The Tulip is broken

[oworm]

There is a real lack of intelligent debate on this subject. Just Calvinist-bashing, KJV-onlyism, and repetitious self-justification arguments, that basically say, 'Calvinists slander their opponents', which is itself slander, so the pot calls the kettle black, and thinks he is being clever. Add to that the blatant misrepresentation of Calvinism by self-appointed, self-important people who display their utter ignorance of Calvinist doctrine with every slanderous pronouncement and assertion, and it's no wonder that there is no substantive debate, but instead partisanship.

Which is the reason I left the discussion. It is pointless and fruitless.

 

[drstevej]

But the KJV has got electrolytes.

Dead men have God at their mercy to have anyone in Heaven.


And the earth is flat if you say it enough.

 

[Van]

Folks, the TULIP is broken. Ephesians 2:8 does not support the Calvinist idea of the gift of faith, the verse when understood grammatically says salvation is the gift of God.


Ephesians 2:8 teaches that the gift of God is salvation.

The Calvinist false doctrine of the gift of faith is fiction with no support anywhere in scripture.

 

[Van]

Folks, no matter how many Calvinists post the falsehood, Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is a gift through faith, not that faith is a gift. D Wallace, a Greek scholar agrees with this position. Only those devoid of integrity make the argument that the pronoun transliterated as houtos (neuter gender) points to the female gender of the word translated faith. According to Wallace, when the pronoun points to the whole phrase, rather an individual word, the neuter form of the pronoun is used. And the phrase, by grace you have been saved through faith, refers to a persons salvation, so the gift is salvation not faith. QED

http://christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=49212702

 

[drstevej]

Folks, the TULIP is broken. Ephesians 2:8 does not support the Calvinist idea of the gift of faith, the verse when understood grammatically says salvation is the gift of God.


Ephesians 2:8 teaches that the gift of God is salvation.

The Calvinist false doctrine of the gift of faith is fiction with no support anywhere in scripture.

Got a

in your pocket

 

[Van]

Does God initiating faith equate with the Calvinist view of faith being instilled by irresistible grace? Nope.

The TULIP is broken, Total Spiritual Inability is shown to be false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregenerate folks receive the gospel with joy.
Unconditional Election is shown to be false by James 2:5 where God choice is based on a person's characteristics.
Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is shown to be false by 1 John 2:2 where Christ is the propitiation for the whole world.
And Irresistible Grace is shown to be false by Matthew 23:13 where folks supposedly under the influence of irresistible grace because they are entering heaven, are turned aside by false teachers.

 

[JDS]

You have completely missed the points that I and several other have made. Faith is part of the gift, the other part being Grace. The gift as a whole is Salvation. None of us are saying that Faith is another gift, and if you think that's what we said, then you need to learn to read with comprehension.

I have not missed the point. I have stated that scripture teaches that salvation is receiving the Spirit of God. We have an anecdotal example of that in the story of Cornelius where we are told exactly what God, Peter, his Jewish companions, and the Jews at Jerusalem thought it was. Cornelius was not saved. He heard the gospel and believed, AND RECEIVED THE SPIRITAND WAS SAVED!
Well, here, let me quote Peter saying that!

Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (HE WAS NOT SAVED AT THIS POINT)15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Getting the like gift as Peter and the other Jews is salvation according to the word of God! He received the gift when they believed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith was not the gift here!

Lets go back to Acts 10 with the actual event!

Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

You fellows can say God uses ambigious terminolgy if you desire to, but I think you will answer to God for it someday!

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

There is no mention of the gift of faith here and this is in the context of a man and his friends getting saved! He believed and then he was saved. This is not a few parts of the whole and your argument is rendered null and void.

G0od himself told Cornelius that he must do something to be saved and he was told to send for Peter who would tell him what it was.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Why did noy God tell Cornelius how to be saved? Because he has given over the stewardship of the gospel of Jesus Christ to men!

Here is what Peter told him he oughtest to do!

Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. 33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.


4 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It was when he said this that Cornelius got saved because that is what he must do to be saved!

Don't you realize that the same charge can apply to you? In fact, it is much more likely that you are the one guilty of such theological blindness than we.

You have not dealt directly with what any of us have said, but have, in every case run off on a tangent.

