Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
WHAT IS SALVATION THEN!
So when God says "you did not choose me" we can conclude that can't possibly be an autonomous decision in Van's view:Folks I see personal incredulity being offered up yet again as a rebuttal to scripture. Choice means choice, the scripture uses the word choice again and again, so every time you see choice it says autonomous decision. Every time.
Say it out loud, Van. What's James 2:5 have to say if you conclude from this that God is not partial to the rich? It must conclude that God is partial to the poor.James 2:5 is showning God is not partial to rich folks, but He is partial to folks who love Him. That is why He chose them, keeping His promise to those who love Him. Folks who are rich in faith, but not necessarily rich in the eyes of the world.
Folks
Please note that Van has been consistently evasive in providing a direct hyper link. We all know how easy it is to provide links to the sources that we cite and it is normal proceedure on a discussion forum to do this. After an extensive search I think I may have tracked down the page that Van is reffering to although for the life of me I cannot uinderstand why he would not simply do this->http://books.google.com/books?ct=re...U3uLs9nYdIIlQq3AJ86IVjgAMSi7g&q=335#PPA818,M1
It really wasn't that difficult to copy and paste the hyperlink. Of course as Van said, the pages that he reffered to earlier are no longer available to view. Oh well,hopefully we can clear this up when I get my own hard copy and am able to refer to those pages and post my findings.
D Wallace's book is available on the web, in book stores and in libraries. Oworm simply is changing the subject. Evasion. The Topic is the Tulip is broken, and one of the shards is the gift of faith is not supported by Ephesians 2:8 according to D. Wallace.
Note that Oworm is consistently evasive, constantly asking me to do what he claims he needs, rather than address the topic. ROFLOL
The problem of course is that the grammatical analysis reduces to probabilities. Wallace is accurate in "almost always" and "often" and "skeptical" (just look how skeptical Van is), but the forensic force of his words don't translate into debate rhetoric. They really do mean that sometimes this construction definitely does intend to mean the verse exactly as understood by Calvinists.Folks
Please note that Van has been consistently evasive in providing a direct hyper link. We all know how easy it is to provide links to the sources that we cite and it is normal proceedure on a discussion forum to do this. After an extensive search I think I may have tracked down the page that Van is reffering to although for the life of me I cannot uinderstand why he would not simply do this->http://books.google.com/books?ct=re...U3uLs9nYdIIlQq3AJ86IVjgAMSi7g&q=335#PPA818,M1
It really wasn't that difficult to copy and paste the hyperlink. Of course as Van said, the pages that he reffered to earlier are no longer available to view. Oh well,hopefully we can clear this up when I get my own hard copy and am able to refer to those pages and post my findings.
The problem of course is that the grammatical analysis reduces to probabilities. Wallace is accurate in "almost always" and "often" and "skeptical" (just look how skeptical Van is), but the forensic force of his words don't translate into debate rhetoric. They really do mean that sometimes this construction definitely does intend to mean the verse exactly as understood by Calvinists.
That's essentially why "the issue here is complex and can't be solved by the grammar alone." Wallace's inclinations are not those of native Middle Greek speakers. The syntax is understood by numerous native speakers of Middle Greek as including faith. Therefore its meaning really should be entrusted to those who know the syntax natively.
A better way to understand the gift of God in verse 8 is to view tou'to as referring to the concept of by-grace-through-faith salvation. ―As we have seen, tou'to regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the NT is not addressed by this. Bing notes that this view is consistent with salvation by grace as the governing theme of the context beginning in chapter 1, and especially in 2:4–9 Hoehner ob-serves, Rather than any particular word it is best to conclude that tou'to refers back to the preceding section. This is common and there are numerous illustrations of such in Ephesians. For example, in 1:15 tou'to refers back to the contents of 1:3–14, in 3:1 it refers back to 2:11–22, and in 3:14 it refers back to 3:1–13. Therefore, in the present context, tou'to refers back to 2:4–8a and more specifically 2:8a, the concept of salvation by grace through faith.
Nebeker presents another argument as to why ―faith is not the antecedent of the pronoun ―that. ―There is a parallelism between not of yourselves in v 8b and not of works in v 9. This parallelism serves as a commentary to v 8a . . . which speaks of salvation in its entirety. It is difficult to see how faith, if it is the gift of God, harmonizes with not of works of v 9. We must conclude, then, that in Ephesians 2:8 salvation is the gift of God
I've pointed out an obvious example which argues against this entire interpretation simply on its merits:This from the article posted above by Cyg
... Nebeker presents another argument as to why ―faith is not the antecedent of the pronoun ―that. ...
