvinists actually believe in "magic".

We will always face them no matter what.

 

[Van]

Originally Posted by Van

2. If perseverance of the saints is true, then no amount of subsequent sins will separate a person from the love of God. Yes, that is true, but if a person practices lawlessness, that is evidence they were never set aside (thus never a saint). In other words, this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question where neither yes or no presents the truth.

​

But everyone "practices lawlessness" i.e., sins and this includes you. Therefore your sins are evidence that you were never set aside (thus never a saint)? If not, why does this not apply to you but only to others?

No, everyone sins, but everyone does not "practice" sin or lawlessness. Jesus said in Matthew 7:23, He never knew those who "practiced lawlessness." So when we strive to practice righteousness, and stumble, we are not practicing sin.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Perseverance is a part of God's saving work and God perseveres by His Spirit in us in faith. This is the nature of saving faith that when God gives that faith and that He sustains that faith.

Romans 5:3-5 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.

 

[jmacvols]

Originally Posted by Van

2. If perseverance of the saints is true, then no amount of subsequent sins will separate a person from the love of God. Yes, that is true, but if a person practices lawlessness, that is evidence they were never set aside (thus never a saint). In other words, this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question where neither yes or no presents the truth.


​

No, everyone sins, but everyone does not "practice" sin or lawlessness. Jesus said in Matthew 7:23, He never knew those who "practiced lawlessness." So when we strive to practice righteousness, and stumble, we are not practicing sin.

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

 

[Reformationist]

You should be aware by now that I respond in the manner I'm addressed, or haven't you noticed?

What I've noticed is that you tend to respond in as derisive a manner as possible regardless of how you"re addressed.

 

[heymikey80]

I have been reading and see that you all keep repeating the mantra, while not EVER addressing the veracity of it, that faith given to the regenerate is a gift.

That cannot be found in scripture to be true; to be believed. Believing it causes the rest of the Bible to be skewed to your understanding.

pshaw.

For it has been given to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:29

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, .... Gal 5:22

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 Jn 5:1a

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this thing is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ep 2:8
​

When pointed out that Eph.2:8 is mis-read by you [all] you ignore it and keep on truckin'.

Trouble is, it's not misread.

The sole meaning that fits all the facts of Ep 2:8 is that everything mentioned is a gift of God. It can't be "salvation", because "salvation" is also feminine, not neuter. It can't be "grace" because "grace" is feminine, not neuter. Plus, gifts being the gift of God, that's tautological.

Grammatically, when Greek talks about "this whole thing", it uses the neuter gender.

That would include faith, and of course salvation. Were it a specific pronoun another gender would be used. Referring to grace would be redundant, but grammatically it'd be included too, redundant for emphasis.

Until that issue is resolved, nothing on this forum will be worthwhile discussing. By "resolve" I mean that it must be argued out to a conclusion to be the truth that faith is not a gift from God for salvation otherwise, for me, you all just aren't sincere. Argue it out to the truth of it and be willing to be adjusted by that truth.

Sorry, the resolution derived from this issue is that faith is the gift of God.

To the really insincere, I ask, please don't come back with a denial as to this being factually what you do.

To the logically uninitiate, I ask, please find out the range of options other than black or white.

Grace is the gift, not faith. It is only the reprobate who cannot believe for it and receive the gift of God's Grace. That's good Bible.

Were grace the sole reference: neuter could not possibly be used. Period. Plus semantically Paul would just be talking in circles. Grace (dfn: favor -- unmerited) bringing something can't but be a gift. When we talk about Xarisma, the product of grace, it is invariably a gift. Something brought out of unmerited favor is a gift.

So in this view Paul's just talking platitudes. He's wasting precious parchment. No copyist in the world would inscribe that, much less copy it for centuries.

In reality, faith is a gift. And salvation is a gift. And grace is tautologically an attitude of giving. That's what Paul means.

The sad and futile part of this -- this argument is a non-sequitur. Even were the above argument defeated somehow, it wouldn't demonstrate that faith isn't a gift. It would only at that point show that faith hadn't been talked about as a gift in this context. And there are plenty of other verses to draw from talking about faith, pistis, being a gift or fruit of God.

Net result: faith is a gift. It says so in Ephesians 2:8, once you comprehend the grammar. The grammar isn't saying so with simple grammar. It's still saying so.

 

[Wizzer]

Hello Mikey and Ormly,

I hate to jump into the middle of a discussion like this, but there are some things I feel I must say concerning Mikey’s last post (post #32 in this thread).
Mikey, please tell me where you are getting your information concerning the Greek grammar of Ephesians 2:8. Here is why I am asking. I have done some study of this text in the past, and I have even discussed it online with a Greek seminary professor. Now here is the problem I have. I agree that the neuter article does not match the gender of either noun (faith or grace) which precedes it. But I disagree with your statement that therefore both these (faith and grace) are the gift(s) spoken of. Here is the reason I disagree: from what I have read, and from my conversation online, when a neuter article is used in this fashion, it is used to refer to the entire phrase (not just a single noun in that phrase). Now Ephesians 2:8 says,

"For by grace you have been saved through (or by) faith, this is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift."

