Where does faith come from?

[PuritanD]

I have read Holding's article concerning what faith is and I admit it is a well written article. I agree with Holding's definition regarding to what is faith.

Contemplating on this issue raised a potent question, "Where does faith come from?" Or better, "Where does this saving faith originate?"

I believe that there are two options regarding this question. Either this faith is given by God to man or it is generated by man under his own compulsion (choosing). I do not believe that either an Arminian nor a Calvinist would answer the latter since the accusation of it being something we could boast about can and should be raised. Also, one may argue that the latter could be classified as a work towards salvation.

If this reasoning is true, then we are left with the first option that God gives the necessary salvific faith to man. Which leads to the question in which has been and will be debated is how it is given.

Ephesians 2 is a favorite chapter in such a discussion regarding salvation. Paul paints a disturbing picture of humanity's nature, but than brings in the great news of God's grace. And builds up to the often quoted verses, verse 8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

It has been argued that grace here is the objective while faith is the subjective aspect of salvation. Such an argument can lead one to think that since faith is generally subjective it must come from the person claiming it (i.e. "I have faith in Jesus") which can be understood by the definition of faith given by Holding.

Exegetically, gar is probably pointing back to the statement of grace in verse 5 in which Paul is here expanding upon verse 5. The point I would like to raise is the demonstrative pronoun toutw. This pronoun is in the neuter gender. Barth states that we have three choices concerning what the pronoun points to; 1) grace, 2) faith, or 3) to the verb save. However as Hoehner points out there is a fourth and probably better option. Hoehner mentions that it cannot be the first two since both grace and faith are feminen nouns and would require the pronoun to follow gender. It is also unlikely to be towards the verb since the antecedent needs to be a masculine participle.

Therefore, the pronoun probably refers to the idea mentioned in 8a (everything prior to the kai). If this is true, then God must give us the saving faith we need to believe (trust) in Christ. A calvinist may be salvinating at the mouth here :duh: For it would seem that God does all the work but before the arminian has a cow... we have to deal with this idea of salvation being God's gift.

The arminian argument generally would agree with everything up to this point. They would point out that since salvation is a gift; one must be able to receive it freely. I think that this is where the rub is at. For is not this reception called, "faith?" Is not to express reception of the gift the exact same idea that I express trust in the Savior?

Personelly, I would have to say, "Yes." If that is the case, how does an arminian divorce faith from reception (or put one's trust in)? Is it possible? For if reception is derived from LFW, how does one then explain where their faith came from without giving complete credit to God?

I would really like to focus if we can on the faith aspect of this passage. I believe that the general response from the arminian camp would be, "I choose the gift." But again, how can one choose without boasting? For if we do actually choose than is it not legit to say that I participated in saving myself by my act of choosing and therefore can possible boast?

Just some thoughts stemmed out by Holding's article.

PuritanD

[bar Jonah]

I wonder what Paul had to say on the matter?

Romans 10:17
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Galatians 3:2
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:5
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--

Colossians 1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Sounds to me like faith comes from hearing the truth about God, about Jesus Christ. :ri:

And how else will they hear unless there is a preacher? When was the last time you preached the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

It's the responsibility of EVERY Christian to share the truth of the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. If you're not doing it... you need to learn how to, and then you need to start. And if you don't know how to... ask questions. :smile:

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 01:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=192462#post192462)
RightIdea:

I wonder what Paul had to say on the matter?

Galatians 3:5
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--

Sounds to me like faith comes from hearing the truth about God, about Jesus Christ. :ri:

And how else will they hear unless there is a preacher? When was the last time you preached the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

It's the responsibility of EVERY Christian to share the truth of the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. If you're not doing it... you need to learn how to, and then you need to start. And if you don't know how to... ask questions. :smile:

RI,

I would never disagree that we need to be deeply involved in the spreading the good news of Jesus as Savior. I hope that is not what I tried to imply with my initial post.

It is interesting though that eventhough we are called to preach the good news to any and every individual, it is God who equips the listeners to hear, which is my point. The one who gives the Spirit also gives the faith which by we are saved as stated by the verse you quote above.

Admittedly, this would make the Christian's job easier. All that is required of the Christian is to share the good news, she is not responsible for the reactions of those present for some will not be hearing but listening if at all.

True, one should strive to communicate the gospel as best as they can by practice, study, etc. But, it is an awesome reminder that from start to end God is responsible for a person's salvation and not because someone was able to "choose" Jesus.

Praise the Lord that, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

[themuzicman]

Being in the LFW camp, let me provide an analogy.

If I asked you the question, "Do you believe Freddie Doe?", but you had never heard of Freddie Doe, the quesiton would have no meaning for you, because you don't know.

That would be like total depravity. Before you'd ever heard of Freddie Doe, you didn't know that there was something to believe. For the Christian, someone who doesn't know that God even possibly exists cannot believe or have faith in Him.

Thus, someone has to tell them that God is real. Once they accept that, then they've taken the first step of faith. Are they saved? No, since they haven't accepted the gift of grace, but it is a beginning. In James, he writes that the people he was writing to believe that God exists. Great. So do the demons. However, now it is up to the person to act on their faith. And this is the searching process that so many Christians went through before they got saved, especially those saved as adults.

They had faith that God existed, and then began to search for Him.

Michael

[Arminian]

Puritan,


Exegetically, gar is probably pointing back to the statement of grace in verse 5 in which Paul is here expanding upon verse 5. The point I would like to raise is the demonstrative pronoun toutw. This pronoun is in the neuter gender. Barth states that we have three choices concerning what the pronoun points to; 1) grace, 2) faith, or 3) to the verb save. However as Hoehner points out there is a fourth and probably better option. Hoehner mentions that it cannot be the first two since both grace and faith are feminen nouns and would require the pronoun to follow gender. It is also unlikely to be towards the verb since the antecedent needs to be a masculine participle.

Therefore, the pronoun probably refers to the idea mentioned in 8a (everything prior to the kai). If this is true, then God must give us the saving faith we need to believe (trust) in Christ. A calvinist may be salvinating at the mouth here For it would seem that God does all the work but before the arminian has a cow... we have to deal with this idea of salvation being God's gift.

Faith is not the gift. And I can make a list of Calvinists that agree with the interpretation, including Wallace and Ridderbos. Of course, if philosophy determines the meaning of the words, rather than grammar, the "Arminain" concerned with grammar certainly would "have a cow."

The prepositional phrases are subordinate. This "salvation" is a "by grace-through faith" salvation. "Salvation" is the abstraction (antecedent to the neuter) with these qualifiers.

And so it is "salvation" which is the gift. Which salvation? The "by grace through faith salvation." That is the "gift."

The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

It is this type of salvation that is God's gift to all.

gar is merely expounding on what was already said. It isn’t a comment on verse 5 alone. However, "by [the] grace" is anaphorical with regard to "grace" in verse 5where "God has made us alive even when we were dead in our transgressions." Do you understand that Paul doesn't believe that believers were "made alive" prior to Christ's arrival? He didn't think they were going to hell.


since the accusation of it being something we could boast about can and should be raised.

Think about the context. Paul’s opposition argues that they have the flesh of Abraham so they are covenant members and Gentiles are not. If this is so, they DO have something to boast about because they ARE covenant members and others ARE NOT. This is why circumcision is being discussed here, by Paul. It isn’t an anomaly.

In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile. There is only “one new man.” So how can a Jew boast over what they have in common with a Gentile in this regard? Paul, as always, is concerned with division.

Paul is concerned with covenant identity. Who has claim to the covenant? They CAN boast.

[Sheepdog]

a couple of thoughts:

Puritan, you state that faith either comes solely from God as a gift, or entirely from human choice. i believe that this is a false dilemma, and propose a third option: God and man are both intermediate causes of faith. We can't muster up faith without God, yet the Bible continuously puts forth a choice: have faith in God, or die in your sins

Arminian, i'd give you 5 pearls for hitting the brass tacks on Eph. 2:8,9, but i don't think i can giv you more.

Puritan again, you seem to want to argue that faith is a work, and thus something to boast about. setting aside that no Christian regardless of theology believes that faith is a work, would person who was truely faithful to God boast about his faith? seems to be an inconsitency in and of itself, so no need to evoke Calvinism there, IMO.

[Arminian]

For the record, what I'm about to say is not a matter of an "Arminain" having "a cow." In fact, it's a matter of exegesis, which is shared by many modern Calvinists. What Paul is saying in Epheisans 2 is what he is saying in so many other places.

Compare Romans 3:


27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Note that faith nullifies all boasting! Why? Because the law WOULD be reason to boast......A RACIAL boast! A JEWISH boast!

And we had to wait for Christ's arrival for this Scriptural promise to happen:


21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Paul knows his Scriptures. Paul KNOWS his Scriptures!

[PuritanD]

Armi,

I know you have two posts here and I will try to respond to both of them, but I do want to deal with this one first.


Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=193988#post193988)
Arminian:

Puritan,

Faith is not the gift. And I can make a list of Calvinists that agree with the interpretation, including Wallace and Ridderbos. Of course, if philosophy determines the meaning of the words, rather than grammar, the "Arminain" concerned with grammar certainly would "have a cow."

The prepositional phrases are subordinate. This "salvation" is a "by grace-through faith" salvation. "Salvation" is the abstraction (antecedent to the neuter) with these qualifiers.

And so it is "salvation" which is the gift. Which salvation? The "by grace through faith salvation." That is the "gift."

The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

It is this type of salvation that is God's gift to all.

I must admit that I am quite confused here. I may not have been clear on this in my first post, but if you re-read it, hopefully you will see that I am arguing that the pronoun's antecedent is the whole concept of God's salvific work. I will encourage you to read my first post again. Paragraphs (if you can call them that :smile:) 7 and 8 in my first post are in full agreement with Wallace and yourself regarding the exegesis of the verse regarding toutw.

Since, this refers to the whole of the salvific process, including our faith, which you seem to agree with, the answer to my question is that our saving faith must come from God.

As Erickson writes, "...even repentance and faith are gifts from God." I think that the misunderstanding may come from the fact that I am stating that since faith is included in the process (salvation) and this whole process is from God (Eph 2:8). Then, it would not be to far fetched to say that each part of the process then must come from God. In other words, if the whole is from God than the individual parts that make up the whole must come from God. It is in this sense that I see that faith is given by God to us. Hopefully, this helps.



gar is merely expounding on what was already said. It isn’t a comment on verse 5 alone. However, "by [the] grace" is anaphorical with regard to "grace" in verse 5where "God has made us alive even when we were dead in our transgressions."

It is true that it is not commenting alone on verse 5. However, it seems that it heavily favors the idea that it is expounding on the idea given in verse 5 "by grace you have been saved." It does seem to weight towards defining exactly what this salvation is. Is not verse 5 talking about salvation (i.e. making us alive). This making us alive would seem to strengthen the idea that our faith does not come from ourselves but from the one who made us alive in Christ.


Do you understand that Paul doesn't believe that believers were "made alive" prior to Christ's arrival? He didn't think they were going to hell.

I am at a lost here, Armi. What part of my original post would seem to orginate these statements. In any case, combining these two statements seem to contradict each other. You say that Paul doesn't believe that they were "made alive" which in this context refers to salvation yet they were not going to hell either. Sorry, but I am a bit confused here.


Think about the context. Paul’s opposition argues that they have the flesh of Abraham so they are covenant members and Gentiles are not. If this is so, they DO have something to boast about because they ARE covenant members and others ARE NOT. This is why circumcision is being discussed here, by Paul. It isn’t an anomaly.

Since I am without a biblical reference here, I will have to assume that you are referring to Eph 2:11ff. It is interesting thought, but it would seem that Paul's line of thought does actual flow from Eph 2:1 to verse 11 and not reverse. I am unsure to exactly how this pertains to the question I raised in my first post, but am willing to listen.

Hopefully this has cleared the air a bit. I must now go to the next post and respond. I think I skipped over one...

As mentioned before, it looks as if this faith comes directly in the package of salvation that God gives. So... where does faith come from??

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Today @ 07:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=193576#post193576)
themuzicman:

Being in the LFW camp, let me provide an analogy.

If I asked you the question, "Do you believe Freddie Doe?", but you had never heard of Freddie Doe, the quesiton would have no meaning for you, because you don't know.

That would be like total depravity. Before you'd ever heard of Freddie Doe, you didn't know that there was something to believe. For the Christian, someone who doesn't know that God even possibly exists cannot believe or have faith in Him.

Thus, someone has to tell them that God is real. Once they accept that, then they've taken the first step of faith. Are they saved? No, since they haven't accepted the gift of grace, but it is a beginning. In James, he writes that the people he was writing to believe that God exists. Great. So do the demons. However, now it is up to the person to act on their faith. And this is the searching process that so many Christians went through before they got saved, especially those saved as adults.

They had faith that God existed, and then began to search for Him.

Michael

Michael,

I agree that the Lord has called us to evangelize the world.

I would though disagree that the faith mentioned in Eph 2:8 is anything but salvific and this is where I think your analogy breaks down. Are you saying that demons have faith in God as well??

One can claim that God exists and not have a living, salvific faith which is what James is actually discussing with the believers whom he is writing to. Again it is not up to the person to "act" upon this non-salvific faith for salvation. If this is the case, then we are stuck with a works based salvation. The person hears about God and then goes on this "journey" to find salvation?

In any case, the question has not been answered as to where this faith originates.

PuritanD

[Minnesota]

fear of the unkown, and the dread of dying

[PuritanD]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194017#post194017)
Sheepdog:

Puritan, you state that faith either comes solely from God as a gift, or entirely from human choice. i believe that this is a false dilemma, and propose a third option: God and man are both intermediate causes of faith. We can't muster up faith without God, yet the Bible continuously puts forth a choice: have faith in God, or die in your sins

I would love to see why this is a false dilemma. If we cannot muster up faith without God, then is it not obvious that God orginates this faith. What does God do, originate part of the faith and if so, what part is it? The choice does not presuppose the need that both God and man must muster the faith together. Yes, from our standpoint we have a choice, but choice does not ever equal faith.


