The author unnecessarily says the "strict Calvinist" believes. Since there is no grammatical rule that supports his point in any Greek grammar, could his problem be related to ideology more than exegesis?
Semi-pelagianism discussion, and defence from a non-calvinist perspective
- Thread starter ALAYMAN
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,606
- Reaction score
- 1,768
- Points
- 113
Who says it's TOTALLY natural...NOBODY. You've got some strange ideology, FSSL.And, NO there wouldn't necessarily be a cause for pride....That's YOUR interpretation given as evidence. Sorry, bud, no cigar.
So you do not recognize the difference between human faith and divinely given saving faith.
Im not interested in a cigar, but since you did bring up Bud!
Im not interested in a cigar, but since you did bring up Bud!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,606
- Reaction score
- 1,768
- Points
- 113
Your ASSumptions are astounding. I recognize a prevaricator and one who assails the brethren who don't agree with his stance. Get thee behind us, Satan.So you do not recognize the difference between human faith and divinely given saving faith.
Im not interested in a cigar, but since you did bring up Bud!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
Well, if it’s true that the basis/rule for the method of exegesis doesn’t exist then that is most undoubtedly true. What are you saying specifically is his interpretive error contrary to Greek grammar?
No Greek grammar supports it. Its a journal article written in 2006. I don't see the same thoughts in the more recent grammars. I don't see his article cited either. So, until that happens, I'm not trusting his conclusions.
You just found a person on a forum that believes saving faith is God's gift. No amount of natural human faith contributes to salvation.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
When you say “ no Greek grammar supports it” what is “it” that is unsupported?
No Greek grammar cites his journal article. This would be groundbreaking if the pronoun toutos always refers to the verb. I could take the time to run a morphology search, but that would just be too much time... 'cause I am outta here for a few days! #DisneyLife
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
I ain’t really following your point about your lack of evidence for the connection of touto (“this”) and the Greek rules for grammar referents. I continue to see countless citations that demonstrate Greek rules of grammar that say “this” cannot refer to faith….Link
Harold W. Hoehner in the Bible Knowledge Commentarywrites that…
James Montgomery Boice writes…
The KJV Bible Commentary….
William Hendricksen has an interesting comment regarding the respected Greek scholar A T Robertson noting that in Robertson's comment on this passage he states "“Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” He adds that since in the original the demonstrative “this” (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word “faith,” which is feminine, it does not refer to the latter “but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.”… (Hendricksen refutes this teaching stating that) Without any hesitancy I answer, Robertson, to whom the entire world of New Testament scholarship is heavily indebted, does not express himself felicitously in this instance. This is true first because in a context in which the apostle places such tremendous stress on the fact that from start to finish man owes his salvation to God, to him alone, it would have been very strange, indeed, for him to say, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” True though it be that both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us, nevertheless, in the present context (Eph 2:5-10) one rather expects emphasis on the fact that both in its initiation and in its continuation faith is entirely dependent on God, and so is our complete salvation. (Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. New Testament Commentary Set, 12 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House)
Gender is not an issue. There are no neuter antecedents. When that happens, the commin way tk transkate is either take the closest word (like I and others do), or it refers to the group of mixed gender words.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
Ok, for now I will take your word for it. The question that seems obvious to me is why all of these reputable exegetes make the case (what rules are they utilizing that trump what you are claiming) that touto should not be considered to be referring to faith?
... and others say
"In the first clause, which emphasizes the divine initiative and activity, some have taken this to refer specifically to faith, which immediately precedes. The point being made, then, is that the response of faith does not come from any human source but is God’s gift. This interpretation is grammatically possible, assuming that the term denotes faith and not Christ’s faithfulness, and it is consistent with Pauline teaching elsewhere (cf. Phil. 1:29). However, the context demands that this be understood of salvation by grace as a whole, including the faith (or faithfulness) through which it is received." Peter O'Brien Pillar Commentary
"Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God’s giving it.
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith (pistis) is feminine, while that (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text," MacArthur
"Ephesians 2:8 (EBC Eph-Phm): Lest faith should be in any way misinterpreted as man’s contribution to his own salvation, Paul immediately adds a rider to explain that nothing is of our own doing but everything is in the gift of God. Does “and this” (kai touto) connect with “faith,” with “saved,” or with the entire clause? Probably the latter interpretation is preferable. Hence Barclay translates: “The whole process comes from nothing that we have done or could do.” The element of “givenness” applies to faith as well as to grace, for faith is a direct outcome of hearing the saving message (Rom 10:17)." Expositors
_____________
According to these men my translation wither faith is the antececldent or "geace salvation and faith" is the antecedent. I am goodneith either approach.
In all. Faith is not conjured up within man. God gives saving faith.
"In the first clause, which emphasizes the divine initiative and activity, some have taken this to refer specifically to faith, which immediately precedes. The point being made, then, is that the response of faith does not come from any human source but is God’s gift. This interpretation is grammatically possible, assuming that the term denotes faith and not Christ’s faithfulness, and it is consistent with Pauline teaching elsewhere (cf. Phil. 1:29). However, the context demands that this be understood of salvation by grace as a whole, including the faith (or faithfulness) through which it is received." Peter O'Brien Pillar Commentary
"Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God’s giving it.
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith (pistis) is feminine, while that (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text," MacArthur
"Ephesians 2:8 (EBC Eph-Phm): Lest faith should be in any way misinterpreted as man’s contribution to his own salvation, Paul immediately adds a rider to explain that nothing is of our own doing but everything is in the gift of God. Does “and this” (kai touto) connect with “faith,” with “saved,” or with the entire clause? Probably the latter interpretation is preferable. Hence Barclay translates: “The whole process comes from nothing that we have done or could do.” The element of “givenness” applies to faith as well as to grace, for faith is a direct outcome of hearing the saving message (Rom 10:17)." Expositors
_____________
According to these men my translation wither faith is the antececldent or "geace salvation and faith" is the antecedent. I am goodneith either approach.
In all. Faith is not conjured up within man. God gives saving faith.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
OK, but all of that back-and-forth just essentially validates what I originally said, that the passage is reasonably disputed as to whether or not the gift in Ephesians 2 is referring to faith. And the interpretations, as you pointed out earlier, may very well be tethered to a theological presuppositional bias.
Where I will concede my own tender underbelly on this issue is that though I do believe that it’s arguable that faith is originally given by God and not something that humans supply by God’s grace, I have always struggled with the notion that in this soteriological scheme it is hard to argue that such an attribute is not somehow worthy of “boasting” about as a good thing that I possessed. But then I have also concluded on the other side of that ledger is that faith by its very nature looks outward and not inward, so nobody who possesses true saving faith would ever arrive at the conclusion that the faith they have is anything other than by the grace of God. And now back to the other side of my Cal/Anti-Cal 2-sided mouth
, every good gift comes from above.
Last edited:
Its been an interesting discussion.
As you can see, people can claim "this and that" with the Greek language.
As you can see, people can claim "this and that" with the Greek language.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
A return to the OP and its main thrust, that the proper definitions of terms is exceedingly useful if there's to be any mutually beneficial conversation (which is basically the reason for my initiating the argument(s) over the nature of the dispute in Ephesians 2 regarding the referent of "gift"), so in light of that idea I offer this quote (from a reformed Baptist nonetheless)...