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...u/utility/file.
It's definitely the case, there's no single interpretation of Ephesians 2:8's grammar. I'm not particularly wedded to interpreting it one way or another. From my "book larning" I'd side with the idea of it being an averbial reference demanding the entire process -- "by-grace-saved-through-faith". Unfortunately I still have to defer to people who spoke this very language who are all agreed when they say no matter what interpretation, it definitely refers to "faith". It may refer to the whole phrase; it may well refer specifically to the word "faith". But it's gonna include faith as being from God.
Sinclair B Ferguson said:Faith as a gift
This is further emphasized in the New Testament by the fact that faith is the fruit of the Spirit's ministry and is seen in the New Testament as a gift of God. Here,again there is an apparent tension between the Spirit's activity and human response. Paul provides an important perspective for us in this respect by drawing a further analogy between believing and suffering. "It has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29). Suffering,like faith is a grace gift in Christian expereience.But the gift of suffering is not a commodity given to usas a fait accompli. We, not God,suffer. Yet this suffering is a gift from him. In a parallel way,faith is noot a package placed in our hands. It is the activity oof the whole man, directed by the Spirit toward Christ.God does not believe for us,or in us; we believe.Yet, it is only by God's grace that we believe. His gift is simultaneously our act.
The classic text in this connection is Ephesians 2:8. "It is by grace you have been saved,through faith,and this not from yourselves,it is the gift of God" . There is a well known exegetical crux here; what is the antecedent of 'this' and,therefore,what exactly constitutes the gift?
To the casual reader 'faith' reads as the natural antecedent(is is the immediate antecedent) But 'this' touto is neuter while both of the obvious antecedents are feminine (charis,grace and pistis,faith);so also is soteria, which might be understood as the unwritten antecedent;( "....and this i.e [salvation] is not of yourselves.....")
It is a long recognized principle that in languages in which the grammatical gender of a noun may differ from the gender of the thing itself,the gender of a pronoun may agree with the gender of the antecedent itself rather than the gender with the word which denotes it. In this specific context,since both pistis and charis are gender neutral,either might serve as the antecedent.
Three considerations suggest that the antecedent (i.e the thing that is the gift of God) is faith.
1. It is the immediate antecedent and therefore the most natural one.
2. It would be an unusual tautology (but admittedly not impossible;as Romans 3:24 and 5:15 indicate)to speak of grace as a gift from God,since by definition grace is a gift from God.
3. It gives a coherent reading of Pauls thought pattern which may be paraphrased as follows:
God made us alive-by grace you have been saved 2:5
God raised us up-to shoow his grace 2:6-7
It is indeed by grace you have been saved 2:8
But this grace engages rather than ignores our action
(salvation is by faith i.e it engages our active response)
Yet this active faith on our part does not prejudice grace'
For even the ability to believe is not ours independently' Faith (too) is the gift of God'
Thus: the salvation which is by grace is also by faith.
But,as should now be clear,this salvation,while recieved by our action (faith) is not thereby 'by works''
It engages our activity,
but it leaves no room for boasting (2:9
Hence. salvation is not our work;
instead,we are God's workmanship. (2:10)
Even if we adopt the view that it is 'being saved through faith" that forms the antecedent (the view favored by Calvin and others) There would still be a hint that faith is a gift od grace
That faith in any case is viewed by Paul as a gift is confirmed in Ephesians 6:23,when he prays for "Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" There would be little point in praying for what comes from the Father and the Son unless that faith were,in somme sense. given by them. Similarly Peter refers to believers who have; "Recieved a faith as precious as ours" (2 Pet 1:1) Which seems to refer to the content of faith.
To repeat, some knowledge of linguistics is required to recognize what's going on.To repeat folks, anyone who says Ephesians 2:8 supports the Calvinist doctrine of the gift of faith is presenting falsehood. The Greek word translated faith is in a different gender than the pronoun translated "that" and therefore "that" does not refer to faith as the gift of the sentence. But this Calvinist claim is posted again and again and the Calvinists who know the view is mistaken because of their book learning remain silent. Go figure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?