Many Greek scholars have pointed out that the gift referred to is "being saved by faith." So faith is not the gift here, or at least the Greek does not state such a thing, but what it does state is that a particular type of salvation, a being saved by faith, is a God’s gift. So this verse in no way promotes "faith" as a gift. The source of faith in not stated, but I believe the consensus of scripture is that faith is man’s part of the salvation equation. We can debate this if you like, but the Greek in Ephesians 2:8 does not support your claim that "faith" is a gift. Sorry to jump in like this, but I couldn’t let this post slide without comment. I hope no offense is taken. We should all be about determining what is true in scripture, and I believe, Mikey, that someone has feed you some bad information concerning this verse.

Sincerely,
Wizzer

 

[Ormly]

Hello Mikey and Ormly,

I hate to jump into the middle of a discussion like this, but there are some things I feel I must say concerning Mikey’s last post (post #32 in this thread).
Mikey, please tell me where you are getting your information concerning the Greek grammar of Ephesians 2:8. Here is why I am asking. I have done some study of this text in the past, and I have even discussed it online with a Greek seminary professor. Now here is the problem I have. I agree that the neuter article does not match the gender of either noun (faith or grace) which precedes it. But I disagree with your statement that therefore both these (faith and grace) are the gift(s) spoken of. Here is the reason I disagree: from what I have read, and from my conversation online, when a neuter article is used in this fashion, it is used to refer to the entire phrase (not just a single noun in that phrase). Now Ephesians 2:8 says,

"For by grace you have been saved through (or by) faith, this is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift."

Many Greek scholars have pointed out that the gift referred to is "being saved by faith." So faith is not the gift here, or at least the Greek does not state such a thing, but what it does state is that a particular type of salvation, a being saved by faith, is a God’s gift. So this verse in no way promotes "faith" as a gift. The source of faith in not stated, but I believe the consensus of scripture is that faith is man’s part of the salvation equation. We can debate this if you like, but the Greek in Ephesians 2:8 does not support your claim that "faith" is a gift. Sorry to jump in like this, but I couldn’t let this post slide without comment. I hope no offense is taken. We should all be about determining what is true in scripture, and I believe, Mikey, that someone has feed you some bad information concerning this verse.

Sincerely,
Wizzer

Thank you Wizzer however, that has been pointed out to him and others who have tried to persuade using that slanted defnition, adnausm, hence my short reply. The question now needs to be asked, why isn't it accepted? Care to guess why?

 

[heymikey80]

Hello Mikey and Ormly,

I hate to jump into the middle of a discussion like this, but there are some things I feel I must say concerning Mikey’s last post (post #32 in this thread).
Mikey, please tell me where you are getting your information concerning the Greek grammar of Ephesians 2:8. Here is why I am asking.

Here's a short list I can produce readily.

My own Greek prof., TM Moore
NT Wright.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

And so Chrysostom:

In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise thee too high, observe how he brings thee down: “by grace ye have been saved,” saith he,
“Through faith;”
Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,
“And that not of ourselves.”
Neither is faith,javascript:toggle('fnf_iii.iv.v-p40.1'); he means, “of ourselves.” Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? for “how,” saith he, “shall they believe, unless they hear?” (Rom. x. 14.) So that the work of faith itself is not our own.
“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.”
Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.
​

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

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

 

[JimfromOhio]

The saving faith and the faith to believe in God comes only from God. "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17). Ephesians 2:8 says, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Saving faith is a divine gift, not a human work. Looking at Romans 10:17 says in the original Greek, "Faith comes by hearing a speech about Christ." Faith comes by hearing a speech about Christ, not a subjective analysis about what's going on in yourself.

Theologian B. B. Warfield said, "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but that Christ saves through faith." God grants us faith and that faith is evidenced by our walking in the good works that "God has prepared beforehand" for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10).

 

[Croref]

Here's a short list I can produce readily.

My own Greek prof., TM Moore
NT Wright.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

And so Chrysostom:

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

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

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

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

I know R.C. Sproul is.

 

[Wizzer]

Here's a short list I can produce readily.

My own Greek prof., TM Moore
NT Wright.
...

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

Wizzer

 

[beloved57]

The saving faith and the faith to believe in God comes only from God. "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17). Ephesians 2:8 says, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Saving faith is a divine gift, not a human work. Looking at Romans 10:17 says in the original Greek, "Faith comes by hearing a speech about Christ." Faith comes by hearing a speech about Christ, not a subjective analysis about what's going on in yourself.

Theologian B. B. Warfield said, "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but that Christ saves through faith." God grants us faith and that faith is evidenced by our walking in the good works that "God has prepared beforehand" for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10).

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

 

[chestertonrules]

Speaking of Chrystostom:


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