Faith From The Heart...

Correct. Salvation is the gift, not the phrase.

The whole of the statement is in reference to salvation. If I state "I'm going to California by the way of Texas, and I should be there by noon", it would be foolish to assume I was talking about arriving in Texas by noon.

Like most calvinists do, you deliberately try to confuse the issue by playing word games.

It is made up...and I told you. The phrase is speaking about salvation as the gift, not individual prepositional phrases you want to yank out of context to support your theology.

 

I have a question. The Scriptures state "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". The verb is present active...meaning YOU believe. If the believing were an action being done by another to me, meaning the Spirit believing or exercising faith for me, wouldn't it use the passive voice?

An example of that is where Paul commands us, "Be ye filled with the Spirit" and "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" Both appear to be passive voices that recognize we yield and the action is done actually to us not by us. Both can be translated "Allow yourself to keep on being filled" Meaning yield to the filling. We don't actually do the action of being filled, that is done by the Spirit but we do act passively and yield. The same with being transformed. It appears passive meaning, "Allow yourself to keep on being transformed". Again the transformation is done by the spirit of God through the renewing of the mind. We cannot do the transforming but yield to it by learning Bible doctrine and the spirit transforming us.

However, when it says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" If the Spirit were doing the action as above, wouldn't it or shouldn't it rightly be a passive voice and not an active voice which reflects US doing the action?

 

I think you know exactly what I meant. From the calvinist Barnes...

And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - τοῦτοtouto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - πίστιςpistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" (τοῦτοtouto) refers to "faith" (πίστιςpistis); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.

 

The theology is that we are saved by grace through faith. Period.

RWP -
And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tautē, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex humōn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (dōron) and not the result of our work.

 

YES! I knew we could do it! We worked our way backwards

Immutable truth is immutable truth. The mechanics getting there is where the differences lie. It all comes back to God's grace, though and Jesus Christ.

 

Yes, Barnes is one and so is Clarke and many others (editted in - specifically Calvinists) regarding this passage and that the 'gift' spoken of here is not of 'faith' but salvation. Even John Calvin in his commentary on this passage says the same. Now many of those who see the 'gift' HERE being salvation will also state that in other places there is the 'gift' of 'faith' as well but that THIS passage is not speaking to that end.

 

This is the truth of that which saves - Amen.

 

I think even the Non-Cals will agree that 'faith' can be seen as a 'gift', after a fashion.

What I mean by that is:
1. No man seeks after God
2. By mercy and grace God intervenes to reveal/draw
3. Man can yield faith toward the God he never would have sought after on his own.

So in a sense , the faith we have would have never been used in a saving manner toward God, if God had not come to us and revealed Truth. It can be seen as a 'gift' that way.

However, you are hard pressed to show that the "faith" scripture commands of us toward Christ is something that is specifically imparted to us that we may have life.
Logically it would make no sense regarding the regeneration/faith/salvation order.

When we are regenerated (made alive unto God), we therefore (in the Calvinstic view) are compelled to believe and have faith IN God. There is no option for the one regenerated; just as the sinner must reject and die so the regenerated must believe and live.

So then why is it necessary for God to 'give faith' to the one regenerated. Scripture never states that man is without the capcity to beleive it just states that man will not seek after God himself. We as fallen man can not and will not believe the Word of God because we understand it (or better it is interpreted) through the Natural man which is twisted and depraved by sin. Therefore it according to our own understanding will always be rejected because we can not see the truth through our sin. It blinds us.

This is why God must reveal truth to man directly and bypass the natural means (natural man) of how man aquires understanding which he makes his truth by believing it. Those regenerated must believe and have Faith, so why is it necessary to give them faith when it is the natural tendency and desire in the new nature of the one regenerated to believe already? Can one desire to do what one can not do? It makes no logical sense because IMO - because it is a logical fallicy.

edditted out....

This is why we see things like:
God draws us but we must believe.
God gives to us but we must partake.
God offers but we must receive.

Though salvaition is all of God, man must still believe.

 

Points Of Clarification

Adam Clarke ( d.1832 ) was certainly NOT a Calvinist . He was similiar to John Wesley in his soteriology .

Also , Albert Barnes (d. 1870 ) though kind of Calvinistic and helpful at times , bought into New England theology and that was not good .

 

Allow me to clarify for the those who might misunderstand.

Here is a quote from Bloomfield off of Christian Classic Ethereal Library regarding the Commentaries of John Calvin on Eph 2:8-10 - it is a side note (not sure it was Calvins or it is just there to establish it as a commonly held view among many Calvinists:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.iii.iii.html

We see the that Bloomfield being a Calvinist himself and speaking of the position of other Calvinists (like himself) on the subject of if Eph 2:8-9 and if the gift is inclusive of 'faith' (spoken of specifically there) or not.

 

I think its interesting that folks have had a different view on the passage as to what the "that" is referring to entirely. Good info and thanks for sharing.

I do think the heart of the issue is whether an unregenerate man has the ability, in himself, to believe savingly on the Lord Jesus Christ. As I mentioned before, as I understand the teaching of our Lord Jesus the answer is emphatically no. While I believe Eph 2 is a supportive Scripture to this, it certainly is not the only place in Scripture that teaches this. The Gospel of John is a great place to turn, since this seems to a matter in need of clarity, to turn to in allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

I say the Gospel of John because our Lord Jesus Christ specifically address man's ability in the act of believing in Him, which He says no man can (ability) do.

 

Yes, a quick "Google" search brought me to a site which states that Albert Barnes

. . . was brought to trial for heresy by the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, and was acquitted, but his accusers succeeded in having him suspended from the ministry, but he was again acquitted of heresy in 1836. The charges of heresy primarily related to his comments on Romans and the fact that Barnes broke from strict Calvinism and taught that man had free will to accept or deny the Gospel. He was a leader in the "New School" branch of the Presbyterian church.​

That was at: http://www.swordsearcher.com/christian-authors/albert-barnes.html

Another site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke says this about Clarke (and I realise that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source):

Clarke followed Wesley in opposing a Calvinistic scheme of salvation, preferring instead the Wesleyan-Arminian positions regarding predestination, prevenient grace, the offer of justification from God to all persons, entire sanctification, and assurance of salvation.​

 

Great information David. Thanks for sharing.

 

You are right about Adam Clarke. For some reason I kept thinking Gordon Clark which is my mistake. So regarding the notation on the Ethereal Library - though the others on the list are Calvinistic it is speaking to the issue of Calvinists and other Scholarly/Educateded men that see the Eph 2:8-9 passage concerning the 'gift' refering to salvation only.

But you can't insinuate Barnes was not a Calvinist. He was not found guilty of heresy in relation to his beliefs. Though he may not stick to the Supra view he was - IMO - undenably an Infra to say the least.