Puritan again, you seem to want to argue that faith is a work, and thus something to boast about. setting aside that no Christian regardless of theology believes that faith is a work, would person who was truely faithful to God boast about his faith? seems to be an inconsitency in and of itself, so no need to evoke Calvinism there, IMO.

I am not trying to argue that faith is a work. I do not believe it is a work but you are stressing my point. Since faith is not a work, then it cannot truly orginate from man. If it did originate from man, than man has a "right" to boast in such a work as participating in his salvation from eternal separation.

Hopefully, this helps clear up any misconception.

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194055#post194055)
Arminian:

For the record, what I'm about to say is not a matter of an "Arminain" having "a cow." In fact, it's a matter of exegesis, which is shared by many modern Calvinists. What Paul is saying in Epheisans 2 is what he is saying in so many other places.

Note that faith nullifies all boasting! Why? Because the law WOULD be reason to boast......A RACIAL boast! A JEWISH boast!

And we had to wait for Christ's arrival for this Scriptural promise to happen:

Paul knows his Scriptures. Paul KNOWS his Scriptures!

Armi,

I am sorry if you took the "Arminian having a cow thing" seriously. I was trying to "lighten" up the situation and have fun with it. But, it seem to fail miseralby and I humbly apologize for this.

Though the Scripture you quote is not in ths post, I am wondering what ignited this response. I am not sure how I can respond since I am at a lost as to why you posted this second post.

In any event, I fully agree that Paul does know his Scripture. He not only knew his Scripture; he was divinely inspired to write what he did. However, I do not think that I had ever questioned Paul's integrity nor his vast knowledge of Scripture.

PuritanD

[Sheepdog]

this is just a brief response, but if need be, i can cite scripture that validates what i am saying.


Today @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194469#post194469)
PuritanD:

I would love to see why this is a false dilemma. If we cannot muster up faith without God, then is it not obvious that God orginates this faith. What does God do, originate part of the faith and if so, what part is it? The choice does not presuppose the need that both God and man must muster the faith together. Yes, from our standpoint we have a choice, but choice does not ever equal faith.

i believe it's a false dilemma because you only allow 2 alternatives, when there may be 3. the third being, faith has its cause in two sources: God and man. the question you ask loads the term faith in a way i don't think is biblical. that is, you seem to treat faith as a tangible object, when in reality, it is more or less synonomous with the term "trust" or "loyalty." Do i trust the President of the US because he gave me reason to trust Him, or because i chose to? I argue that both are actually correct. in the same way, I put my faith in God because: He has drawn me to Him, and I chose to draw unto him. there is no part that is given by God, nor part "mustered up" by man. Faith as defined by the Bible is not like a loaf of bread or any other tangible object.

choice does not equal faith: i do agree with. :teeth:



I am not trying to argue that faith is a work. I do not believe it is a work but you are stressing my point. Since faith is not a work, then it cannot truly orginate from man. If it did originate from man, than man has a "right" to boast in such a work as participating in his salvation from eternal separation.


the problem is, the way the Bible always uses the term "works" always implies (to the best of my knowledge) actions. When i give to the poor, that is a work. When i repent, technically that is not a work. On the other hand, faith is not an action, though actions do result from faith. when we say faith is not a work, it doesn't mean "it cannot originate from us," but that it is not an action we perform.

we don't participate in salvation because participation implies action on our part.

[themuzicman]

Michael,

I agree that the Lord has called us to evangelize the world.

I would though disagree that the faith mentioned in Eph 2:8 is anything but salvific and this is where I think your analogy breaks down. Are you saying that demons have faith in God as well??

One can claim that God exists and not have a living, salvific faith which is what James is actually discussing with the believers whom he is writing to. Again it is not up to the person to "act" upon this non-salvific faith for salvation. If this is the case, then we are stuck with a works based salvation. The person hears about God and then goes on this "journey" to find salvation?

In any case, the question has not been answered as to where this faith originates.

PuritanD

I think this is where many denominations put too much emphasis on what faith is. I suppose one could technically say that demons don't have faith, because they know existentially that God exists. However, the concept is the same. Faith is simply what you believe.

If you have faith IN (or believe in) something, that means that you believe that something will fulfill it's promise(s).

I could say that I have faith in Jeff Gordon that he will win this race. Now, the difference between this faith and salvific faith is that I'm believing in Jeff Gordon's ability to win this race, which is miniscule compared to believing in God's ability to save me.

But, at its core, faith is simply the substance of belief, the evidence of what we cannot see (See Hebrews 11:1).

Thus, there are not different KINDS of faith, but different things that we believe.

In the case of demons, if we can say that they don't have existential knowledge, James says that they believe that God exists. This is faith His existance. The demons shudder, because they know the consequences of God's existance for them.

However, it is not faith that saves, but grace through faith.

I realize this is a bit semantic, but I think we do need to demythologize (?) what faith really is.

Thus, if we go back to Eph 2:8:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

The gift of God is clearly GRACE. Faith, here, is the expectation that God's grace is available to me, and I have accepted it, and live in faith that God will fulfill his promise.

Michael

[doogieduff]

The "faith" mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9 is Christ's faith, not ours. There is a definite article before "faith" actually making the correct translation "the faith." We are saved by Christ's faithfulnesss to die on the cross.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 03:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194532#post194532)
Arminian:
You're missing the point. "This" is not a reference to a process. It is a reference to the TYPE of salvation (i.e., "grace-through-faith"), God's new covenant work. It is by God's grace that salvation is through faith. You aren't agreeing with Wallace at all concerning what he calls "grace-by-faith salvation."

What you appear to be doing is seeing words or points of agreement that can fit and work within your paradigm and assuming that you're reading what you already think.

I do find it fascinating that you seem to be stuck on limiting the text to being a reference to type of salvation alone. How can one compare "types" without describing what it is (process). I fully agree and do not try to argue that touto does not refer to the whole concept of 8a. I am not trying to equate "touto" with each individual component of 8a but have moved on to look closer at this part of the verse.

However, this does not impede on looking closely at what makes up this conceptual idea. It would be improper to simply state that "For by grace you have been saved through faith" is a type of salvation without looking at the individual parts that makes up the whole. In essence, I am moving from the forest (this, which is talking about the whole) to the individual trees (grace, save, faith) that make up this forest.

Question: why should we limit Paul to saying that he is only comparing types without getting into the nitty gritty? Even Wallace makes comments on how this faith fits in the process in verse 8 in the footnotes of his book and states "...for faith to save, the Spirit of God must initiate the conversion process." Does this observation ruin the exegesis of touto being the antecedent for the whole? Again, I believe that I am in full agreement with Wallace.

Why are we forced to see 8a as only a concept and not a descriptive process of salvation? Surely, the use of the dative of grace and the preposition, dia expounds upon the process as much as being descriptive of the type. For one cannot go about explaining the first part of this verse without touching on the process. The language just doesn't allow any other way.

Unfortunately, your last paragraph above, I believe, is off-based. Hopefully, the above will help clear things up a bit. I work diligently at preventing myself from eisegesising the text, though I do admit that being human I can and will falter with my exegesis.


Erickson may say that, but his argument doesn't come from grammar or context. The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

What Ercikson (or you) is doing is confirming what he believes and then returning to the verse to beg it for the conclusion that he drew from other sources. The verse says what it says. I'll let the cards fall where they may and let Paul be Paul.

How do you know where Ericikson's argument comes from and the context in which it was given? Anyway, I think I found the hang up with your argument. You seem to be mixing up the terms, "concept," and "abstraction." According to Webster, abstraction: 1) an abstract (which is defined as: thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances) or general idea or term; 2) the act of considering something in terms of general qualities, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances. The definition of concept: 1) a general notion or idea; conception. 2) an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

Though one may argue that both can be defined as a general idea, the notion is that one is formed apart from any sense of reality while the other is based on specific objects like grace, faith, being saved. None of these terms for Paul here in this verse are an abstracted ideal or thought but based on concrete realities. Even a quick look at my thesaurus (which is not exhaustive) does not have these two terms, abstract and concept as synonyms.

Since we seem to agree that we are talking about the concept of salvation, I believe that it is appropriate to look at the particulars that make up this concept of salvation, the process. The "grace through faith" type of salvation cannot be an abstract idea but one planted firmly in reality based primarily on how it operates.


Why does this salvation exist? What happened to "works of the law" salvation promised to Israel? Look also at 8-16 as a whole structural unit of thought, a structured argument:

I would disagree that the structual thought is actually 8-16. I have read this chapter and agreewith most of the commentators and place the structual unit break makes better sense at verse 10 (1-10 and 11ff) than what you suggest.

BTW, I had to cut out the references to the Scripture to save space but for those reading Armi and I are on verse 8.


It is "by [the] grace." What grace? By "the" grace in v. 5 (this "the" is anaphorical) where "God has made us alive even when we were dead in transgressions." It is by this grace that we "have been saved."

The article is anaphorical and refers back to verse 5, which is what I have stated in my first post and was hotly questioned on.:yipee:


Note the "you (plural) have been saved" (perfect passive participle; periphrasis). It is passive, which indicates that the subject of the action is not the one who performed the action; it is the one who receives the action. The salvation here referred to is not performed by the subject.

I could not agree more with you. Though, "you are saved" may be a better translation of the participle, but that is minute.


"This" salvation (neuter demonstrative pronoun, antecedent: "the by grace salvation") is not "out of you (plural)." Those to whom he writes are not the source of this salvation. What is the source? It is the gift of God.

So... are you then answering my question regarding where faith comes from? That, the particular aspect, faith which is part of the concept of "by grace salvation" is soley from God.


The nature of the argument which follows indicates the theological environment within which he makes these claims._ He is arguing that the Gentiles have a place alongside the Jews in this new work of God "by His grace."

I find this partly to be what Paul might be doing. Yet, up to 2:10, Paul has not yet mentioned the Jews nor false teachers. As one commentator states, "But it needs to be realized that in Romans and Galatians Paul is dealing with many Jews, whereas in Ephesians he is dealing primarily with Gentiles." He continues his comments on the term works in verse nine, "'Works' is a broad term referring to human effort, which is the same as "works of the law' in a Jewish context." However, as he mentioned the primary audience are Gentiles and not Jews.


This salvation is NOT "out of works" (i.e., the covenant of the Jews with its means and measures). So that no one could "boast" in this covenant membership. Two points to remember:

a. The Jew's covenant membership was not ATTAINED or MERITED by doing covenant stipulations, i.e., following the particular laws. Those were means by which the devout Jew expressed his membership and MAINTAINED his side of the covenant agreement with God. ENTRANCE into this covenant was by birth (lit. in Greek "natural endowment").

b. The Jewish "boast" was in their natural descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They "boasted in the flesh," i.e., natural fleshly descent.

But now that this old covenant was obsolete, there was no longer this boasting. There was no longer this confidence in the flesh descent. Gentiles are now "joint-heirs," on equal grounds! They no longer needed to "become Jews" (participate in the old covenant means and measures).

I completely disagree with such entrance requirements for would not Rahab be considered a member of the covenant though not a direct descendant of Abraham? Some of those mentioned in the Great hall of Faith of Heb. 11 are not direct descendants.

The Jews not only boasted about their natural descent but also that they were given the Law of God (see Romans). The other thing is and Paul makes this quite clear, it has always been salvific faith that entitles one to be a part of God's covenantal people and not necessarily based on birth (again see Romans).

Again, I had to delete to make room for responses. If you are trying to follw along. We are now entering discussion on Eph. 2:11ff, specifically 11-12.


This is a complex sentence. But take a look at the main assertion:

Therefore, remember, that formerly you were at that
time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having
no hope and without God in the world.

The Gentiles are to remember what it was like "at that time" (when the old covenant was in effect). They were aliens; they were excluded from God's covenant work (except through "becoming Jews!").

Hmm.. just earlier you stated that to enter into the Jewish community you had to be born into it. Which way is it?


The requirement of the opponents of Paul, the "Circumcision" who preached the old covenant, was for the Gentiles, that is, the "Uncircumcision," to become Jews!

But for Paul, if the Gentiles gave in to these agitators who were preaching the "old," then they would be returning themselves back to their "former status" under the old. He would just as soon that these agitators castrate themselves (per Galatians), if these Gentiles converts accepted the agitators' message, then they would become once again:

... separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no
hope and without God in the world.

Where are these agitators at in this letter? It is hard to make such an assertion from the direct context that Paul is worried about his listeners reverting back to a works type salvation. Unless, we try to pull in Galatians which was written with a different audience and context in mind. Especially since, the term "law" only appears once in the whole letter to the Ephisians.


Paul goes on to explain what it is that they have received and its significance to the old covenant distinction between Jew and Gentile. Surely they would not want to forfeit this:

But now in Christ Jesus, you who were formerly far off have
been brought near by brought near by the blood of Christ. For
He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and
broke down the barrier of the dividing wall ...

So then the Gentiles are the beneficiaries of this wall having come down. For this wall kept them from God's covenant relationship. God had covenanted with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The "other familles of the earth" were excluded.

But now that wall has come down, the Gentiles are made fellow-heirs of God's covenant relationship. A new work of salvation makes this possible:

... by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He
might make the two into one new man, thus establishing
peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God
through the cross, by having put to death the enmity.

This wall brought enmity. Those who were under the law were enemies with those outside the law. But the wall has now been torn down so that the two former entities might be united into one body. This "salvation" of which Paul speaks makes this possible.

This is good stuff, especially if we were talking about specific passages in Galatians. But again, we are in Ephesians if I am not mistaken and Paul has not directly mentioned much of this.


Also, NO ONE was alive prior to Christ's arrival. Yet believers were not going to hell. The Spirit which imparts life had not yet come. Read Galatians 3 and get back to me if you are still confused on this issue.

I quote, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living
(Matt 22:32)." What exactly does this mean then???


I read his letter as a whole and THEN I look at its component parts.

So do I and hopefully the rest of us here at this site.


Look at the context, as described in my first post. Paul is very clear. There is no need to employ reductionism or abstraction to make a different, philosophical point. Paul made his point, and it wasn't the one you are making.

