Ephesians 2:8-9

[doogieduff]

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

No one has responded in the TULIP commentary, so I've decided to bring it up here. This is probably good because now the guys in the "wrestlemania" can actually respond because I'm challenging what they said.

The point was made in the wrestling ring that this verse says that "faith" is not of oursleves, but rather the gift of God. I don't see this at all and maybe someone can show me why.

Grace and faith in this verse are feminine, while saved and that are neuter. Obviously, that is referring to saved or (salvation) not grace and faith. Any objections?

Also, I think I can prove through the use of the genitive that this verse is talking about Christ's faith, not ours, but that's another can of worms, and really irrelevant right now, as "that not of yourselves" can't be referring to faith.

[mickiel]

If someone does not believe in God, they have no faith in him. In Romans 3:3, 4, it is clear that it is Gods faith that matters, and the human lack of it does not nullify Gods intentions. In Rom. 5:8, God demonstrates HIS LOVE TOWARDS US, this demonstration is the faith of God in Christ, our mediator. Gods justification comes from his faith in Christ. In Rom. 3:30, God justifys the circumcised, or christians, AND the uncircumcised, or sinners, by his faith. Gods faith is described in Rom. 14:1, everyone will eventually have faith in him, bowing is an act of worship. Our adeqeacy, or our faith, comes FROM God, it cannot be self generated. Rom. 3:5. Christianity teaches itself to be a self improvement program where men glory in their accomplishments.

Spiritual people walk by faith, not by sight, which means we are given faith and lead by Christ eyes, not ours. Rom. 5:7, 14. The love and faith of Christ controls us. All things are from God, vs. 17, 18. Now vs. 20, because of Christ, it is as though God is entreating through us. Any teaching that seeks to factor mans effort into this process, seeks self glory. In Galations 3:25, it shows that FAITH COMES, it came TO US FROM GOD in Christ, not of ourselves or we will boast. There is a lot of boasting going on.

[doogieduff]

BTW, I kinda forgot to say that I'm speaking about the greek when I say "feminine" and "masculine." That's probably obvious to most, but just in case.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131173#post131173)
mickiel:

If someone does not believe in God, they have no faith in him. In Romans 3:3, 4, it is clear that it is Gods faith that matters, and the human lack of it does not nullify Gods intentions. In Rom. 5:8, God demonstrates HIS LOVE TOWARDS US, this demonstration is the faith of God in Christ, our mediator. Gods justification comes from his faith in Christ. In Rom. 3:30, God justifys the circumcised, or christians, AND the uncircumcised, or sinners, by his faith. Gods faith is described in Rom. 14:1, everyone will eventually have faith in him, bowing is an act of worship. Our adeqeacy, or our faith, comes FROM God, it cannot be self generated. Rom. 3:5. Christianity teaches itself to be a self improvement program where men glory in their accomplishments.

Spiritual people walk by faith, not by sight, which means we are given faith and lead by Christ eyes, not ours. Rom. 5:7, 14. The love and faith of Christ controls us. All things are from God, vs. 17, 18. Now vs. 20, because of Christ, it is as though God is entreating through us. Any teaching that seeks to factor mans effort into this process, seeks self glory. In Galations 3:25, it shows that FAITH COMES, it came TO US FROM GOD in Christ, not of ourselves or we will boast. There is a lot of boasting going on.

What about the Ephesians verse? That's what this thread is about ya know...

[Jaltus]

"saved" is masculine, not neuter (notice the "oi" ending).

The neuter "this" is referring to the entire preceding phrase.

[Act9_12Out]

Doogie,

I somewhat agree with Jaltus here, but would like some clarification as to what he really believes. If he does in fact agree that the touto refers back to the concept of salvation by grace through faith, then total depravity cannot be proved by this verse.

Since I recognize the motivation for your question (the old Calvinist saw that since faith is a gift, belief in the gospel must be involuntary), I'll address this one apologetically. The "gift of God" refers back to "this" in the previous clause. The question, then, is, "What is the antecedent of touto (what does "this" in turn refer back to)?" Let me offer two options.

#1. The gift is the entire concept of salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is God's gift to us. First, the primary question in Paul's epistles is whether or not salvation, or justification, is attained by works (Romans 3:27; 4:2-6; 9:11, 32; 11:6; Galatians 2:16; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). It would then follow that this is the question here: is salvation a gift from God, apprehended purely by faith, or is it something we earn through our works? Second, the grammar supports this reading. Briefly, the words for 'faith' and 'grace' are both feminine. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that the neuter pronoun touto ('this') would refer directly back to either of those nouns. Since there is no neuter noun in v.8 to serve as the antecedent of touto, the most sensible way to take it is to understand the antecedent to be the entire preceding concept, which, according to principles of Greek syntax, would be referred to with a neuter pronoun.