It is because you have measured this statement against your theology to interpret it. Understanding a passage in its context is not going off on a tangent.

 

[bling]

I have asked this before with limited response:

If faith is a gift how do you get it?
What would I say to the sinner about how he gets faith?
Did God give everyone faith?
If faith is a powerful important “gift” from God why is it not proclaimed other places, since we have multiple times telling us: salvation is a gift, Love is a gift, forgiveness is a gift, the Spirit is a gift and Christ is a gift?

 

[JDS]

Perhaps I should rephrase - I don't see anywhere in all of chapter 2 that would indicate that faith comes from anywhere except God alone.

There are 66 books in the bible. Show in any of them where faith is THE gift of God. That is the argument here. Calvinists and like minded folk are saying that faith is the gift of God. They are butchering the text to make it so because it is essential to their system of tulip. Faith is something all men have who possess reason and intellect but do not have full knowledge. It is silly to think men cannot believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. These men do not believe salvation can be that simple. If it were that simple, it would make it possible for all men to be saved and they would lose their lofty and proud status as special people of God and bring them down to a common election. This is the problem the Jews in Acts 11 and forward had that produced the Judaizers, the sworn enemy of the real gospel of grace preacher, Paul.

 

[nobdysfool]

Pelagianism on the half-shell, folks,

 

[Bibliophile]

Folks, no matter how many Calvinists post the falsehood, Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is a gift through faith, not that faith is a gift. D Wallace, a Greek scholar agrees with this position. Only those devoid of integrity make the argument that the pronoun transliterated as houtos (neuter gender) points to the female gender of the word translated faith. According to Wallace, when the pronoun points to the whole phrase, rather an individual word, the neuter form of the pronoun is used. And the phrase, by grace you have been saved through faith, refers to a persons salvation, so the gift is salvation not faith. QED

Ummmm...........Sorry, but what you just posted actually misrepresents the earlier post which actually quoted from the book you mentioned. I will make another post and show you.

 

[Bibliophile]

This is an accurate representation and reflects what Dr Wallace states in the text of his work.

However the quote below departs from Dr Wallaces thesis and is inserted by Van to support his own thesis.




Neither that statement nor the implication exists in Dr Wallaces chapter on Pronouns that salvation is the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8. In his sub category Constructio ad Sensum (page 330) he states;


On the pages that are under discussion (334-335 of Wallaces Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) Williams in the sub category 2] Debatable example References Ephesians 2:8 as one such example. He presents 4 positions of interpretation of the text:

1. "Grace" as the antecedent.

2. "Faith" as the antecedent

3. The concept of a grace by faith salvation.

4. kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent.


He goes on to conclude that:

Please note that Williams says "DOUBTFUL" and not "without merit" or "precluded" He goes on


Please note
So faith is not precluded,it is simply not addressed because it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith and not any one element on its own. Van chops out the element of Salvation from the concept and posits that as the antecedent of touto. He then goes on to assert that Wallaces takes the position that faith is not a gift from God and presents it here without any citational quotes!
Wallace goes on


Wallace concludes.
And this is especially important in view of the statement by Van who says Wallace holds that the greek grammar of Eph 2:8 precludes faith as a gift.



My own conclusion. Which I have checked with my own Greek teacher who teaches both Hebrew and Latin too, and with our assistant pastor who is well grounded in biblical languages, is that you cannot separate out any one element of the concept that the gift that is reffered to is salvation by grace through faith. In the doctrine of salvation you cannot have any unless you have all and you cannot have any unless God initiates them.
Wallace concurs with this, in some measure in his footnotes on page 335 where he says

As is apparent from the direct and extensive quotes I have provided from the same pages that Van cites as his source in support of his position. It is clear that Wallace makes none of the assertions that Van claims he does. Wallace gives a balanced and open presentation of four exegetical positions and then concludes that the grammar alone does not answer the question as decisively as Van would lead us to think.

Folks

The discussion here is about the doctrines of grace commonly referred to as TULIP. The discussion of faith came up as early as post no 5 and as you will see that post was authored by Van. So we are not departing from the thread subject per se and the subject is very much on topic as it relates to monergistic salvation and all that is contained within that doctrine.