First you call "by grace salvation" an abstraction and now you say we cannot employ it? This is a bit odd. Again, I am looking at the particulars that make up the concept of salvation by grace. I am not reducing anything.

I am trying to stess the exact point in which Paul made. Tbat is why I raised the question in the first place. One of the particulars, "salvific faith," comes directly from God and not by our own effort.


[quote}No need to apologize. I'm not really Arminain, and I love cows. [/QUOTE]

MOO! :teeth:

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 09:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194663#post194663)
themuzicman:

However, it is not faith that saves, but grace through faith.

I realize this is a bit semantic, but I think we do need to demythologize (?) what faith really is.

Thus, if we go back to Eph 2:8:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

The gift of God is clearly GRACE. Faith, here, is the expectation that God's grace is available to me, and I have accepted it, and live in faith that God will fulfill his promise.


Michael,

It is quite late and I need to get some form of sleep in. However, the problem you have is that you are indirectly implying that the terms, "that" (which is better translated as 'this') and "it" only refers to grace. This is not possible in the Greek construction. The word for "this" is in the neuter gender which implies that its antecedent (that which the pronoun replaces) has to be neuter since pronouns are generally dictated by its gender. Example: when refering to a male we say, "he," to a female, "she," and our neuter is "it."

The terms, 'grace' and 'faith' are both feminine in the Greek. As you can see, this causes a problem for a neuter pronoun to take the place of a feminine noun. Since this cannot be the case, the pronoun can take the place for a concept which is all of verse 8a (up to the conjunction but not including it). This would indicate that both grace and faith salvation is as a complete package a gift from God.

Sorry for being so short but I am getting
:zzz: :zzz:

PuritanD

[TedO]

A thought to ponder...

Where in scripture are we ever commanded to or given an example of someone praying for someone elses salvation? The examples I see of Paul praying for a group of people is always in the context of believers. The closest thing I can find which would imply such a need is:

2 Cr 4:3-4 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

This may indicate the need to pray for open eyes to see the gospel - although the verse is clear about who is causing the blindness.

Contrast the lack of evidence that we should be petitioning God for others salvation with Paul's perspective:

2 Cr 5:11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences.

Acts 26:16-18 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

This idea of persuading men fits with the idea faith not being some mystical thing that God gives but rather a response of trust based on evidence. The JP Holding article on the home page gives a good perspective on this.

My point is this: if salvation lies only with God, why didn't the apostle Paul spend his time primarily in intercession - bartering with God as Abraham did for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah - then he could merely preach the gospel and reap the appointed fruits. But the picture is much different. It is of a man persuading and reasoning to present the truth to people that their hearts may be stirred to response.

[Chappie]

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=195519#post195519)
TedO:

A thought to ponder...

Where in scripture are we ever commanded to or given an example of someone praying for someone elses salvation? The examples I see of Paul praying for a group of people is always in the context of believers. The closest thing I can find which would imply such a need is:

Rom 9:1-4
9:1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
KJV

[Chappie]

08-25-2003 @ 05:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=193436#post193436)
PuritanD:
RI,
I would never disagree that we need to be deeply involved in the spreading the good news of Jesus as Savior. I hope that is not what I tried to imply with my initial post.

It is interesting though that eventhough we are called to preach the good news to any and every individual, it is God who equips the listeners to hear, which is my point. The one who gives the Spirit also gives the faith which by we are saved as stated by the verse you quote above.

Admittedly, this would make the Christian's job easier. All that is required of the Christian is to share the good news, she is not responsible for the reactions of those present for some will not be hearing but listening if at all.

True, one should strive to communicate the gospel as best as they can by practice, study, etc. But, it is an awesome reminder that from start to end God is responsible for a person's salvation and not because someone was able to "choose" Jesus.

Praise the Lord that, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Salvation is 100% made possible by God. God equips, but he does not irrisistibly make us believe nor does he directly cause us to believe. Still, without God's persuasion and making salvation possible. It would be impossible.

If you are accusing God of picking and saving, choosing and condemning, it is a sad falacy that has crept into our understanding of God's will..

[Arminian]

Puritan,

I just read your last post to me, and I will respond later (right now I'm painting at my church). However, it appears you are asking me questions that suggest you didn't carefully read what I said.

Here are a few examples:


First you call "by grace salvation" an abstraction and now you say we cannot employ it? This is a bit odd. Again, I am looking at the particulars that make up the concept of salvation by grace. I am not reducing anything.

I wasn't referring to that there.


The article is anaphorical and refers back to verse 5, which is what I have stated in my first post and was hotly questioned on.

My first post says EXACTLY what my second one did. Read it.


I quote, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living
(Matt 22:32)." What exactly does this mean then???

He's answering the question they asked concerning the resurrection. Read verse 31. Besides, you are responding to what Paul said by asking me a question?


I fully agree and do not try to argue that touto does not refer to the whole concept of 8a.

Then you DON"T agree with ME or WALLACE, who you claim to understand.

[PuritanD]

Sheepdog,

My apologies in not applying sooner. As you may see, many of those posting here are keeping me hopping and I am trying to answer everyone.

I am pleasently surprised by the different reactions I get from each person here :smile:



Yesterday @ 12:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194486#post194486)
Sheepdog:

this is just a brief response, but if need be, i can cite scripture that validates what i am saying.

i believe it's a false dilemma because you only allow 2 alternatives, when there may be 3. the third being, faith has its cause in two sources: God and man. the question you ask loads the term faith in a way i don't think is biblical. that is, you seem to treat faith as a tangible object, when in reality, it is more or less synonomous with the term "trust" or "loyalty." Do i trust the President of the US because he gave me reason to trust Him, or because i chose to? I argue that both are actually correct. in the same way, I put my faith in God because: He has drawn me to Him, and I chose to draw unto him. there is no part that is given by God, nor part "mustered up" by man. Faith as defined by the Bible is not like a loaf of bread or any other tangible object.

choice does not equal faith: i do agree with. :teeth:

Here you state that faith does not equal choice but (and this may be splitting hairs here but this is what this site is for, right) at the same time interchange choice with trust as is your example of trusting GW. Your trust depends on your choice and trust is synonomous with faith then your faith depends on your ability to choose salvation or not.

One problem that I see here if I understand correctly is that our choice of placing our faith in something may not always be correct. I know it is not fair to pick on an analogy of GW since all analogies tend to breakdown when pressed, but it is what you gave me to work here with. GW wants you to trust (place faith in) him. You choice to believe or trust or put faith in him based on what... on what you believe is trustworthy. Your faith in him is based soley on your judgement of his words and actions and not because he asks for it.



the problem is, the way the Bible always uses the term "works" always implies (to the best of my knowledge) actions. When i give to the poor, that is a work. When i repent, technically that is not a work. On the other hand, faith is not an action, though actions do result from faith. when we say faith is not a work, it doesn't mean "it cannot originate from us," but that it is not an action we perform.

Works does imply effort exerted on our part, whether this is physical effort or mental effort. Is not making a choice an action? If I decide to choose one flavor of ice cream over another is this not an action on my part?



we don't participate in salvation because participation implies action on our part.

How can this statement be true if as you are trying to argue that faith comes from both God and man? For this third option to work, man has to participate somehow for if not then we are again stuck again with my false dilemma.

BTW: Please feel free to provide the Scriptural support for your postion. I would like to learn more of this position, especially since this is the first time I have heard this idea proposed.

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Today @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=195519#post195519)
TedO:

A thought to ponder...

Where in scripture are we ever commanded to or given an example of someone praying for someone elses salvation? The examples I see of Paul praying for a group of people is always in the context of believers. The closest thing I can find which would imply such a need is:

2 Cr 4:3-4 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

This may indicate the need to pray for open eyes to see the gospel - although the verse is clear about who is causing the blindness.

Contrast the lack of evidence that we should be petitioning God for others salvation with Paul's perspective:

2 Cr 5:11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences.

Acts 26:16-18 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

This idea of persuading men fits with the idea faith not being some mystical thing that God gives but rather a response of trust based on evidence. The JP Holding article on the home page gives a good perspective on this.

My point is this: if salvation lies only with God, why didn't the apostle Paul spend his time primarily in intercession - bartering with God as Abraham did for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah - then he could merely preach the gospel and reap the appointed fruits. But the picture is much different. It is of a man persuading and reasoning to present the truth to people that their hearts may be stirred to response.

Chappie seems to provide a section of a passage showing Paul's concern for the unbeliever, there is another passage that you may want to read and it is, Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. It is within the same context that Chappie quotes.

Your argument has one inherent weakness. You are trying to argue from silence to prove your supposition. Just because we do not find a lot on such prayer does not mean it did not happen. It is obvious that in most of Paul's letters we would not find much on his prayers for non-believers because Paul is writing to fellow believers, of whom he wants to remind them that they are never far from his thoughts by informing them that he does and is praying for them. This does not prove that he never prays for the unsaved.

Since it seems that you are basing your argument primarily on such an assertion, I will wait for your response regarding faith.

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Armi,


Today @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196377#post196377)
Arminian:

Puritan,

I just read your last post to me, and I will respond later (right now I'm painting at my church). However, it appears you are asking me questions that suggest you didn't carefully read what I said.

Here are a few examples:
“ First you call "by grace salvation" an abstraction and now you say we cannot employ it? This is a bit odd. Again, I am looking at the particulars that make up the concept of salvation by grace. I am not reducing anything. ”

I wasn't referring to that there.

First, I love the way you assume that all communication problems are one way. Just because it may seem to you that I am off the mark on your posts does not suggest or imply that I do not read people's posts carefully. It may be just as likely that you need to clarify your responses better. The last time I check communication goes both ways so please stop with such accusations. Now on to your post.

I am uncertain as to what you mean by the last sentence here but if you call "by grace salvation" an abstraction and later on in the post state that we cannot use abstractions with Paul, I find it hard to know then exactly what you mean.

You state that the TYPE is an abstraction, which is hard to understand how salvation is an abstraction when it isn't but I will wait for clarification on this. Then, you say that I am not allow to use abstractions or reductionism. First, you need to prove that "by grace salvation" is just as you classified it, an abstraction.



“ The article is anaphorical and refers back to verse 5, which is what I have stated in my first post and was hotly questioned on. ”

My first post says EXACTLY what my second one did. Read it.

I am not sure what is going on here. All I was doing was agreeing with you that the article is anaphorical and that it was exactly what I was trying to imply in my first post.


He's answering the question they asked concerning the resurrection. Read verse 31. Besides, you are responding to what Paul said by asking me a question?

You seem to be reading way to much into verse 5. True, Paul is talking about being spiritually alive in opposition to his description in verses 1-4. However, it is a stretch to imply that all mankind was spiritual dead prior to Christ's death on the cross. Was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob always spiritually dead? David, a man after God's own heart and author of many of our Psalms, was he not spiritually alive eventhough Christ has not step foot on the planet? How about Moses, was he completely spiritually dead or was he spiritually alive? According to what I have read, you are implying that no person was spiritually alive prior to Jesus.

If I am mistaken, please clarify and help me understand then.


Then you DON"T agree with ME or WALLACE, who you claim to understand.

Please do me a favor and quote exactly Wallace's take on this verse and show me exactly where I and Wallace differ, since you drastically believe that I am in total error and I disagree.

Waiting patiently for the paint to dry
:lol:

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

I'm falling behind, so I'll address some of the comments in your last few posts at a later time. For now, if you never read another word, please just scroll down to the section in bold print.


First, I love the way you assume that all communication problems are one way. Just because it may seem to you that I am off the mark on your posts does not suggest or imply that I do not read people's posts carefully. It may be just as likely that you need to clarify your responses better. The last time I check communication goes both ways so please stop with such accusations.

Yes, communication DOES go both ways. So note the context concerning my comment regarding "reductionism." It is about "boasting":


“ If it did originate from man, than man has a "right" to boast in such a work as participating in his salvation from eternal separation. ”

That isn't the point Paul was addressing the boast was that of the Jew over the Gentile. They had the flesh of Abraham as a mark of covenant membership. This is the same point he makes in Romans:


27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Prior to Christ's arrival, the Jew COULD boast in this regard. They were covenant members through natural endowment. The Gentile was "alien" to the covenant, as Paul describes:


Therefore, remember, that formerly you, the Gentile
in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the
so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh
by human hands - remember that you were at that time
separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having
no hope and without God in the world.

They were excluded from the covenant because they were "Gentile in the flesh."

But now that boast is gone, because:


But now in Christ Jesus, you who were formerly far off have
been brought near by brought near by the blood of Christ. For
He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and
broke down the barrier of the dividing wall ...

So then the Gentiles are the beneficiaries of this wall having come down. For this wall kept them from God's covenant relationship. God had covenanted with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The "other familles of the earth" were excluded.

But now that wall has come down, the Gentiles are made fellow-heirs of God's covenant relationship. A new work of salvation makes this possible:

... by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He
might make the two into one new man, thus establishing
peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God
through the cross, by having put to death the enmity.

This wall brought enmity. Those who were under the law were enemies with those outside the law. But the wall has now been torn down so that the two former entities might be united into one body. This "salvation" of which Paul speaks makes this possible.

You ask:


You seem to be reading way to much into verse 5. True, Paul is talking about being spiritually alive in opposition to his description in verses 1-4. However, it is a stretch to imply that all mankind was spiritual dead prior to Christ's death on the cross. Was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob always spiritually dead? David, a man after God's own heart and author of many of our Psalms, was he not spiritually alive eventhough Christ has not step foot on the planet? How about Moses, was he completely spiritually dead or was he spiritually alive? According to what I have read, you are implying that no person was spiritually alive prior to Jesus.

If I am mistaken, please clarify and help me understand then.

Because of the fall, man was banished from the garden and the fulness of the presence of God. They had been barred from the tree of life. There is a word-play which captures the plight of the disobedient humanity. They were placed in the land to "worship ('bd) and to "obey" (smr). But now they were to "work" or "till" ('bd) and be "kept" (smr) from the tree of life.