#2. The gift is faith. The pronoun touto would then be neuter by attraction to the predicate dwron, 'gift'; the intervening material between subject and predicate, makes this analysis less likely in my estimation. We would then interpret the faith of v.8 not as our own belief, but as the faithfulness of Christ. This would accord well with Paul's teaching in Galatians 2:16 and elsewhere that we are justified "through the faith of Christ."

Which way we go here depends on how we view Paul's focus here: on the means of justification provided by God's grace (the faithfulness of Christ as against the works of the law) or on our salvation experience (our simple belief as against our attempts at righteousness). Both are completely consistent with Pauline teaching, and both lay to rest the foolish idea that God somehow injects faith into certain arbitrarily chosen people who are incapable of believing in Him, while consigning others to eternal torment because they do not believe in Him.

--Jeremy

[Jaltus]

I agree with 1, but I think Total Depravity can be proved, just not irresistable grace.

TD just means that salvation comes by God moving first, e.g. grace.

Hop on over to the Wrestling Ring and see the debate going on about TULIP with all four participants.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Doggieduff:
Grace and faith in this verse are feminine, while saved and that are neuter. Obviously, that is referring to saved or (salvation) not grace and faith. Any objections?

Jaltus:
"saved" is masculine, not neuter (notice the "oi" ending).
The neuter "this" is referring to the entire preceding phrase.

Greek:
[Eph 2:8] τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον ουκ εξ εργων, ινα μη τις καυχησηται.?

Jaltus nails it. If touto were to refer to a single word in the neutral, that word would be este, but indeed it refers to the entire este clause, so that it means "This, [your salvation by grace through faith], is not from yourselves, [being a gift of God], nor from works, [that no one should boast].

Now plainly this states that our salvation is not by works, but is by grace - Indeed that was just established in 2:5 - But here is added dia pistews - by means of faith.

So what does this mean? Are we saved through faith? Or by grace? Indeed, by grace. But what then of dia pistews?

And it must be acknowedged that faith attracts grace, and faithlessness repels it, and faith is the doing of Christ's commandments by those in Christ. So that 'through faith' is what the person needs to do that he or she be saved...

Yet it is not the works that save, but grace, attracted by faith in action, even though that faith in action itself cannot save, yet is needed for salvation, for where it is absent, grace is repelled...

This is a very synergistic passage, faith and grace working together unto salvation... "For by grace are you saved through faith"... It could not be clearer...

geo

[doogieduff]

06-24-2003 @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131965#post131965)
Jaltus:

I agree with 1, but I think Total Depravity can be proved, just not irresistable grace.

TD just means that salvation comes by God moving first, e.g. grace.

Hop on over to the Wrestling Ring and see the debate going on about TULIP with all four participants.

That's not my understanding of Total Depravity, especially what I see in the wrestling ring. Sure, salvation comes by God moving first, but total depravity says that we are totally depraved of having faith without God moving first, which I disagree with.

[doogieduff]

06-24-2003 @ 10:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132056#post132056)
George Blaisdell:

Doggieduff:
Grace and faith in this verse are feminine, while saved and that are neuter. Obviously, that is referring to saved or (salvation) not grace and faith. Any objections?

Jaltus:
"saved" is masculine, not neuter (notice the "oi" ending).
The neuter "this" is referring to the entire preceding phrase.

Greek:
[Eph 2:8] Jaltus nails it. If touto were to refer to a single word in the neutral, that word would be este, but indeed it refers to the entire este clause, so that it means "This, [your salvation by grace through faith], is not from yourselves, [being a gift of God], nor from works, [that no one should boast].

Now plainly this states that our salvation is not by works, but is by grace - Indeed that was just established in 2:5 - But here is added dia pistews - by means of faith.

So what does this mean? Are we saved through faith? Or by grace? Indeed, by grace. But what then of dia pistews?

And it must be acknowedged that faith attracts grace, and faithlessness repels it, and faith is the doing of Christ's commandments by those in Christ. So that 'through faith' is what the person needs to do that he or she be saved...

