AV1611 said:
Another verse would be:
Philippians 1:29 "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;"
Yes I'm aware of that verse; but are "belief" and "suffering" given to us?
What if suffering, is on account of sin? If we sin, we suffer for it. If others sin,
then we suffer for some of their sins.
I do not think God cruelly sits around imposing "suffering" upon us. Trials, yes; but He
allows suffering that we learn to avoid
whatever it was that caused us to suffer.
Additionally, sinfunless is in the world; those who love sin, hate Christ ---
and hate us because we are His. Thus, "it is granted for us to believe" --- fully reflects our choice. And "it is also granted for us to suffer", reflects the hardships our belief in Him will cost us.
He does not cause the suffering, AV.
I am affraid you are wrong here:
Let us break up the verse:
i. For by grace are ye saved
ii. through faith;
iii. and that not of yourselves:
iv. it is the gift of God:
You're breaking it up wrongly; if one "prepositional phrase" is isolated,
then the other must be also.
By grace
Through faith
It is fairly clear here that the 'that' and the 'it' refer back to faith.
Based on what? In Greek grammer, "that" (tauth) is neuter, while "faith" (pistis) is feminine (nor "grace" charis, feminine) --- had he meant "that faith",
genders would have matched.
Look at A.T.Robertson's comment:
For by grace (th gar cariti). Explanatory reason. "By the grace" already mentioned in verse Romans 5 and so with the article. Through faith (dia pistewß). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse Romans 5 to make it plainer. "Grace" is God's part, "faith" ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistiß (feminine) or to cariß (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex umwn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God's gift (dwron) and not the result of our work. . However even if it did not the fact remains that salvation is a gift and apart of salvation is faith and so faith is de facto a gift.
Here is Alfred Barnes:
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved - By mere favor. It is not by your Own merit; it is not because you have any claim. This is a favorite doctrine with Paul, as it is with all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity; compare the notes at Rom_1:7; Rom_3:24, note.
Through faith - Grace bestowed through faith, or in connection with believing; see the notes at Rom_1:17; Rom_4:16, note.
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - τοῦτο touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - πίστις 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" (τοῦτο touto) refers to "faith" (πίστις 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.
Whether this passage proves it or not, it is certainly true that faith is the gift of God.
Wait! If it does NOT prove it,
we're gonna believe it ANYWAY??? Why, AV? He
AGREES with Robertson,
but then says "SO WHAT"? What is the motivation to believe
what is not expressed in Scripture?
It exists in the mind only when the Holy Spirit produces it there, and is, in common with every other Christian excellence, to be traced to his agency on the heart. This opinion, however, does not militate at all with the doctrine that man himself "believes."
Is this "exegesis", or "eisegesis"?
It is not God that "believes" for him, for that is impossible.
What's the difference between "God believes for us", and "God monergistically gifts us faith"?
It is his own mind that actually believes, or that exercises faith;
Ahhh; back to "men have completely free will, but unregenerated men WILL follow their depraved hearts (irresistible depravity!), and monergistically-regenerated men WILL follow their
God-decreed-good-hearts (irresistible grace!)
Somehow RT asserts "that will, is FREE; it is FREELY constrained to evil if unelect, and FREELY constrained to righteousness if elect".
Uhmm, hmmm.
see the notes at Rom_4:3.
Can't be; that says "Abraham's BELIEF was reckoned as righteousness". Reflects Responsible Grace,
but not Reformed Theology.
In the same manner "repentance" is to be traced to God.
I see; If God does not believe for us,
does He repent FOR us? RT denies the reality of Acts17:30:
"God commands that all men everywhere repent".
...denies it, by asserting
"...but God GRANTS repentance to those few whom HE has chosen".
Why is this credible to you? I take it at face value;
repentance is charged to us.
"The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe." Mark1:15
"God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live." Ezk18:24
It is one of the fruits of the operation of the Holy Spirit on the soul. But the Holy Spirit does not "repent" for us. It is our "own mind" that repents;
It remains to be answered, "do WE repent,
or is repentance machinated by God's choice and monergistic-regeneration? If the latter,
then He repents US.
our own heart that feels; our own eyes that weep - and without this there can he no true repentance.
If you recognize that "our own hearts can weep by conviction of sin", why do you deny Jesus' words in Matt13:15, "they close their OWN eyes and ears, lest they turn and be healed"?
No one can repent for another; and God neither can nor ought to repent; for us. He has done no wrong, and if repentance is ever exercised, therefore, it must be exercised by our own minds. So of faith. God cannot believe for us. "We" must believe, or "we" shall be damned. Still this does not conflict at all with the opinion, that if we exercise faith, the inclination to do it is to be traced to the agency of God on the heart. I would not contend, therefore, about the grammatical construction of this passage, with respect to the point of the theology contained in it; still it accords better with the obvious grammatical construction, and with the design of the passage to understand the word "that" as referring not to "faith" only, but to "salvation by grace." So Calvin understands it, and so it is understood by Storr, Locke, Clarke, Koppe, Grotius, and others.
I can't understand why no Calvinist sees the absolute contradiction.
Belief is not imposed on us by God; it's our choice.
But belief is unavoidable FROM God's choice to regenerate us.
Unless we repent we perish (Lk13:3)
...but repentance is something God grants us, unilaterally!
God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent...
...but God knows that most men will NOT, 'cause they CANNOT
because He hasn't GRANTED it TO them!
That reads as so much contradiction to me...
It is the gift of God - Salvation by grace is his gift.
Exactly true, AV; but what gift is there,
that cannot be received, or rejected?
It is not of merit; it is wholly by favor.
Indeed not of merit --- but what about "favor"?
Do you think God favors one man over another?
Such favor, would by definition be
"partiality". Look at Acts10:34-35:
"I see that God shows no partiality, but he who fears God and does right is welcome. Just like in Heb11:6, God is the receiver of man's belief,
not the instigator. THroughout Scripture God
accepts whoever turns to Him. Exk36:26-27 is misunderstood by Calvinists; but the parallel passage, 11:18-21, clearly asserts "whoever turns to God and away from abominations God receives, but he who prefers abominations is in trouble". So too 2Cor4:3-4; it's presumed that "the veil prevents men from believing in Jesus" ---
but verse 2:3:16 plainly asserts "when a man turns to God, the veil is lifted". Scriptural sequence
always conflicts "predestined belief".
The Geneva Bible notes:
Eph 2:8 - For by (h) grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
(h) So then, grace, that is to say, the gift of God, and faith, stand with one another, to which two it is contrary to be saved by ourselves, or by our works. Therefore, what do those mean who would join together things of such contrary natures?
Robertson says "grace is God's part, faith is ours". His gift, our receiving. Reflected in Jn1:12-13; "begottenness" is nothing of us, but all of God;
but BECOMING begotten (adopted child) is by our "receiving believing Jesus".
Calvin would have agreed with you that "that" refers back to salvation yet his successor Theodore Beza would agree with me, however both were Calvinists or Reformed theologians.
In this post, we've shown how faith must be charged to us. Sources agree "that" refers to "salvation". We've discussed contradictions inherent in "predestination".
...but