Moses wrote of the Seed of a woman. That Seed is the one to whom the promise of restoration to the land was made (Gal 3:16). In "that day" fellowship would once more be restored and He would give His people a circumcised heart and they would once again participate in true worship ('bd) and obedience ('smr). But in the interim, God provided the Sinai covenant "because of the transgressions, until the Seed to whom the promise referred has come" (Gal 3:19).

With that in mind.... Galatians! What a book! Where to begin!?!

A look at Galatians (I'm avoiding the subjective/objective "faith of Christ" issue here. Just the traditional interpretation ... Too many hairs to split...):

Now, that no one is justified by law before God is
evident; for, "The righteous one will live by faith." But
the law is not of faith; on the contrary, "The one who
does them will live by them."

First, it should be kept in mind that the old covenant was a covenant given to the people by God's grace. It was His gracious covenant. Paul's opponents claimed that this new message of his was contrary to God's law, therefore contrary to God's grace. Paul objects to that:

I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness
comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.

But Paul's message was centered on God's new, apocalyptic age which had overcome the "present evil age." This new era was referred to as the grace of Messiah.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him
who called you by the grace of Christ.....

What were they deserting? The "faith in Messiah" era, the very Messiah who had brought the new era of grace. Where were they deserting to?

... a man is not justified by the works of the law but
through faith in Christ Jesus ...

... if I rebuild what I have destroyed, I prove myself to be
a transgressor ...

They were deserting to the old era, the old covenant at Sinai They were "rebuilding" what had been torn down in Messiah. They were reverting back to the old era of grace, which was no longer grace. According to the Gospel, this old era of grace was no more. The "faith in Messiah" era was the grace of Christ era.

What is the qualitative difference in this new era of "faith" and "grace"?

... it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the
life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of
God who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me ... I do
not nullify the grace of God ...

Second, the member of this old covenant participated in it by faith. When the devout member did the requirements of the covenant stipulations, he/she did so as his/her expression of faith and trust in the covenant giver. The faithful participant was so by faith and trust!

But that "faith" or "trust" was not a transforming faith. It did not change the person internally. There was no "power" (dunamai; "ability") associated with this trust. But it was, nevertheless, faith and trust.

So, what does Paul mean by the "law is not of faith"? This is clear from his whole argument in Galatians. Note what associations he makes with respect to "faith."

Christ redeemed us form the curse of the law ... in
order that in Christ Jesus ... we might receive the promise
of the Spirit through faith.

The association here is the Spirit of God and "faith." Note further:

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? May
it never be! For if the law had been given which was
able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed
have come by the law.

He Paul connects "imparting life" to "faith," and by implication in the contract with "law" which does not impart life." So, we have seen God's Spirit, the impartation of life and "faith" associated.

But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that
the promise by faith [anarthrous] in Jesus Christ might
be given to those who believe.

Here we see that "faith" is associated with the promise to Abraham. What is the difference between this "faith" and the "faith" of those who faithfully adhered to Sinai?

But before [the, that] faith came, we were kept in
custody under the law, being shut up to faith which
was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become
our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified
by faith. But now that [the] faith has come, we are
no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God
through faith in Christ Jesus.

Here we see that this "faith" Paul speaks about has arrived. But before it did, the devout Jew was kept by the old covenant, wherein he trusted in God. By trusting in God, the devout Jew was led to Messiah.

But when this "faith" came the Jew was released from the old covenant system. His "faith" in God and thereby obedience to the law had not changed him internally. But "faith" in Messiah, which arrived, did. Why? Because this "FAITH" internally transforms the believer by God's Spirit.

For you are all sons of God through [the] faith in Christ
Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have
clothed yourselves with Christ .... if you belong to Christ,
then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the
promise.

Those in Christ, that is, those who participate in this "faith" which has arrived in Messiah, are clothed in Messiah. That is, they are adorned in His righteousness. Faith in Jesus transforms the believer. In enters the Spirit of God ....

There is no other faith that transforms internally. "Faith in God" under Sinai did not transform internally. Faith in a set of principles or idea cannot transform internally.

"Faith in Jesus" transforms; imparts life; brings the indwelling of the Spirit.

Paul has stated in Galatians that ...

.... before [the, that] faith came, we were kept in custody
under law, being shut up to faith which was later to be revealed.

"Revealed" here draws on the apocalyptic imagery of the two ages. This revelation was to be a breaking trough of Heaven into the "present evil age," the age wherein God's judgment was being held back by law.

Prior to the arrival of Christ, those under the law were weak and powerless:

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child,
he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole
estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the
time set by his father. So also, when we were children,
we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.
But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son,
born of a woman to redeem those under the law so
that we might receive the full rights of Sons.

The Seed of a woman, the only Seed to whom the promise of inheritance was made (3:16), has come and redeemed those under the law, who were subject to the "basic principles of the world."

The eschatology of "faith which was to come ... to be revealed" is evident in Paul, here and elsewhere. Note this comparison (contra Wright):

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God
for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also
the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith ...

Here Paul speaks of the righteousness of God, the Gospel of Messiah, as having arrived, having been "revealed." Same apocalyptic message. The "faith" has arrived! Which faith? The faith which transfers the believer from "this present evil age" to the "age to come."

What is the character of this "faith"? Ability! No other "faith" is able. No other "faith" changes, transforms, transfers. There is no other apocalyptic "faith." And as I said, "faith" in Jesus transforms; imparts life; brings the indwelling of the Spirit; transfers one to the new age?

As I've said before: "Galatians! What a book!" My hands shake as I read it. It's hard to stop here, so allow me one more verse (5:22-23):

For the fruit of the Spirit is ... against such there is no law.

This comment (in italics) is lost on the modern reader. But Paul's Greek audience has no doubt heard it often enough from the secular rhetors in their town squares. These are words from Aristotle's Pol. 3.13.1284a, where he is discussing ethics.

This comment is from the section where in Aristotle is discussing a class of people who surpass the rest of humanity in virtue and, therefore, live like gods among them. They do not need outside laws and regulations to control their behavior. They are controlled from within. They are obedient.

This new age is marked by obedience, according to Paul. That same obedience (smr) which was possible in the land. It was because of disobedince that the first 'adam was expelled. Those who are "in Christ" are in the Obedient One and share the obedience of the true Israelite. They are enabled to obey from a circumcised heart. The Spirit has come. Life!

From Eden to Eden.

More, later,

[mickiel]

The bible does mention faith comes by hearing the word of God, but that hearing is not possible if God has not opened the person. This can be tricky and confusing, but God is the source of all things. Look at John 1:12,to as many as received him, to THEM, he GAVE the right to be his children. One can read this and believe the human must receive him on his own choice, then after receiving they are converted. So self effort seems how to receive him, but notice John 3:27, John states a man cannot "receive NOTHING" unless it is GIVEN FROM HEAVEN. That nothing includes faith. So here the impression is we cannot have faith unless it is given, we cannot even be Gods sons unless it is given.

The fruit of the Spirit in Gal.5:22-23, is NOT a complette list, faith is a fruit of the Spirit. John 15:1-5, Jesus explains very graphic, we cannot do anything apart from him,or that is to say on our own strength. Faith is also included here. True religon always leans toward God, false religon always leans toward self, giving itself credit and glory. As we move futher into deception, more value is given to man and less to God. Men will teach a self improving religon, human faith, human choice or free will, the focus will be on self, or kind of "look what i have accomplished".

[TedO]

Today @ 05:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196576#post196576)
PuritanD:Chappie seems to provide a section of a passage showing Paul's concern for the unbeliever, there is another passage that you may want to read and it is, Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. It is within the same context that Chappie quotes.

Your argument has one inherent weakness. You are trying to argue from silence to prove your supposition. Just because we do not find a lot on such prayer does not mean it did not happen. It is obvious that in most of Paul's letters we would not find much on his prayers for non-believers because Paul is writing to fellow believers, of whom he wants to remind them that they are never far from his thoughts by informing them that he does and is praying for them. This does not prove that he never prays for the unsaved.

Since it seems that you are basing your argument primarily on such an assertion, I will wait for your response regarding faith.

PuritanD

I admit it is not a point I would center on - that is why I called it a thought to ponder. My point is that Paul clearly focuses on the ministry of persuasion. This implies reason is involved in faith - evidence is the basis for faith.

[Arminian]

Look at John 1:12,to as many as received him, to THEM, he GAVE the right to be his children.

"Received" is active voice. It is something you DO! I'll outline John's book if I get time. His intro is great.

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=197211#post197211)
Arminian:



"Received" is active voice. It is something you DO! I'll outline John's book if I get time. His intro is great.


Read John 3:27, try to understand this principle. You cannot even receive, or "do" unless it is GIVEN, or God "dos".

[Arminian]

Read John 3:27, try to understand this principle. You cannot even receive, or "do" unless it is GIVEN, or God "dos".

LOL! Look at what it actually says and then consider the issue John is addressing in context.


John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven; You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.'

:bonk:

To whom did Christ go?


He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

Now back to the topic....

[mickiel]

Today @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=197540#post197540)
Arminian:



LOL! Look at what it actually says and then consider the issue John is addressing in context.



John is giving heavenly legitamacy to Jesus, heavenly authority is Christ. Jesus popularity is about to grow, Johns is about to decrease, (verse 30). John knew the caklling of God is a given, not a taken, or a free will decesion a some think. Only those God had influenced would be looking for Christ baptism, as is the same today. In verse 35, God has GIVEN all things to Christ, evn Jesus had to be given faith and obedience. This is a given knowledge, and it must be believed or one cannot even "SEE" "LIFE", vs. 36. All most people see in the bible is death and eternal punishment, they canot even see the life God is giving, because it has not been given for them to see. So we search the scriptures thinking we will find life, but blinded by God, we only see death for man.







:bonk:

To whom did Christ go?



Now back to the topic....

[Arminian]

John is giving heavenly legitamacy to Jesus, heavenly authority is Christ. Jesus popularity is about to grow, Johns is about to decrease, (verse 30). John knew the caklling of God is a given, not a taken, or a free will decesion a some think.

It merely says, "I am not the Christ." His role was one of a messenger. That's what it's talking about, and that's all it addresses.

Now back to the topic.

[mickiel]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=197651#post197651)
Arminian:



It merely says, "I am not the Christ." His role was one of a messenger. That's what it's talking about, and that's all it addresses.

Now back to the topic.


Therefore it is all that you understand or can teach. The verse is a pivital moment in a switching of the influence of the gospel. Only before preached and taught by men, now the very son of God will preach and teach himself. This is no changing of the guard, it is the written word now replaced by the living word of God. The very personification of God himself in flesh, now personaly communicating amoung men. The emmanuel, "God with us", is now personally calling men. This persoal calling of men is an example of how God, who changes not, STILL calls men to him. The perversion of this gospel is men free willing themselves to God.

[Arminian]

Therefore it is all that you understand or can teach. The verse is a pivital moment in a switching of the influence of the gospel. Only before preached and taught by men, now the very son of God will preach and teach himself. This is no changing of the guard, it is the written word now replaced by the living word of God. The very personification of God himself in flesh, now personaly communicating amoung men. The emmanuel, "God with us", is now personally calling men. This persoal calling of men is an example of how God, who changes not, STILL calls men to him. The perversion of this gospel is men free willing themselves to God.

Man, you keep moving the target. John said he was not the Christ. It's time to face it. Sermonizing isn't going to help your argument.

[Jaltus]

Therefore it is all that you understand or can teach. The verse is a pivital moment in a switching of the influence of the gospel. Only before preached and taught by men, now the very son of God will preach and teach himself. This is no changing of the guard, it is the written word now replaced by the living word of God. The very personification of God himself in flesh, now personaly communicating amoung men. The emmanuel, "God with us", is now personally calling men. This persoal calling of men is an example of how God, who changes not, STILL calls men to him. The perversion of this gospel is men free willing themselves to God.

You do know that the prophets actually prophesied to people and not just wrote books, right?

[bar Jonah]

Yesterday @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=197659#post197659)
mickiel:
Therefore it is all that you understand or can teach. The verse is a pivital moment in a switching of the influence of the gospel. Only before preached and taught by men, now the very son of God will preach and teach himself. This is no changing of the guard, it is the written word now replaced by the living word of God. The very personification of God himself in flesh, now personaly communicating amoung men. The emmanuel, "God with us", is now personally calling men. This persoal calling of men is an example of how God, who changes not, STILL calls men to him. The perversion of this gospel is men free willing themselves to God.
And referring to all non-Calvinists as "perverts" certainly isn't going to help your case, either. :ponder:

[themuzicman]

Why do we have to assign some mystical concept to something as concrete as faith?

Michael

[PuritanD]

Armi,

I just got back from my Labor Day weekend vacation. I will read your last post. I just find it amazing that you cannot help but try to belittle me. I just do not understand why but hey, I will do what I can to entertain and be uplifting. :angel:

[Arminian]

Puritan,


I just got back from my Labor Day weekend vacation. I will read your last post. I just find it amazing that you cannot help but try to belittle me. I just do not understand why but hey, I will do what I can to entertain and be uplifting.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where do I mention you anywhere but the first two sentences? There isn't anything there that was meant to belittle you or should belittle you.

I asked you to read the last section because it is my perspective in a nutshell. I often do that to keep people interested. With my conclusion in mind, they look to see how I arrived at it. I have a background in experimental psychology (learning, memory and cognition), and that is a mnemonic tactic I developed from my studies.

You may have also noticed that my paragraphs are unusually short and that I'm very redundant in the middle of my posts, but not at the beginning or end. Those are also mnemonic tactics. Studies show that people remember the beginnings and ends of longs lists or explanations than they do the middles.
Peace,

[PuritanD]

I just remembered that I will be going to the White Sox game Tuesday night and will not be able to properly respond to this thread until Wednesday.

Go Red Sox

PuritanD

[Chappie]

08-29-2003 @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=198017#post198017)
RightIdea:


And referring to all non-Calvinists as "perverts" certainly isn't going to help your case, either. :ponder:

God did say that we were a peculear people....

[Chappie]

Where does faith come from? Is that a trick question?

Where does the rain, the wind, the stars, the sun come from. Where does life, joy, and happiness come from.