Yet it is not the works that save, but grace, attracted by faith in action, even though that faith in action itself cannot save, yet is needed for salvation, for where it is absent, grace is repelled...

This is a very synergistic passage, faith and grace working together unto salvation... "For by grace are you saved through faith"... It could not be clearer...

geo

Don't know if you understand my reasoning behind the thread. I don't believe this verse proves Total Depravity, and that's all I'm really showing.

[Jaltus]

Total depravity means that man cannot be saved without grace from God.

That is it.

I think you are confusing it with Utter Depravity, which means that man cannot be saved without God moving them to faith. Those are two different doctrines.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Today @ 11:17 AM
doogieduff:

I Don't know if you understand my reasoning behind the thread. I don't believe this verse proves Total Depravity, and that's all I'm really showing.

For myself, I have always had a problem with the sound of the words "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" when applied to a creature created by God in God's own image. Better to say, I should think, that we are dead in our sins, and re-vivified in Christ upon our entry into His body...

I see Jaltus saying that total depravity only means that we cannot be saved without God's grace - It doesn't take these harsh words, "total depravity", to say that...

And no, I don't understand your reasoning behind this thread - I just enjoy discussing scripture...

geo

[Act9_12Out]

Doogie,

I see this is turning into a semantical debate. I agree with Geo's statement:


I see Jaltus saying that total depravity only means that we cannot be saved without God's grace - It doesn't take these harsh words, "total depravity", to say that...

I also agree with the highlighted portion of a statement made by Jaltus:


I agree with 1, but I think Total Depravity can be proved, just not irresistable grace.

The other points of TULIP stem from the "U" and "I". If "U" and "I" are true, then the other points seem to be logical conclusions. However, I agree with Jaltus that "U" cannot be proven to be true. Actually, all 5 points are unable to be proven. Here are some quotes by Calvin himself:


Calvin's Institutes--Ages Digital Library Version 5, Book 3

Page 1056 - Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

Page 1068 - As all who are of the number of the reprobate are vessels formed unto dishonor, so they cease not by their perpetual crimes to provoke the anger of God against them, and give evident signs of the judgement which God has already passed upon them; so far is it from being true that they vainly contend against it.

Page 1065 - ...when we say, that God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others...It is asked, how it happens that of the two, between whom there is no difference of merit, God in his election adopts the one, and passes by the other?...when God elects one and rejects another, it is owing not to any respect to the individual, but entirely to his own mercy which is free to display and exert itself when and where he pleases.

Page 1077 - When he first shines with the light of his word on the undeserving, he gives a sufficiently clear proof of his free goodness. Here, therefore, boundless goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring all to salvation, since a heavier judgement awaits the reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his love, God also, to display his own glory, withholds from them the effectual agency of his Spirit....And he acts not according to the gratitude of each, but according to his election. Of this you have a striking example in Luke when the Jews and Gentiles in common heard the discourse of Paul and Barnabus. Though they were all instructed in the same word, it is said, that "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," (Acts 13:48.) How can we deny that calling is gratuitous, when election alone reigns in it even to its conclusion?

If God is the "chooser" and "gracer" of those who will be saved, then Total / Utter Depravity must be true (Hey Jaltus, that last statement could be considered a 2nd class condition! :teeth:). I agree with the highlighted portion of another statement made by Jaltus:


TD just means that salvation comes by God moving first, e.g. grace.

However, what does it mean that "God moves first?" Why does Jaltus term this action as TD? It is evident that after the fall, sin entered the world, and a mercy seat was necessary for any human to be acceptable before God. So, what is "God's Grace," which God "moved first" for His creation? God was Gracious to send His Son to die on the cross for our sins. I would hope that Jaltus agrees that Christ's death on the cross (God's Grace) is available to all who desire to come to Him (Therefore nullifying the L). As stated above, we are saved because God was Gracious to send the perfect sacrifice to take away our sins. If we believe (have faith) in that Perfect Sacrifice, then we receive that wonderful gift from God, salvation.

--Jeremy

[Jaltus]

My point is that Total Depravity is defined as "God must make the first move in salvation, man is unable to find salvation on his own."

It is a stance against Pelagianism. If you think man can come to a saving knowledge of Christ without first receiving grace from God, then you are Pelagian and do not believe in TD. If you think man cannot be saved without God's grace (whatever form you take that in), then you believe in TD.

As for Calvin, he never stated any of the 5 points since they were written after his death, IIRC.