FOLKS
It has been shown in this post that Van has misrepresented a scholar of the highest esteem and deliberatly injected meaning into his statements that were never there. This is further demonstrated from the quotes below as ther refer to the position of Abraham Kuyper and his thoughts in Eph2:8

In response to his statement that



He further stated







Van says that his statement was factual and in so far as HE actually said it that is true but I can assure you folks that Kuypers position is neither represented nor refuted as "without merit" in Wallaces text!


Please note that this is not a ploy to derail this thread. My brethren and I are only to willing to engage with our opponents in debate although it has to be said that there is often more heat than light generated!

Having said that I think its crucial to the integrity of the gospel that we engage in such discussions with an attitude of humility and respect for those we disagree with.

Further. It is unpleasant when we have to engage with those who claim to bear the name of Christ and yet at the same time disparage and attack other Christians theological positions as false and heretical without anything close to an informed and measured rhetoric.

The question here has gone beyond the actaul text under discussion and the works cited. The question is whether we should engage with someone who refuses to operate within the boundaries of acceptable debating ettiquete . Someone who cites sources without proper quotation of the source.But worse still,someone who deliberately misrepresents their sources and manipulates them to say something that they never did.

It is quite simply dishonest and more gravely it brings the gospel into disrepute among those who have the misfortune to witness such behaviour.

My own contributions to this thread are terminted on the grounds that I do not want to encourage any further disparagement or dishonest representations from the thread author.

Van. This is the post I was trying to remember. The point he is making is that the neuter pronoun is used to refer back to the concept rather than one element out of the concept. If the pronoun cannot refer singly to faith then it cannot refer to grace either because that's in the feminine too. It must be referring to the conceptual antecedent.

I also have this text book so I can concur that the quotes given by oworm are accurate.

 

[AndOne]

There are 66 books in the bible. Show in any of them where faith is THE gift of God.

Galations 3:22-29 (KJV)

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It is silly to think men cannot believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. These men do not believe salvation can be that simple. If it were that simple, it would make it possible for all men to be saved and they would lose their lofty and proud status as special people of God and bring them down to a common election. This is the problem the Jews in Acts 11 and forward had that produced the Judaizers, the sworn enemy of the real gospel of grace preacher, Paul.

I would say its not that men cannot believe - it is simply they will not believe. Big difference there. It's actually quite simple - man does not have the will, want or desire to have anything to do whatsoever with God until he is made to be able to do so by God's Spirit. See Titus 3:5-7.

 

[heymikey80]

Van. This is the post I was trying to remember. The point he is making is that the neuter pronoun is used to refer back to the concept rather than one element out of the concept. If the pronoun cannot refer singly to faith then it cannot refer to grace either because that's in the feminine too. It must be referring to the conceptual antecedent.

I also have this text book so I can concur that the quotes given by oworm are accurate.

It's not the first time re: Van.

To the subject: what I've read of Wallace are essentially his inclinations about the text. I've got to believe there's just some missing clarity in understanding this as a phrase like "and not only that" in English. There are enough doors open on interpretation of this text to where I think native speakers can tell us more than Greek researchers. Sometimes scholars do get wrapped around the axle of some odd expression that a native speaker just doesn't even think about.

The number of Middle Greek speakers who understood this to be referring to faith, it's impressive to me. The examples strictly in Scripture allow, but don't require, that the antecedent be conceptual (cf Pp 1:28 where it generates real oddities to refer back to "the whole prior concept").

Either issue eventually comes back to a question: if it's the conceptual antecedent, why isn't faith included in that antecedent?

I think this eventuality was understood by a couple of the Church Fathers and was accounted for: faith is included in the conceptual antecedent; faith could also be the direct antecedent. They were often pretty good at integrating two concurring interpretations. Their conclusion was either way, "faith a gift of God".

 

[cygnusx1]

The Earth is Flat

The Earth is Flat

The Earth is Flat

The Earth is Flat

The Earth is Flat

The Earth is Flat

*continue until folks believe it*

very good !!!!!

 

[heymikey80]

Their whole point is that faith must be the gift of God in addition to salvation even though the text does not make this point. They are guilty of interpretation within the context of their systematic theology.

Not at all. The text says it. You don't really believe I would cite Chrysostom as an adherent to Reformed Theology!???