Where did I come from? Where did you come from? Where did your last breath come from; your next breath. Where did your existence come from? Where did the hair that use to be oh your head come from, your big toe, your brain, your last meal, your little finger. How about your mother in law? Where O' where did it all come from....

What do we have that did not come from God, so why single out faith? :shrug:

[joelkaki]

Where does faith come from? Is that a trick question?

Where does the rain, the wind, the stars, the sun come from. Where does life, joy, and happiness come from.

Where did I come from? Where did you come from? Where did your last breath come from; your next breath. Where did your existence come from? Where did the hair that use to be oh your head come from, your big toe, your brain, your last meal, your little finger. How about your mother in law? Where O' where did it all come from....

What do we have that did not come from God, so why single out faith?

Because Arminians say it didn't come from God. It came from themselves. Therein lies the problem.

Joel

[Chappie]

Yesterday @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202163#post202163)
joelkaki:



Because Arminians say it didn't come from God. It came from themselves. Therein lies the problem.

Joel

Where does the rain come from? One man stayed inside his house, and did not get wet. Another went outside and got soaked.

So it is with faith, some will go outside and recieve faith, another will stay inside and reject it.

Whither we recieve or reject; faith, just like the rain, comes from God...

The Arminians, they are wrong.......

[Arminian]

Go Red Sox

Now I'm REALLY outraged!!!!

:rant:

[PuritanD]

Armi,

I am back after a great 2 to 1 victory for the good guys :smile: last night.



08-28-2003 @ 03:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196724#post196724)
Arminian:

So note the context concerning my comment regarding "reductionism." It is about "boasting":

“ If it did originate from man, than man has a "right" to boast in such a work as participating in his salvation from eternal separation. ”

That isn't the point Paul was addressing the boast was that of the Jew over the Gentile. They had the flesh of Abraham as a mark of covenant membership. This is the same point he makes in Romans:

I want to respond here at this time since it will have an effect for the rest of the post (and yes I read your whole post).

You are relying on an assumption that Paul is writing to a similar if not same type of audience in the letter to Ephesus as they were in the book of Galatians and/or Romans. This is not necessarily the case. In a previous post, I pointed out that the audience of Ephisians were mostly if not all Gentiles.

The arguments that Paul uses in Galatians and Romans are vastly different from what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2. You are trying to associate "not by works lest any one boasts" automatically to the arguments in Galatians and Romans. This I believe is a false comparison.

First, Paul does not contrast the Law with grace in Eph 2:1-10. He does not even imply a Jewish false teaching in the whole chapter.

Second, just because he may have used similar terminology in other books does not automatically equate the exact same arguments. For example, "Trot Nixon put a lot of wood on that home run he hit." Here in this context, "wood" is to be understood as being descriptive of the baseball bat. It would be false to think that in this sentce, "I have a lot of wood in the garage" that automatically "wood" in this sentence must equal baseball bat. Yet, this is what you are trying to do with verse nine (what happen to the discussion of verse 8?). You see the terms, "works" and "boast" and automatically jump to the Works of the Law vs. God's grace debate. You have yet to provide any evidence that would support the need to jump right into the Judiazing of believers. It is just as likely that Paul is using the term "works" in verse 9 to be more general to help combat Greek philosophy which also encompassed a "works based type of salvation" if you are willing enough to allow me to use such phraseology.

Third, the term "works of the Law" is completely missing from this chapter, not only this chapter but the whole book of Ephesians does not even address it. One would think if your argument is to hold that Paul would have used this phrase instead of just, "works" and just mention "Law" once in the whole book. This thrid observation will be used later in the post.



Prior to Christ's arrival, the Jew COULD boast in this regard. They were covenant members through natural endowment. The Gentile was "alien" to the covenant, as Paul describes:

Eph. 2:11&12 Therefore, remember, that formerly you, the Gentile
in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the
so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh
by human hands - remember that you were at that time
separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having
no hope and without God in the world

They were excluded from the covenant because they were "Gentile in the flesh."

The passage has nothing to do with the possiblity of the Jews' boasting of being covenant members. True, Paul is mocking the Jews here but it is a far cry from "boasting." It is similar though to Paul's reminder of where they were at before God's grace was bestowed upon them in the first three verses. Also, it would be hard to say that all Jews were naturally part of the covenants of promise. Yes, by circumcision they were part of the commonwealth of Israel and having a great opportunity to be a part of the covenants of promise but circumcision did not ever guarantee being a believer.

As Marvin Wilson and James Dunn so rightly argue, the Jews understood that it was by true faith that one is to be saved and not the works of the Law. One was Jewish by bloodline and circumcision, but that does not necessitate salvation but it did give the Jews a "upper hand" in knowing who the true God is. However, there were true believers in God who were Gentiles in the OT like Job and Ruth to name a couple. The covenant never kept Gentiles away for God commanded the Jews to treat strangers well and allow Gentiles to come and worship the living God. Now, a misunderstanding by Jews may have accomplished this but it was not intended as such.


But now that boast is gone, because:
But now in Christ Jesus, you who were formerly far off have
been brought near by brought near by the blood of Christ. For
He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and
broke down the barrier of the dividing wall ...

So then the Gentiles are the beneficiaries of this wall having come down. For this wall kept them from God's covenant relationship. God had covenanted with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The "other familles of the earth" were excluded.

But now that wall has come down, the Gentiles are made fellow-heirs of God's covenant relationship. A new work of salvation makes this possible:

Interesting, did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have this Sinai covenant as well in order to boast? There is no "new" work of salvation for it has always been by faith.


"... by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He
might make the two into one new man, thus establishing
peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God
through the cross, by having put to death the enmity."

This wall brought enmity. Those who were under the law were enemies with those outside the law. But the wall has now been torn down so that the two former entities might be united into one body. This "salvation" of which Paul speaks makes this possible.

It is interesting to note that dogma, "ordinances" is used only once here in reference to the law of commandments (it is also used by Paul once in Colossians). I think that this may have some significance that Paul may not be arguing against the Mosaic covenant but by rituals and other stipulations that the Jews placed around the covenant. I will have to look into it but none the less one has to wonder why Paul uses dogma here and never in Romans and Galatians where he is arguing agains the "works of the Law."


You ask: "You seem to be reading way to much into verse 5. True, Paul is talking about being spiritually alive in opposition to his description in verses 1-4. However, it is a stretch to imply that all mankind was spiritual dead prior to Christ's death on the cross. Was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob always spiritually dead? David, a man after God's own heart and author of many of our Psalms, was he not spiritually alive eventhough Christ has not step foot on the planet? How about Moses, was he completely spiritually dead or was he spiritually alive? According to what I have read, you are implying that no person was spiritually alive prior to Jesus"

Because of the fall, man was banished from the garden and the fulness of the presence of God. They had been barred from the tree of life. There is a word-play which captures the plight of the disobedient humanity. They were placed in the land to "worship ('bd) and to "obey" (smr). But now they were to "work" or "till" ('bd) and be "kept" (smr) from the tree of life.

Moses wrote of the Seed of a woman. That Seed is the one to whom the promise of restoration to the land was made (Gal 3:16). In "that day" fellowship would once more be restored and He would give His people a circumcised heart and they would once again participate in true worship ('bd) and obedience ('smr). But in the interim, God provided the Sinai covenant "because of the transgressions, until the Seed to whom the promise referred has come" (Gal 3:19).

This does not answer the question, "Is Abrahame, Moses, or even David spiritually dead?" How then was Enoch taken away without ever seeing death (which by the way happend way before the Sinai covenant). Was Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Enoch, and Job under this Sinai Covenant? Or, were they exceptions to the rule? Are they not saved by faith granted to them by God which is the same faith that Paul is talking about. No person believed that sacrificing an animal actual brought salvation but actual faith in God.


With that in mind.... Galatians! What a book! Where to begin!?!

As I mentioned earlier, we are dealing with the book of Ephesians, specifically 2:8-9. I have tried to show that verse 9 does not automatically refer to Paul's arguments in Galatians or in Romans. Though there may be some parallels, it does not necessitate equality. True, Paul may be referring in part to the "works of the Law," but this verse is general enough to be more inclusive than just that part.

Therefore, until we get a firmer understanding of what is happening here in Ephesians, I will hold off on talking about Galatians which I wholeheartly agree with you.


... the member of this old covenant participated in it by faith. When the devout member did the requirements of the covenant stipulations, he/she did so as his/her expression of faith and trust in the covenant giver. The faithful participant was so by faith and trust!

But that "faith" or "trust" was not a transforming faith. It did not change the person internally. There was no "power" (dunamai; "ability") associated with this trust. But it was, nevertheless, faith and trust.

I cannot help myself here, but what you are saying does not make much sense to me here. How then did Elijah and Elisha performed great miracles for God? Daniel seem to be internally transformed and obeyed God. Abraham was not internally changed? :huh:

Was their repentence then just a mere formality without any desire to change? With what power did the judges work with? True, this may not be the "normallity" of the day. Ruth foresake her gods and was "transformed" to worship the true, living God and she was a Moabite. Please clarify here.


So, what does Paul mean by the "law is not of faith"? This is clear from his whole argument in Galatians. Note what associations he makes with respect to "faith."

Christ redeemed us form the curse of the law ... in
order that in Christ Jesus ... we might receive the promise
of the Spirit through faith.

The association here is the Spirit of God and "faith." Note further:

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? May
it never be! For if the law had been given which was
able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed
have come by the law.

He Paul connects "imparting life" to "faith," and by implication in the contract with "law" which does not impart life." So, we have seen God's Spirit, the impartation of life and "faith" associated.

But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that
the promise by faith [anarthrous] in Jesus Christ might
be given to those who believe.

Here we see that "faith" is associated with the promise to Abraham. What is the difference between this "faith" and the "faith" of those who faithfully adhered to Sinai?

But before [the, that] faith came, we were kept in
custody under the law, being shut up to faith which
was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become
our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified
by faith. But now that [the] faith has come, we are
no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God
through faith in Christ Jesus.

Here we see that this "faith" Paul speaks about has arrived. But before it did, the devout Jew was kept by the old covenant, wherein he trusted in God. By trusting in God, the devout Jew was led to Messiah.

But when this "faith" came the Jew was released from the old covenant system. His "faith" in God and thereby obedience to the law had not changed him internally. But "faith" in Messiah, which arrived, did. Why? Because this "FAITH" internally transforms the believer by God's Spirit.

It is true that Paul is arguing that the Law does not equate to faith. However, Paul never argues for a NEW faith. It is as you mentioned the SAME faith as Abraham (which to me seems to be fairly old). Paul is correcting the idea that one comes to salvation simply by obeying the law, which is false. True the Law did not save and those who were given the Law understood this. The Law did point to the Messiah and the Jews knew this too or else they would never ask Jesus if he was the one to come. They, the Jews, misunderstood and misapplied their understanding of the Law, thus rejecting the Messiah. But, as Paul says Romans 1:17 "from faith to faith." The same faith that brought salvation to Abrahame and David is the same faith we have today. Now the object may be slightly different since the Messiah has now come (they looking forward to the Messiah as we look back to the cross) but it is still the same faith given by the same God to those whom He has chosen. The way of salvation has never changed.


Those in Christ, that is, those who participate in this "faith" which has arrived in Messiah, are clothed in Messiah. That is, they are adorned in His righteousness. Faith in Jesus transforms the believer. In enters the Spirit of God ....

There is no other faith that transforms internally. "Faith in God" under Sinai did not transform internally. Faith in a set of principles or idea cannot transform internally.

"Faith in Jesus" transforms; imparts life; brings the indwelling of the Spirit.

Are you suggesting that faith in God via the Mosaic covenat = faith in a set of principles? If so, you will need to explain further for I have never heard of such an idea or read any individual who would argue such. God did not require them to have faith in principles but to have faith in Him. The principles for the most part were there in demonstrating that this faith exisited (maybe) but definitely not there so that the Jews put their FAITH into these principles, but by obeying (doing) these principles, their faith in God has been proven.

Hard to imagine that Enoch, Elijah, Elisha, David, etc were never transformed. I would say that we do worship & commune with God differently than in the Old Covenant. No longer are rituals and priests are needed in order to commune with God. God has done away with what is commonly known as the ceremonial laws and has gone directly to the people. We are in a better time, because of Christ and the Holy Spirit now fully indwelling all believers. I would not say though that the requirements of faith were different.


Paul has stated in Galatians that ...

.... before [the, that] faith came, we were kept in custody
under law, being shut up to faith which was later to be revealed.

"Revealed" here draws on the apocalyptic imagery of the two ages. This revelation was to be a breaking trough of Heaven into the "present evil age," the age wherein God's judgment was being held back by law.

Prior to the arrival of Christ, those under the law were weak and powerless:

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child,
he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole
estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the
time set by his father. So also, when we were children,
we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.
But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son,
born of a woman to redeem those under the law so
that we might receive the full rights of Sons.

The Seed of a woman, the only Seed to whom the promise of inheritance was made (3:16), has come and redeemed those under the law, who were subject to the "basic principles of the world."

The eschatology of "faith which was to come ... to be revealed" is evident in Paul, here and elsewhere. Note this comparison (contra Wright):

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God
for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also
the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith ...

Here Paul speaks of the righteousness of God, the Gospel of Messiah, as having arrived, having been "revealed." Same apocalyptic message. The "faith" has arrived! Which faith? The faith which transfers the believer from "this present evil age" to the "age to come."

What is the character of this "faith"? Ability! No other "faith" is able. No other "faith" changes, transforms, transfers. There is no other apocalyptic "faith." And as I said, "faith" in Jesus transforms; imparts life; brings the indwelling of the Spirit; transfers one to the new age?

Again, no arguments from me, but exactly what does this have to do with the question raised in Eph 2:8 concerning faith? Unless, you are agreeing that this faith comes soley from God.


[b]As I've said before: "Galatians! What a book!" My hands shake as I read it. It's hard to stop here, so allow me one more verse (5:22-23):

For the fruit of the Spirit is ... against such there is no law.

This comment (in italics) is lost on the modern reader. But Paul's Greek audience has no doubt heard it often enough from the secular rhetors in their town squares. These are words from Aristotle's Pol. 3.13.1284a, where he is discussing ethics.