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134780#post134780)
George Blaisdell:



Thanks, Bill - And John, and St. Morpheus [who slipped me some pearls too]...

I really should say that I have said nothing new, that all I do is write from Church Tradition and the Holy Fathers - The wells run deep - And I am but a beginner... [baptized last Mar 5th, finally entering the church after a 4 year struggle to gain entry. I'm a hard case!]

It is so important to just remember that we are God's creation, created in His image, struggling to attain His likeness, and that after baptism, we are children of God, and that this whole "total depravity" language so easily leads us away from the basics of sin and repentance. confession and forgiveness, of the struggle to walk the Christian talk, and then maybe to talk the walk -

"In the world you will find tribulation", our Lord's own words... So that gratitude for tribulation is the Christian response... Any response that excludes gratitude is un-Christian. And I confess to being VERY unChristian... For when I am treated unjustly, and things go very wrong, I do not give thanks to the Lord, or if at all, then only later, and not when they happen...

It is all just Eastern Orthodoxy 101 - No rocket science... Yet vast beauty in worldly deprivation, [and not in depravation]...

geo

Good stuff, George. Please continue sharing from the well of Eastern Orthodoxy. I for one am blessed by your writings.

:cheers:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

How do you guys interpret Romans 7:18---"Oida gar hoti ouk oikousa en emoi, tout estin en th sarki mou, agathon..."

One might quibble over phraseology, but is the flesh not "totally depraved?" (This isn't, BTW, to detract from the merits of geo's post above, which I also appreciated.)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Today @ 10:20 PM
pereynol:

How do you guys interpret Romans 7:18--- Oida gar hoti ouk oikei en emoi, tout estin en th sarki mou, agaqon...

One might quibble over phraseology, but is the flesh not "totally depraved?"

Οιδα γαρ οτι ουκ οικει εν εμοι
τουτ εστιν εν τη σαρκι μου, αγαθον
For I know that there is not dwelling in me, that is in the flesh of me, good...

The Church understands this to mean that the flesh is not to be looked to for what is good. The flesh is corruptible and impermanent, and seeks pleasure and avoids pain, which all pass, and there is no good in these, nor in the mind that has these in view...

Depravity is not the absence of good. It is the perversion of good. Paul here only says good does not dwell in him, in his flesh...

Yet I would say that Paul would affirm the value of flesh in repentance, for it is from the fleshy concerns of this soulish world that we turn unto Christ, and the fleshy lives we inherit in this world of the valley of the shadow of death give us that from which we can repent...

Orthodoxy affirms that the flesh is neutral, and that pleasure and pain are no standards for conduct... Which this passage affirms...

geo

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Thanks Geo,
I don't have a copy of the Philokalia handy at the moment, but I seem to remember that the latest translation contained some interesting notes wherein Bishop Ware addressed sarx as it was interpreted by the early church. This may be a side issue, but if you have anything to add concerning what the "flesh" entails, it might be helpful.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Today @ 01:13 PM
pereynol:

Thanks Geo,
... sarx as it was interpreted by the early church.... if you have anything to add concerning what the "flesh" entails, it might be helpful.

Well, flesh is flesh - And it is a term that can mean people, and can mean one's physical body, and in a derivative meaning, which is the key to its usage in the NT, it means the mind of the flesh, turned toward the concerns of the flesh, and thereby away from matters concerning our right relationship [righteousness] to God. [e.g. being obedient to Christ's commandments.]

The flesh is not depraved, it is simply fallen, subject to decay, to passability, to pleasure and pain, to all manner of 'concerns' which for a Christian are not appropriate, for a Christian is concerned with the things of God, and not with the things of self, and flesh is of self... Our mortality, our pleasure and pain, are the instruments of our enslavement to our fallen state.

This is why askesis is so important in our walk in Christ - We find out in a hurry in self denial of our bodily demands, just how enslaved we are to the flesh. Easy to talk the walk, hard to walk it - As Paul said, he fed the disciples milk, [preaching Christ crucified], for they could not yet take the hardship of meat, which comes with years of discipleship, normally, and entails a toughening, a conFIRMation in the faith, that only comes in ascetic struggle, as we "run the race" that Paul tells us is ours as Christians... Wherein is found the 'perfection' or 'completion' of the saints, oi teleoi...

And as Paul so clearly indicates, for those called to be apostles, the road is packed with discomfort and agony and sufferings - Such that from the point of view of those outside their aegis, they must seem to be the most wretched of all possible humans... [You know the quotes.]

geo