How about Thomas Aquinas -- do you think he's Reformed?

Don't you understand that they are forced to do this because if they did not, the T in tulip would fall to the ground and and would push the rest of the letters over with it as it fell? They are being dishonest with grammar for the sake of their theology.

Rather it is you who are being dishonest with the grammar.

Even in the "conceptual reference" view of Eph 2:8 faith would be included.

Plus Pp 1:28 -- remember that? I'm doing nothing but patterning Ep 2:18 after the same grammar structure as Pp 1:28. Are you being dishonest with your understanding of Pp 1:28? If not, then I'm not being dishonest about my understanding of Ep 2:8.

In addition, history has immense trouble with your view of this verse. There's no evidence Pelagius used Ephesians 2:8 to contradict Augustine. The writings of east and west commentary point to "faith" as the referred noun. Pelagius was a Greek speaker too, who was eventually declared a heretic on the basis of this verse -- yet Pelagius doesn't contradict its meaning as referring to faith.

You're not objecting to Calvinism, JDS. You're objecting to the entirety of western Christian soteriology since the fifth century at a minimum. Eastern fathers also point out this verse as referring to faith. You can adopt a variant interpretation if you want -- but you can't thereby accuse the primary, historical opinion of being dishonest.

Because it's not.

 

[JDS]

Not at all. The text says it. You don't really believe I would cite Chrysostom as an adherent to Reformed Theology!???

How about Thomas Aquinas -- do you think he's Reformed?

Rather it is you who are being dishonest with the grammar.

Even in the "conceptual reference" view of Eph 2:8 faith would be included.

Plus Pp 1:28 -- remember that? I'm doing nothing but patterning Ep 2:18 after the same grammar structure as Pp 1:28. Are you being dishonest with your understanding of Pp 1:28? If not, then I'm not being dishonest about my understanding of Ep 2:8.

In addition, history has immense trouble with your view of this verse. There's no evidence Pelagius used Ephesians 2:8 to contradict Augustine. The writings of east and west commentary point to "faith" as the referred noun. Pelagius was a Greek speaker too, who was eventually declared a heretic on the basis of this verse -- yet Pelagius doesn't contradict its meaning as referring to faith.

You're not objecting to Calvinism, JDS. You're objecting to the entirety of western Christian soteriology since the fifth century at a minimum. Eastern fathers also point out this verse as referring to faith. You can adopt a variant interpretation if you want -- but you can't thereby accuse the primary, historical opinion of being dishonest.

Because it's not.

I must remind you again of your own theology. Scripture with scripture. You never arrive at your conclusions in this manner, by the way. It is just another smokescreen. What I am asking you to do is to exegete the text in the context of the theme of the epistle, which not a single one of you have attempted thus far. The theme is the mystery of Christ!

Why do I have to go back to the 5th century to see what so called church fathers had to say? And why do I care about your controversy with Palagius? The dominate church movemnet during the centuries you mentioned was one you say needed reformation. Why are they such great scholars to you now?

I do not need the Greek, nor ancient church fathers or modern day sages to tell me what Ephesians 2 says. It says salvation is the gift of God and it is received through faith by the gentiles. The Jews received the Spirit by covenant promise some time before God gave him to the gentiles by grace. That is why Paul used the pronouns in the manner I have already pointed out.

In the book of Acts, written by Luke, who said he had perfect understanding in these things, the Spirit was poured out upon Israel in Acts 2 and began to indwell them as we have already discussed. Though they did not know it at the time, the Spirit was also forming the body of Christ by immersing them into the spiritual body of Christ. In the first 10 chapters, when the focus of God's redemptive purposes was on Israel and later the Samaritans, whom he considered to be in the Jewish family, the word grace is used one time by brother Luke. Check it out for yourself! These things matter! BUT when the gentiles were included, the word grace began to be used much more frequently. It is used beginning with Cornelius, the first gentile who was saved, and is used in a gentile context from there on. It is used 9 times in the remainder of the book and we get the phrase "grace of God", a particular gospel that Paul assigned to himself and it was in relation to his ministry to the gentiles. This phrase is used 5 times in the epistle and the number 5 is God's number for grace. (the # 9, BTW, is God's number for fruitbearing, so Pauls gospel of the grace of God produced much fruit among the gentiles). BTW, the word grace is used a total of 10 times in this entire book and the privilege all through was both to Jews first, and also gentiles, but the end of the book, some 30-35 years later has Paul saying this to the stiff necked Jews: Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. 25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
This was it for the Jews. They had been tested under the grace of God all these years and now the gospel would be to the gentiles. And so it has been for two thousand years. The number ten is God's number for testing!