This comment is from the section where in Aristotle is discussing a class of people who surpass the rest of humanity in virtue and, therefore, live like gods among them. They do not need outside laws and regulations to control their behavior. They are controlled from within. They are obedient.

This is what I am trying to argue that Paul may be talking about in Eph. 2:8-9 that he is encompassing all the different ideas of "works" based salvation, not just Jewish but also those proclaimed by secular rhetors. For if so, than a man following Aristotle could easily boast like a Jew that they are saved by what they do. This is what verse 9 is exactly talking about. Paul is being all inclusive to include the Greek philosophy of the day. Thanks for helping me prove my point :smile:

You still have not dealt with Eph 2:8, but that may be in an upcoming post.

Overall, I think that you have tried to argue that our understanding of verse 9 needs to be limited only to the discussion of "works of the Law" vs. God's grace. I do not think that this is the case in Ephesians at all but that Paul is painting a broad stroke against any type of "work" that a person believes can help them obtain salvation. He is not arguing against a particular Jewish false teaching for he would have come out and stated it so like he did in Romans and Galatians, wouldn't he? He is reminding his Gentile audience of where they were and where they are now because of everthing that God has done for them by His Grace through faith, which is in Christ.

PuritanD

PS: GO RED SOX

[Arminian]

PuritanD,


You are relying on an assumption that Paul is writing to a similar if not same type of audience in the letter to Ephesus as they were in the book of Galatians and/or Romans. This is not necessarily the case. In a previous post, I pointed out that the audience of Ephisians were mostly if not all Gentiles.

So? Each letter is written to a different audience in slightly different contexts. Why wouldn't Paul, who uses "we" in reference to Jews, write to Gentiles to mention the same issues? There is no more "enmity." Of course it's the same issue.


First, Paul does not contrast the Law with grace in Eph 2:1-10. He does not even imply a Jewish false teaching in the whole chapter.

Why would false teaching need to be directly addressed? Why not rejoice in the very same truth which Paul uses to defeat his opposition in the other letters? It seems you're trying to split hairs.

Are you seriously suggesing that the "mystery" Paul mentions in Romans is different than the one mentioned in Ephesians? Should I clarify that for you?


Second, just because he may have used similar terminology in other books does not automatically equate the exact same arguments. For example, "Trot Nixon put a lot of wood on that home run he hit." Here in this context, "wood" is to be understood as being descriptive of the baseball bat. It would be false to think that in this sentce, "I have a lot of wood in the garage" that automatically "wood" in this sentence must equal baseball bat. Yet, this is what you are trying to do with verse nine (what happen to the discussion of verse 8?). You see the terms, "works" and "boast" and automatically jump to the Works of the Law vs. God's grace debate.

And perhaps the comparison of the two types of circumcision in 2:11 is different from the "circumcision of the flesh" and the "circumcision of the heart" mentioned in his other letters. You'll have to make that argument. I'd love to see that.

Perhaps the comparison of the Israel of the flesh and the Israel of God which follows has nothing to do with Paul's comments on the same issues in Romans and Galatians. Not!


Third, the term "works of the Law" is completely missing from this chapter, not only this chapter but the whole book of Ephesians does not even address it. One would think if your argument is to hold that Paul would have used this phrase instead of just, "works" and just mention "Law" once in the whole book. This thrid observation will be used later in the post.

And what does Paul call "circumcision" in his other books? Works of the law? Of course he does!


The passage has nothing to do with the possiblity of the Jews' boasting of being covenant members. True, Paul is mocking the Jews here but it is a far cry from "boasting."

There's no mocking. He's just celebrating the change that made the union possible.


As Marvin Wilson and James Dunn so rightly argue, the Jews understood that it was by true faith that one is to be saved and not the works of the Law.

I know what Dunn says, and you're not representing him very well. A Jew who had faith could reject the covenant and its cultic practice according to him? No.


Interesting, did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have this Sinai covenant as well in order to boast? There is no "new" work of salvation for it has always been by faith.

Glad I made that point about "faith" first.

Sinai marked the Jews as God's people. Are you suggesting that they could have rejected it?


How then was Enoch taken away without ever seeing death (which by the way happend way before the Sinai covenant).

That's an equivocation. What does the "life" Christ brought have to do with the fact that Enoch never experienced physical death.


Was Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Enoch, and Job under this Sinai Covenant?

Read what I said in my last two posts. Why can't you address it directly? Do you disagree with Paul?


Or, were they exceptions to the rule? Are they not saved by faith granted to them by God which is the same faith that Paul is talking about. No person believed that sacrificing an animal actual brought salvation but actual faith in God.

Did you read ANYTHING I said? Sheesh!


As I mentioned earlier, we are dealing with the book of Ephesians, specifically 2:8-9.

You wanted me to explain what I meant about Galatains 3. I explained it. Now it's time to address it.


I have tried to show that verse 9 does not automatically refer to Paul's arguments in Galatians or in Romans.

Of course it doesn't refer to those books. They aren't mentioned. The vocabulary and imagery is the same. The issue is the same.


True, Paul may be referring in part to the "works of the Law," but this verse is general enough to be more inclusive than just that part.

"That part"?


Therefore, until we get a firmer understanding of what is happening here in Ephesians, I will hold off on talking about Galatians which I wholeheartly agree with you.

Oh....a "firmer understanding"?? LOL!!

One of the best ways to approach these questions is the method called mirroring. Mirroring involves looking at what the author is arguing and assuming that his/her argument is the opposite of the opponents'. Mirroring has its advantages and pitfalls, but fortunately for us nearly everyone agrees that Paul's opposition was the notorious circumcision party. The circumcision party claimed that they were God's people, predestined according to the promises made to Abraham and his seed (the Jewish people), and, therefore, anyone who wanted to become covenant members had to be circumcised to become members of Israel.

Therefore, remember, that formerly you, The Gentiles in the flesh
who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision,"
which is performed by hands -- remember that
you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the
commonwealth of Israel, and stranger to the covenants of
promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

This is pretty straightforward. It is not actually that the Gentiles had "no access," but that access then was by physical birth, and the Gentiles were not "born into" the covenant relationship with God. They were excluded from and strangers to the Jewish covenant citizenry. They did have "access" however. It was by "proselytism," which was simply "becoming a Jew" with "works of the law" which was "sign" of "citizenship."

Paul has just finished arguing that this was no longer the Jewish mode of access nor was it the Gentiles' mode of "access."

... not out of works lest anyone should boast ...

The Jewish "boast" in their physical heritage (for which the Sinai law was the "badge" or "sign") was nullified in this "new grace-by-faith" work of God. And thus the Gentiles no longer needed to "become Jews" and "wear the badge" of Sinai covenant works." And the Jew no longer could rely upon or boast about physical birth (physical birth from the "flesh" of Abraham) as their entrance requirement.

So (to be redundant), according to Paul's opposition, it was not that the Gentiles did not have "access," per se. It was that they were not "natural" members of the covenant; they needed to be brought into the covenant from the outside (proselytism - "becoming Jews"). This was their "former status." The Jews were naturally in (i.e., "born into") this covenant relationship. They were "natural" citizens. The Gentiles, being outside and "far off," became "citizens" only by "becoming Jews."

Paul argues against the Jews and for the predestined Israel of God, established "in Christ." Keep in mind the important parallels and contrasts Paul will make. Gentiles are:

-- alienated from "the citizenship"
-- "of the Israel"

A brief note on this latter phrase: "of the Israel"
This is a genitive which is "apposition" to the noun it modifies.
Appositional constructions "define" or "further describe" the
noun they modify. In English thinking, this is expressed with the
English expression "namely," "that is" or simply "i.e.," So we
would understand the Greek expression in the English thought with:

... alienated from the commonwealth, namely, Israel ... or ...
... alienated from the commonwealth, i.e., Israel ...

The English expression "commonwealth of Israel" is fine, but
the use of the preposition "of" (which is not in the Greek text)
is a little ambiguous. If we refer to "the city of Deerfield" we
understand that it is "the city, namely Deerfield" which is the
reference. It isn't (as the preposition "of" might suggest) a
reference to the idea of "possession." It is not referring to
"the city which Deerfield possesses." (Just trying to clarify a
possible ambiguity in the English use of "of'.)

So, anyway, we'll keep in mind the parallel and contrast Paul will make. Gentiles are:

-- alienated from "the citizenship"
-- "of the Israel"
-- strangers to the covenants of promise.

We'll see in v. 19 that Paul argues the antithesis, the great reversal of the status of the Gentiles. This parallel and contrast is quite clear:

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are
fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household.

Those who were just described as "alienated form the citizenship (politeia) of the Israel" and as "strangers" are now said to be"

-- "no longer" ouketi adverb meaning "no more"
-- "stranger"
-- "alien"

Paul's emphasis here is crucial to his argument. He describes the nature of the turn around of the former state of the Gentiles by using "stranger" and "alien."

First, "zenos" was just used above - that WAS the status of the Gentiles. They were "strangers." Zenos! That is an important word to understand in connection with Jewish covenantal thought. Paul knows what the word meant to his opponents. And he evidences a specific reason for using it here.

Second, Paul uses the world "aliens" (pariokos) in grammatical combination with "zenos." The grammatical construction in called "hendiadys." This is a grammatical construction where two words are used together to refer to one thing.

Zenos is used with pariokos. VERY significant. For paroikos is the Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) to translate the Hebrew word "Goy" (yg). Goy is the Hebrew for "Gentile."

So........the Gentiles who were formerly alienated form the commonwealth, i.e., Israel (they were not Israelites) are no longer "Gentiles"; they are no longer "Goy/paroikos." That distinction is no more -- NEVER AGAIN!!

Note the other parallel/contrast. these "Gentiles" are now:

-- "fellow-citizens"

Above Paul said that they were excluded from the "citizenship," i.e., Israel. And now he says they are "fellow-citizens" (sumpolites). They are fellow-citizens, i.e., fellow-Israelites. For "by the blood of the Messiah" they have become children of Abraham.

It's hard to miss the parallel/contrasts (especially since I've been so painfully redundant!). This is an amazing argument Paul is making! The very idea makes his opponents go crazy! Why? Because, "How can this be?"

Paul's response?

And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my
insight into the mystery of Christ .. namely, that the Gentiles
are fellow heirs and fellow member of the body, and fellow
partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel...

I'll return to these descriptions when I once more discuss the mystery, and the predestination, and election and the Israel of God, but let's continue on our present course, which is essentially the same argument Paul is making against his opponents.

Immediately following the 2:11-22 section, Paul clarifies that his incorporation of the Gentiles into God's "Israel" as equals -- that is the key: "as equals" -- is the "mystery of Messiah." those two formerly opposing entities are built into one body (one new man). They are fellow-partakers in the promise, whereas before they were strangers (zenos) to the promise.

Here is something which should be clarified. See what Paul says about "fellow-????" (the "su-" prefix which denotes "with-ness") the Gentiles are:

-- fellow-heirs (sugkleronoma)
-- fellow-members (sussoma)
-- fellow-partakers (summetocha)


The "inheritance" (this is election language in Jewish covenant thought) promised to Abraham and his "descendants" ("Seed") was misunderstood by the Jews. They thought that THEY were these "descendants" who were the recipients with Abraham of this predestined inheritance. But they were thinking in earthly terms. Of course, Paul has already argued against this view specifically in his Galatian "'Seed' not 'seeds'" argument.

-- fellow-members (sussoma)

This is a weird sort of compound word, It is the prefix "su-" and "body." It is "fellow-body." It is "joint-body."

-- fellow-partakers (summetocha)

And, of course, they are fellow-partakers of the promise to Abraham and his "Seed." They share in the inheritance ... on equal basis is the crux.

This "equal basis, "the "su-" or "fellow-ness" is the mystery that the Jews did not grasp. Even after it was "made manifest" before their very eyes, they rejected it. They were Jewish exclusivists. They wanted to continue "boasting" in their flesh descent from Abraham. If they had their way, Gentiles would still be required to "become Jews" in order to partake of the Jewish blessing.

But now in Christ Jesus you who were formerly far off
have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

This act of God through Christ ("in Christ") has brought the Gentiles near. The incorporation of "the nations" into the commonwealth of Israel as fellow-partakers of the promise is accomplished through the blood of Messiah.

The two adverbs "far" and "near" intensify for the reader the significance of what has happened by the blood of the Messiah. The Jew is simply shocked my such language! Their Messiah has done WHAT?? He has chosen and predestined an Israel based upon incorporation into Christ?!?!

God has "brought near" those who were "far off." Keep in mind that these are widespread, commonplace, everyday covenantal terms in Judaism, more so than Democrat and Republican in America. They designate non-Jews, those were are Godless and unrighteous (they are "far) as opposed to the Jews, those who are Godly and righteous (they are "near"). The former are far from God and the latter are near God. This was basic and central to everyday life.

If we read on, we see that Paul continues the basic theme: these two groups are at enmity with one another. There is a natural barrier between them, an insurmountable dividing wall. Those who are near God are at war with those who are far from God. There is no peace, for there cannot be. Those "far" cannot fellowship with those "near." In covenantal language, this is contrasting "light" and "darkness."

As Paul said above, Gentiles have become Jews. Not, however, the way it used to be performed in Judaism. Gentiles have become Jews on equal basis. They aren't Gentiles any more. Now they are Israelites by incorporation into the Beloved One (1:6). God chose this Israel from the beginning of time, of which we, believers, have become members through faith. In Christ God's people is established.


I cannot help myself here, but what you are saying does not make much sense to me here. How then did Elijah and Elisha performed great miracles for God?

Sure they did. Btw, what does Paul say about when "life came?


Daniel seem to be internally transformed and obeyed God.

What does my post say about "obedience"?


It is true that Paul is arguing that the Law does not equate to faith. However, Paul never argues for a NEW faith.

Really? So when I quoted Paul saying "before faith came" I was doing so because I made it up?


God did not require them to have faith in principles but to have faith in Him.

And what did the Jews know of Him and how did they worship Him?


