Featured what is wrong holding to jesus died for all, but God only gives faith to some?

here is the objection-
It has been objected,however,that the word that[tovto] is neuter,while faith is feminine,and so must refer to the"idea of salvation,which is neuter,not faith.
It is salvation in a very general sense which is the gift of God in the text.


In answer it may be stated;

[1] The demonstrative pronoun does not always[only generally]agrees with it's antecedent in number and gender.There are instances in which a neuter pronoun may modify either a feminine or masculine subject.

[2] the neuter demonstrative may refer to the act of believing,which would probably take the neuter rather than the feminine.
If Paul were referring merely to salvation rather than specifically to faith,
then his statement would be redundant and needless.

[3] The words "and that"[kai tovto] may possibly refer back to the preceding section of vs.4-8a which emphasizes the freeness and sovereignty of God's grace,which necessarily includes faith within the divine gift.

AT. Robertson.a grammer of the greek nt.

 

You hang your entire theology, your soteriology, on this one verse, this one little phrase of which A.T. Pobertson concedes may POSSIBLY refer back...
Yet no other Scripture backs this up.
It is a remote possibility concedes Robertson that gift of God refers to faith, but in context he is really saying that salvation makes better sense. Notice you took his third choice, not his first.

 

I also agree, eternal life is the gift of salvation.

I am not real sure that grace doesn't also refer to eternal life.

Compare:
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Heb 5:8,9

I think, and being made perfect/mature, is a reference to the resurrection see verse 5,6 and 10 and by resurrection he became first cause of eternal salvation.

Therefore when we read, Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Author first cause of eternal salvation is by grace that is resurrection.

We are called heirs of the grace of life in 1 Peter 3:7. Heirs not yet inheritors. Will we become inheritors at the resurrection, appearing of Jesus?

Now consider; Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. 1 Cor 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Righteousness is not by the law. Christ is not still dead because of grace, being raised from the dead to eternal life.

Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

 

Your response is a bit over the top, and hence inexcusable.
I suggest you mull over what Adam Clarke has to say, whose knowledge of Greek I trust far more than yours.

 

Yes, Albert Barnes who was Presbyterian gives a similar interpretation;

God enables us to believe. No man could believe on Jesus Christ unless God had revealed him to us through the scriptures and the preaching of his word. But man himself must take this revelation and use it himself. God does not believe for a man.

 

No I'm not. That interpretation you have posted is a manipulation of the interpretation to justify statements like those made by DHK. You're as guilty as he is.

 

Adam Clark was an extremist Arminian, and even he does not say faith is not a gift of God. Note the first sentence of his second paragraph, which also denies your flat statement made earlier. He simply makes the grammatical error of saying "saved" modifies both grace and faith, and in the Greek, the same verb cannot modify nouns of different genders. Take a look at Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

"Our faith, our conversion, and our eternal salvation, are not of works, lest any man should boast. These things are not brought to pass by any thing done by us, therefore all boasting is shut out. All is the free gift of God, and the effect of being quickened by his power."​

John Gill:

"alvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace; and this faith is not the produce of man's free will and power, but it is the free gift of God; ..."​

Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible:

"through faith--the effect of the power of Christ's resurrection (Ephesians 1:19 Ephesians 1:20 , Philippians 3:10) whereby we are "raised together" with Him ( Ephesians 2:6 , Colossians 2:12 ). Some of the oldest manuscripts read, "through your (literally, 'the') faith." The instrument or mean of salvation on the part of the person saved; Christ alone is the meritorious agent."​

Note none of these authors mention Grace in connection with v. 8, though there is no argument Grace is God's gift as well. It just isn't the subject of this sentence. Faith is, and for you to deny faith is God's gift is factually incorrect.

 

Because he did not have, faith: Because he was of unbelief.

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

I wonder what Paul was thinking about going down the road with his buddies?

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim 1:13

And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 1:14

Grace, faith and love were not in Paul. Paul was in unbelief.

Jesus is grace, faith and love.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1 Tim 1:15

Paul all of a sudden did not change his mind concerning Jesus. Paul going down the road in unbelief was called unto belief, faith, by Jesus in whom is grace, faith and love.

 

Clarke was not extreme as you accuse him. He is a well respected theologian even among most who post here.
OTOH, Gill is a hyper-Calvinist.

 

You have been shown by Greek experts. Remain deluded and in your own ignorance.

 

Winman

WINMAN,

I have to give you this one....even though you found it on yet another anti-cal site:laugh:

I will not defend Sprouls padeo baptist comments....this is not held by most.

You did in fact offer it...so I did want to acknowledge that.:wavey:

 

Salvation comes by the grace of God through the faith of God.

The faith of God has to precede the grace of God. Proof!

The faith of God was in conceiving a Son in whom the life thereof was in the blood thereof for the atonement of the soul.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Lev 17:11

However that Son laying dead there with his soul/blood poured out isn't, Faith.

There is no such thing as faith if death remains.

And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

Grace produced the faith by which there can be the gift of God.

 

And Gill is right, Clarke wrong. The correct preposition is "was." Clarke died in 1832. As to Gill, I'm agreeing with a hyper-Calvinist, which I am not. So what?

By the way, Clarke wouldn't affirm the eternal Sonship of Christ. In case you don't know what that means, Clarke believed that Jesus is eternal, but not eternally the Son. He also believed the Father didn't become the Father until Jesus' earthly birth. It is called "Incarnational Sonship."

Some of the problems with the Incarnational Sonship of Christ are that this teaching confuses or destroys the internal relationships that exist within the Trinity, because if the Son is not eternally begotten by the Father, then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. Also, if there is no Son prior to the incarnation, then there is no Father either; and yet throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel. Instead of having a triune God eternally existing in three distinct Persons with three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship end up with a nameless Trinity prior to the incarnation, and we would be forced to say that God has chosen not to reveal Himself as He truly is, but only as He was to become. In other words, instead of actually revealing who He is, the Triune God instead chose to reveal Himself by the titles He would assume or the roles that He would take on and not who He really is. This is dangerously close to modalism and could easily lead to false teachings about the nature of God. That's not extreme?

Respected? Hardly. Not in my book.