Ac 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Considering Ph 1:28. I do not know how you are attempting to apply it so I will withhold commentary.

 

[heymikey80]

I must remind you again of your own theology.

I'm sorry, it's now very clear that you will need to look at "my own theology" a little closer than you've been doing.

Because this is not my own theology, and it is very clearly not.

Google two things for me and tell me which Reformed theology embraces:

"sola scriptura"
"solo scriptura"
​

Scripture with scripture. You never arrive at your conclusions in this manner, by the way. It is just another smokescreen. What I am asking you to do is to exegete the text in the context of the theme of the epistle, which not a single one of you have attempted thus far. The theme is the mystery of Christ!

To attempt to exegete in the absence of any understanding of the language, the history, the reality surrounding the letters doesn't do justice to the truth of God's Word. The discipline of Biblical Theology requires a theology that is consistent with the history of God's people and the meaning God communicates to them in time. This discipline is exemplified in Reformed writers like Gerhard Vos, but it's embraced largely across a wide range of conservative Reformed thinkers.

What I'm talking about is what the receiving people know this book says. They're still alive, you see. They're with God, and if they can see and understand your posting they're wondering what in the world you're saying.

Why do I have to go back to the 5th century to see what so called church fathers had to say? And why do I care about your controversy with Palagius? The dominate church movemnet during the centuries you mentioned was one you say needed reformation. Why are they such great scholars to you now?

A larger misunderstanding of Reformed theology I've not seen in awhile.

Reformed theology -- "Semper Reformanda" theology -- demands constant reformation. Reformed theology saw that the medieval Church of Rome had broken loose of its moorings in the Apostolic faith.

It sought reform. Not rejection.

Reformed theology does not deny history, nor scholarship, nor authority. It even affirms that historically some people could be right, and it (and any church) could have degraded in our current theology through the world's corruptions. It's happened to other churches as well as its own. It affirms a real Church of Christ exists wherever the three forms exist (worship of the One God, Gospel preached, sacraments). It embraces the idea that a theology can only be operating according to Biblical principles when people evaluate claims according to accurate canons, reforming themselves and informing others so that we all reach a deeper view of God and His will. That "informing others" makes it Protest-ant.

The concept of "little popes" all running around with their own idiomatic interpretations of Scripture -- that's rejected by Scripture.

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Pt 1:20-21​

Of course Rome accuses us of such a thing -- but it doesn't stick on the Reformed. Most Catholics realize it when we start quoting Augustine. Apparently you did, too?

I do not need the Greek, nor ancient church fathers or modern day sages to tell me what Ephesians 2 says.

Well good luck with that. God sent you apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, and you rejected them. Don't ask me to defend your actions. They'll stand for the wood or straw that they are.

And so by applying your view, I see no reason to answer your view. I would "not need you to tell me what Ephesians 2 says", or what Acts 10 or 11 says. So I wonder why you'd say anything at all.

Considering Ph 1:28. I do not know how you are attempting to apply it so I will withhold commentary.

What's "and that" referring to?

 

[MamaZ]

I do not need the Greek, nor ancient church fathers or modern day sages to tell me what Ephesians 2 says. It says salvation is the gift of God and it is received through faith by the gentiles. The Jews received the Spirit by covenant promise some time before God gave him to the gentiles by grace. That is why Paul used the pronouns in the manner I have already pointed out.

actually you are adding words to scripture here.. For it actually says that salvation and faith are both a gift of God. Just was always and even in the NT God does the choosing of who is His and who is not His.

 

[MamaZ]

God's manner of election in the Old Testament is also true for the church. God hasn't changed His plan or His method. The Old Testament affirms that no man seeks after God, and that there are none who are righteous (Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-4; Rom. 3:10-18). Just as God elected His people by His own free will in the Old Testament, so He elects the church today.