This is what I am trying to argue that Paul may be talking about in Eph. 2:8-9 that he is encompassing all the different ideas of "works" based salvation, not just Jewish but also those proclaimed by secular rhetors. For if so, than a man following Aristotle could easily boast like a Jew that they are saved by what they do. This is what verse 9 is [b]exactly talking about. Paul is being all inclusive to include the Greek philosophy of the day. Thanks for helping me prove my point

So now you agree that Galatians and Ephesians make the same PONT!?!? LOL!!

No, Puritan, Galatians doesn't address Greek philosophy. The comparison being made is between the law and the Spirit.


He is not arguing against a particular Jewish false teaching for he would have come out and stated it so like he did in Romans and Galatians, wouldn't he?

Paul is celebrating his solution to the mystery, whichis the same solution he uses to correct his opposition in the other books. It's really easy to understand. YOU need a "firmer understanding," PuritanD.

[Chappie]

08-28-2003 @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196840#post196840)
mickiel:

The bible does mention faith comes by hearing the word of God, but that hearing is not possible if God has not opened the person. This can be tricky and confusing, but God is the source of all things.

“Hearing is not possible if God has not opened the person”. That is an assumption that cannot be supported with scripture. Truth is your conclusions are even opposed in scripture.

Rom 10:8-21
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The word of God is nigh the. Close to thee. Available unto the: So close has God placed it to us, that he considers it to be even in our mouths. What does that word ask of us? ” 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”. Salvation is a gift of God contingent upon a response from man. What response on man’s part is required?

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

We have to believe and call upon the name if the lord. We have to do that….. How is that possible?
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

We have to hear the Gospel, only then are we held accountable to the gospel.

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Hearing is not possible unless God has opened the person, what do you mean by that? It is through the power of God unto salvation (The Gospel) that men are made capable (Opened) to receive the gift of salvation. It is through hearing, and consequently receiving or rejecting that we are established as accountable before God. Without law, sin is not imputed.

You ask that we believe that God is secretly giving light to some while hiding that light from others so that he can justly torture those blinded throughout eternity. And John Calvinists say that God does this to glorify himself. Yet it would bring shame upon any human being having such power to act in this way.

21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. Says here that God is reaching out to disobedient people, why? Why would he reach out knowing that he has blinded them to the fact that he is reaching out to them? Is that not kind of like asking a man with no legs to race you in a 100-yard dash? The concept of reaching out suggests a response….



Look at John 1:12,to as many as received him, to THEM, he GAVE the right to be his children. One can read this and believe the human must receive him on his own choice, then after receiving they are converted. So self effort seems how to receive him, but notice John 3:27, John states a man cannot "receive NOTHING" unless it is GIVEN FROM HEAVEN. That nothing includes faith. So here the impression is we cannot have faith unless it is given, we cannot even be Gods sons unless it is given.

Why do we not just stay with a straightforward and logical interpretation of this passage and let it say what it says. John 1:12: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Precisely it says exactly what you say it does not say. Assisted by God, self-effort is the way that we receive him. In harmony with the small amount of effort that we must put forth, God gives us the POWER to become sons of God. So, does our minimal effort save us? Absolutely not!!!! We are saved by grace and grace alone. The fact that we must believe does not save us; it is imputed unto us as righteousness. Righteousness that does not meet the standards of holiness to be salvific, so God gives us a reward instead.

James 2:23-24
23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Your effort to eliminate man’s responsibility to God releases man from accountability and makes God culpably guilty of actively promoting both good and evil.

Considering John 3:26-27
26And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. 27John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

If we keep the passage within the context that it is written, it still will not support that which you wish to attribute to it.

The disciples of John were concerned that the Disciples of Christ were baptizing and that men were beginning to flock around Jesus. John made it plain that baptism and who baptized one did not matter as salvation could only come from God. Nevertheless, notice that the gift was given and had to be received. God gives the gift, nevertheless man must receive it. The fact that man must volitionally receive does not change the fact that unless God gave it, man could not receive it. Salvation is a gift from God.

These passages confirm precisely what you attempt to deny…..


The fruit of the Spirit in Gal.5:22-23, is NOT a complete list, faith is a fruit of the Spirit. John 15:1-5, Jesus explains very graphically, we cannot do anything apart from him, or that is to say on our own strength. Faith is also included here. True religion always leans toward God, false religion always leans toward self, giving itself credit and glory. As we move further into deception, more value is given to man and less to God..

Faith is not a fruit of the spirit in the same context as the fruit listed in the passages written in Galatians. The context of the fruits listed in Galatians 5:22-23 result as a consequence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not indwell men prior to faith. Instead of just adding faith to the list for doctrinal convenience, you might want to ask and answer the question as to why it was not listed there in the first place. Faith comes as a result of the GRACE of God. It does not result as a fruit of the spirit….

The fact that we can do nothing apart from God does not change the fact that assisted by God, [color=purple “Phil 4:13: I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.[/color]

You also irrationally conclude that it is possible for a person to accept Christ in response to the gospel, be filled with The Holy Spirit, and not accept the truth that his acceptance of Christ was so assisted by God that he does not have reason to boast about it before God. Question….. Are we also forbidden to edifyingly boast about it before men?



Men will teach a self improving religion, human faith, human choice or free will, the focus will be on self, or kind of "look what I have accomplished"

Whither a person is filled with the Holy Spirit through efficacious grace or by accepting Christ has no ultimate bearing on how a person will act or what he will believe. If they are truly indwelt, they will act accordingly. Essentially, it could be gleaned from what you are saying is that only Calvinists are saved.

[joelkaki]

Whither a person is filled with the Holy Spirit through efficacious grace or by accepting Christ has no ultimate bearing on how a person will act or what he will believe. If they are truly indwelt, they will act accordingly. Essentially, it could be gleaned from what you are saying is that only Calvinists are saved.

I hardly think that mickiel would be saying only Calvinists are saved, considering that he is not a Calvinist in any sense of the word.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Where does the rain come from? One man stayed inside his house, and did not get wet. Another went outside and got soaked.

So it is with faith, some will go outside and recieve faith, another will stay inside and reject it.

Whither we recieve or reject; faith, just like the rain, comes from God...

The Arminians, they are wrong.......

"go outside and receive faith" Now you have to receive faith? Some time ago, you and mandolin were insisting adamantly that faith IS our reception of the gift. Now we have to receive the reception? You've lost me. Are you saying there is just faith lying around to spare out there, and all we have to do is grab it? I'm afraid I just cannot see how your view is backed by Scripture.

Joel

[Chappie]

Today @ 06:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202762#post202762)
joelkaki:



I hardly think that mickiel would be saying only Calvinists are saved, considering that he is not a Calvinist in any sense of the word.

Joel

Some times it's great to be wrong. This is such an occasion...

[Chappie]

Today @ 06:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202764#post202764)
joelkaki:

"go outside and receive faith" Now you have to receive faith? Some time ago, you and mandolin were insisting adamantly that faith IS our reception of the gift.

Not so mi amigo. I do now, and have always contended that salvation is through faith. Faith is our reception is an alien comment to me...


Now we have to receive the reception? You've lost me. Are you saying there is just faith lying around to spare out there, and all we have to do is grab it? I'm afraid I just cannot see how your view is backed by Scripture.

Are you suggesting that faith is in short supply? Perhaps God ran out of faith before he got around to everyone. Either that or he just did not want some to have it so he hid it from them lest they call him Lord?

Can you imagine that, one soul too many calling him Lord. Surely that would wreak havock on his eternal kingdom.....

Do you think that he needed creation control then, as some need birth control today.....

Why do you suppose that God continued to create knowing that he would have to predestin them to hell?

I do not intend to be unkind or scarcastic, but the rammifications of election are simply too unholy for me to attribute to God without a specific scriptural passage that undeniablely attest to its validity. No such passage exist in scripture... Projections and conjecture is all that exist to support it....

[joelkaki]

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203037#post203037)
Chappie:



Not so mi amigo. I do now, and have always contended that salvation is through faith. Faith is our reception is an alien comment to me...

Perhaps that was just mandolin saying that, then, I don't know. I wasn't saying that you didn't think that salvation was through faith. Nor did I mean to imply such.
Perhaps you could give me your definition of what saving faith is, then, to clear up the issue.



Are you suggesting that faith is in short supply? Perhaps God ran out of faith before he got around to everyone. Either that or he just did not want some to have it so he hid it from them lest they call him Lord?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that no one will have faith unless the Lord sovereignly gives it to them (or not so much "giving" faith--I don't know, that term seems too potentially confusing--but that He enables people to have faith, which would essentially mean He gives them their faith).
God does not hide men from faith. Men hate God, and thus won't have faith.



Can you imagine that, one soul too many calling him Lord. Surely that would wreak havock on his eternal kingdom.....

Such would not happen on two accounts. First, no one will call Him Lord unless He enables them, and secondly, there is joy in heaven over any sinner that repents.



Do you think that he needed creation control then, as some need birth control today.....

Why do you suppose that God continued to create knowing that he would have to predestin them to hell?

You are left with the same question, I'm afraid. Why did God create someone knowing that they would never believe and thus would go to Hell? It is the exact same question.
Furthermore, I do not believe that God "predestines people to Hell" as such. It is not like all could go to Heaven, but God decides that He doesn't want Joe and Bill, so he decides to send them to Hell regardless. Scripturally, no one should get to go to heaven; all should go to Hell justly, but God chooses to save some, passing over the others. There is not injustice. There is mercy.
As to the question itself (which you must also account for, so you can't really hold it as a mark against my views), I don't really question all the whys of God's actions. I know that He is doing it for His glory and the good of His people, and that is really enough for me.



I do not intend to be unkind or scarcastic, but the rammifications of election are simply too unholy for me to attribute to God without a specific scriptural passage that undeniablely attest to its validity. No such passage exist in scripture... Projections and conjecture is all that exist to support it....

Well, obviously I disagree that Scripture does not teach it. But considering your actual willingness on a number of threads to actually seriously look at the Scriptures, I guess I will refrain from doing that.
If you would like to take a look at the relevant Scriptures without all the belittling comments, I would be happy to do so. I figure I could probably learn alot from such an exchange. But I am not going to involve myself in a discussion where when I make a point with Scripture, it is just dismissed as irrelevant or ridiculous, because such is not in the spirit of Christ, nor the spirit of the Scriptures.

Joel

[PuritanD]

Armi,

I do not have time to formally respond to your last post. I will have to do so tomorrow or Sat. depending on how things go.

However, a few quick comments can be stated. I love the way you try to say I never represent a person's view properly. I am still waitng on your "proof" that I am not in line with Wallace on the interpretation of 2:8-9. It would be impossible to discredit me just by saying you read the guy and you don't think I represent what he states and not provide any solid evidence in that regard.

Talk about taking someone out of context. Your comment that I believe that Galatians and Ephesians is talking about the same thing is unreal. I was commenting on your statement affirming that within Greek philosophy there is such a thing as "work based salvation." And, Paul was emphasizing this rather than the Jewish work of the Law.

BTW: Speaking about responding to posts, how about getting back to Eph. 2:8.

Anyway, I need to go but will comment on your lastest post soon.

PuritanD

[Chappie]

Today @ 02:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203272#post203272)
joelkaki:
No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that no one will have faith unless the Lord sovereignly gives it to them (or not so much "giving" faith--I don't know, that term seems too potentially confusing--but that He enables people to have faith, which would essentially mean He gives them their faith). God does not hide men from faith. Men hate God, and thus won't have faith.

Joel:
I appreciate your patience with me, I will explain why at the end of my post.

Above you say, “I'm suggesting that no one will have faith unless the Lord sovereignly gives it to them”. Why not just say, unless the Lord gives it to them? What do you intend to emphasize by adding the word sovereignly?

Enabling people to have faith does not essentially mean that God gives it to them. It essentially means that it is made available to them. It is given within that context…

I also do not buy into the severity and exhaustive nature of your assertion that all men hate God. Perhaps you will post scriptures that cause you to believe such so that I can be convinced also…



Such would not happen on two accounts. First, no one will call Him Lord unless He enables them, and secondly, there is joy in heaven over any sinner that repents.

The bible is clear in that it attributes rejection of Christ to being deceived by the prince of this world. If election is true, that joy is limited. Because those that are allowed to repent is limited…



You are left with the same question, I'm afraid. Why did God create someone knowing that they would never believe and thus would go to Hell? It is the exact same question.

Same question, different consequences. Knowing that someone would not believe is morally somewhat different than causing their disbelief. If you do not believe that God is responsible, show me at what point in a man’s existence did he have opportunity to change his circumstances. Please do not go into what Adam did, because if you do; you must also show me how I could have prevented what Adam did..


Furthermore, I do not believe that God "predestines people to Hell" as such. It is not like all could go to Heaven, but God decides that He doesn't want Joe and Bill, so he decides to send them to Hell regardless. Scripturally, no one should get to go to heaven; all should go to Hell justly, but God chooses to save some, passing over the others. There is not injustice. There is mercy.

Please explain to me why all cannot go to heaven. Perhaps we should allow those that God excludes the opportunity to praise this mercy that you speak of… Please, I ask that in your imagination you attribute this same act of mercy to a man. Would it be worthy of praise? Are not his ways higher than our ways?


As to the question itself (which you must also account for, so you can't really hold it as a mark against my views), I don't really question all the whys of God's actions. I know that He is doing it for His glory and the good of His people, and that is really enough for me.

My problem is that most electionist stop questioning when the obvious conclusion renders a God of love to be a tyrant.


If you would like to take a look at the relevant Scriptures without all the belittling comments, I would be happy to do so. I figure I could probably learn a lot from such an exchange. But I am not going to involve myself in a discussion where when I make a point with Scripture, it is just dismissed as irrelevant or ridiculous, because such is not in the spirit of Christ, nor the spirit of the Scriptures.

Here is where I appreciate your patience…
You allude to belittling comments.
If a big fat ugly, and I mean ugly, woman is walking down the street. When I look at her, I do not see a big fat ugly woman. I simply see a woman. As she passes me, she says hello. I say hello, how are you. We each continue our own separate way. But she turns and says, look at me, I’m the most beautiful woman in the world. I say, you are pretty. She says, be honest. Please tell me the truth; I am the most beautiful woman in the world aren’t I.

What should I do…. If I tell her that she is fat and ugly, am I belittling her?

Whenever I am honest and attempt to expose the negative consequences of election, people call me mean. Still, what is essentially wrong with election are the negative consequences that result when this doctrine is brought to fruition. I do not dislike the concept of election; I dislike the negative manner in which it portrays my God. And that is precisely what electionist do not want exposed. To tell only half the story is dishonest. It is the negativity that is inherent in election that should alert a person to the fact that something is wrong.

It is the woman’s weight that causes her to be ugly. Should I not tell her the truth? All that extra baggage that you are carrying around is what makes you ugly. But if you were to lose about a hundred pounds, I can see a beautiful woman in there… Election has too much ugly baggage to be beautiful. Denying the obvious consequences of election does not make it beautiful. Especially when they are obvious and there for all to see that want to see…… How does one honestly and truthfully discuss election without discussing all of its ramifications..

Last question:
How many points have you made with scripture did I just dismiss and not respond with scripture. Please show me one instance….
:cheers:

[Arminian]

PuritanD,


I love the way you try to say I never represent a person's view properly.

This is ironic. I've NEVER said that, so you actually ARE misrepresenting me.


I am still waitng on your "proof" that I am not in line with Wallace on the interpretation of 2:8-9. I It would be impossible to discredit me just by saying you read the guy and you don't think I represent what he states and not provide any solid evidence in that regard.

Well, you can't be discredited by what someone else thinks. However, I've learned from the ECF folder that you'll read arguments against your position as being for your position, so I'm not really concerned that you read or understand what he says. Here's his comment on what he thinks after examining the options:


More plausible is the third view, viz., that touto refers to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else is not addressed by this.

Then you say:


Talk about taking someone out of context. Your comment that I believe that Galatians and Ephesians is talking about the same thing is unreal.

I was making a joke. When it's in your favor to see "the same thing," you'll see it. When the same vocabulary and imagery is used and its not in your favor, you won't.

Also, YOU are the one that said they are about the same thing. You were discussing BOTH Galatians AND Ephesians when you said that Paul is discussing Greek philosophy. Again, Y O U said that, not me.


I was commenting on your statement affirming that within Greek philosophy there is such a thing as "work based salvation."

I know you were talking about that, but I NEVER SAID THAT, NOR DID PAUL . Paul was agreeing with that "Greek guy," however. As expressed in most of his books, Paul's view is that the "law is for the lawless" (1 Tim. 1:9). Paul is not being philosophical, however. His point is profound, and few have noticed it.


And, Paul was emphasizing this rather than the Jewish work of the Law.

That argument is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned. Not only does he use the exact words you reject, but he never uses the words "Greek philosophy." Granted, he rejects Greek philosophy, as we see in Acts and his letter to the Corinthians, but that's not being addressed here.


BTW: Speaking about responding to posts, how about getting back to Eph. 2:8.

Verse, chapter, book, author. I've been discussing that.

[Arminian]

I will have to do so tomorrow or Sat. depending on how things go.

No rush. I'm three weeks behind on responding to some PMs and e-mails. I need the break.

[joelkaki]

Yesterday @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203415#post203415)
Chappie:



Joel:
I appreciate your patience with me, I will explain why at the end of my post.

OK, no problem.



Above you say, “I'm suggesting that no one will have faith unless the Lord sovereignly gives it to them”. Why not just say, unless the Lord gives it to them? What do you intend to emphasize by adding the word sovereignly?

There really wasn't much of a reason for adding it. I just happened to. But I suppose (though I don't remember my exact thought process at the time) that I might have been trying to emphasize the fact that this was an act of the Lord that He was not required to do--it was in His own sovereignty that He did it-- and that He can choose to give it to whomever He chooses.



Enabling people to have faith does not essentially mean that God gives it to them. It essentially means that it is made available to them. It is given within that context…

I disagree. Those who are dead in sin, who cannot in any way make themselves alive, who have a corrupt nature, must be regenerated, their very nature changed, so that they will want the Lord. Thus the Lord's regeneration of a human heart is His enabling of them to believe, and indeed, such regeneration insures their belief.



I also do not buy into the severity and exhaustive nature of your assertion that all men hate God. Perhaps you will post scriptures that cause you to believe such so that I can be convinced also…

They are enemies with God, Romans 5. They do not seek him, have turned aside in their way, have become unprofitable, do no good, Romans 3:10-12. I am not saying that every single person goes around explicitly thinking in his head, "I hate God, I hate Him." I am saying that they do not want God, and hate His way, because they have turned aside and want to follow their own path. By nature they are children of wrath.



The bible is clear in that it attributes rejection of Christ to being deceived by the prince of this world. If election is true, that joy is limited. Because those that are allowed to repent is limited…

The joy is not limited. There is joy over every sinner that repents. Great numbers repent. Not all repent, but if that is the limitation you speak of, then again, you have the same problem.



Same question, different consequences. Knowing that someone would not believe is morally somewhat different than causing their disbelief. If you do not believe that God is responsible, show me at what point in a man’s existence did he have opportunity to change his circumstances. Please do not go into what Adam did, because if you do; you must also show me how I could have prevented what Adam did..

And I do not believe that God causes their disbelief. They don't want to believe. By nature they are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). They do not seek God.
Your exclusion of using Adam is illegitemate, because that has direct relation to this.
You yourself could not have prevented what Adam did, no. But such is not the issue. Adam was the federal head of humanity, and his sin is imputed to us, and we continue to sin in his pattern. And you cannot cry foul at the federal headship of Adam, because if you do, then you have no salvation. Why? Because then neither can Christ be your federal head. His righteousness cannot then be imputed to us.
So men are indeed responsible for their own unbelief. God does not cause unbelief. There would be no need to do that. They do not believe by nature.



Please explain to me why all cannot go to heaven. Perhaps we should allow those that God excludes the opportunity to praise this mercy that you speak of… Please, I ask that in your imagination you attribute this same act of mercy to a man. Would it be worthy of praise? Are not his ways higher than our ways?

We cannot all go to heaven because we all naturally rebel against God and are deserving of death. Only by God's grace can any be saved. God's mercy is indeed deserving of praise. All deserve death, and He would have been perfectly right in punishing all of us, but graciously He saves some, which He did not have to do. The fact that He does not save every single one is not a blight against Him.



My problem is that most electionist stop questioning when the obvious conclusion renders a God of love to be a tyrant.

My concern is to be Scriptural. And I do not believe that it makes him to be a tyrant, on top of the fact that I believe the Scriptures teach what I am saying.



Here is where I appreciate your patience…
You allude to belittling comments.
If a big fat ugly, and I mean ugly, woman is walking down the street. When I look at her, I do not see a big fat ugly woman. I simply see a woman. As she passes me, she says hello. I say hello, how are you. We each continue our own separate way. But she turns and says, look at me, I’m the most beautiful woman in the world. I say, you are pretty. She says, be honest. Please tell me the truth; I am the most beautiful woman in the world aren’t I.

What should I do…. If I tell her that she is fat and ugly, am I belittling her?

Whenever I am honest and attempt to expose the negative consequences of election, people call me mean. Still, what is essentially wrong with election are the negative consequences that result when this doctrine is brought to fruition. I do not dislike the concept of election; I dislike the negative manner in which it portrays my God. And that is precisely what electionist do not want exposed. To tell only half the story is dishonest. It is the negativity that is inherent in election that should alert a person to the fact that something is wrong.

I am not trying to hide anything. There is nothing about what I believe that I "do not want exposed." See, those are the sort of comments that I don't appreciate. That is really an ad hominem argument. I am not trying to be dishonest in any way, and I don't believe that I am doing such.



It is the woman’s weight that causes her to be ugly. Should I not tell her the truth? All that extra baggage that you are carrying around is what makes you ugly. But if you were to lose about a hundred pounds, I can see a beautiful woman in there… Election has too much ugly baggage to be beautiful. Denying the obvious consequences of election does not make it beautiful. Especially when they are obvious and there for all to see that want to see…… How does one honestly and truthfully discuss election without discussing all of its ramifications..

I understand your point. But I still take issue with many of the comments you have made in the past. I do not believe they were stated in Christian love and concern. Being honest does not require that you do so in A MANNER that offends. I don't mind if you say my view is wrong, but when you resort to things that are subtely ad hominem, and are stated in a manner that is not loving, I have a problem.



Last question:
How many points have you made with scripture did I just dismiss and not respond with scripture. Please show me one instance….
:cheers:

I am not necessarily talking about points that I myself have made, but I have noticed it in your dialoque with others of my persuasion. It was just a general observation. But if such fault did not exist on your part, and I was again mistaking you for someone else, then I apologize.

Joel

[Chappie]

Today @ 12:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204155#post204155)
joelkaki:

There really wasn't much of a reason for adding it. I just happened to. But I suppose (though I don't remember my exact thought process at the time) that I might have been trying to emphasize the fact that this was an act of the Lord that He was not required to do--it was in His own sovereignty that He did it-- and that He can choose to give it to whomever He chooses.

Joel:
The very essence of sovereignty gives God the legal and moral right to interact with man in a volitional manner. One of the things that I find offensive about Calvinist dogma is the way that sovereignty is used to say that God had to use election in order to maintain his sovereignty. That is not true, and from any reasonable and logical perspective it takes a certain amount of dishonesty to say that it is. These comments are not reflective or indigenous to our conversation; it is an assessment that I have reached from talking with many of your persuasion over a period of time. A sovereign God is free to act determinately (Election) or interactively (Volition) according to his good pleasure without a single negative consequence upon his sovereignty. Therefore, sovereignty does not add validity to nor does it support election.

The sovereignty of God is established not in his power, but in the fact that he is the creator of all things. As something that did not exist, it is impossible for what is created to have aught to say in the circumstances under which it/they/he was created. Sovereignty is God’s legal and moral right to do with his creation anything that he pleases. That includes freewill or election. All that I ask is that Calvinist stop errantly using sovereignty as proof of election. It is not……



I disagree. Those who are dead in sin, who cannot in any way make themselves alive, who have a corrupt nature, must be regenerated, their very nature changed, so that they will want the Lord. Thus the Lord's regeneration of a human heart is His enabling of them to believe, and indeed, such regeneration insures their belief.

The picture that the phrase “Dead in sin” should paint in ones mind is synonymous with the phrase “separated from God by sin. It does not paint a picture of ability or inability as you suggest.. Spiritual death equals separation from God.

Regeneration is an act of the indwelling Holy Spirit: John 14:26
26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Does not say, he will regenerate you and then teach you. There is not one single instance of regeneration prior to faith listed in the whole bible. Yet you post it and hold to it as though it is mentioned in every single book in the bible. Your concept of regeneration is in response to your concept of the ramifications of total depravity. Both are views based on the extreme.


They are enemies with God, Romans 5. They do not seek him, have turned aside in their way, have become unprofitable, do no good, Romans 3:10-12. I am not saying that every single person goes around explicitly thinking in his head, "I hate God, I hate Him." I am saying that they do not want God, and hate His way, because they have turned aside and want to follow their own path. By nature they are children of wrath.

Joel, have you so soon forgotten from whence you came. Heb 2:17-18
17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

You were once one of them, your words are harsh and uncompassionate

You said, “I am saying that they do not want God, and hate His way, because they have turned aside and want to follow their own path”. Your words do contain some similarity to scripture; I recognize them and I know where they came from. They are used to describe those that have rejected God; they would have no bearing on those that God has rejected. If you do not believe me, read your own words..



1)They are enemies with God, Romans 5.
2)They do not seek him, have turned aside in their way, have become unprofitable, do no good, Romans 3:10-12.
3)I am saying that they do not want God, and hate His way,
4)because they have turned aside and want to follow their own path.

“By nature they are children of wrath”. When did God ever give them opportunity to be anything else? Adam robed all of humanity of their opportunity to live God. They could do absolutely nothing to prevent it. And now a moral, righteous, just, and holy God is going to punish them for eternity because of it. And where is ole Adam, he is in heaven. God gave him room to repent. Surely you can see that something is unholy about that…



And I do not believe that God causes their disbelief. They don't want to believe. By nature they are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). They do not seek God.

They do not want to believe, they do not seek God. God does not want them to believe, so he never gives them opportunity. God does not seek them because he does not want them and never did. Am I right about it?


Your exclusion of using Adam is illegitimate, because that has direct relation to this. You yourself could not have prevented what Adam did, no. But such is not the issue. Adam was the federal head of humanity, and his sin is imputed to us, and we continue to sin in his pattern.

And God said that without law, sin is not imputed. So your attempt to include Adam is just as illegitimate.. And Adam’s sin was not and has never been imputed to us. Because of Adam’s sin, by divine decree all men were counted as sinners that there may be one salvation for all.. The consequence of Adams sin is that we inherited his fallen nature. (A propensity to sin) No man has ever been placed in hell because of what Adam did. The fathers shall not bear the sins of the children, neither shall the children bear the sins of the father, but every man shall die because of his own sin… Scripture provided on request.



So men are indeed responsible for their own unbelief. God does not cause unbelief. There would be no need to do that. They do not believe by nature.

Responsible only if their unbelief is volitional. If a person cannot chose to believe, neither can he chose to not believe. They do not believe by nature. A bird is a bird by nature, would you justly burn it because it is not a teddy-bear… Does not something seem wrong to you?



We cannot all go to heaven because we all naturally rebel against God and are deserving of death. Only by God's grace can any be saved. God's mercy is indeed deserving of praise.[quote]

Yes, that is true, my concern is the difference between God’s grace and what Calvin calls God’s grace. They are significantly two different entities

[quote]I am not trying to hide anything. There is nothing about what I believe that I "do not want exposed." See, those are the sort of comments that I don't appreciate. That is really an ad hominem argument. I am not trying to be dishonest in any way, and I don't believe that I am doing such.

There are many comments in your posts Joel that I do not appreciate; still we are passionately discussing our differences. I just look over them and keep going. Christlikeness begins with truth, I will not grin in your face and lie. One mans ad hominem is another mans reality…:cheers: