Ephesians 2:8

[wwalkeriv]

I recently learned something I never knew was even an argument against the Calvinist position that faith is a gift from God.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8 NASB)

I have always been stumped by this verse, because it clearly seems to say that faith is a gift from God by His grace. However, going through SG's verse by verse lectures on Romans I heard him give the argument that the "gift" in the above passage is neuter and "faith" is feminine; therefore, the "gift" can't be referring to "faith" since the Greek would require that antecedents be of the same gender. I looked this up and it appears that Steve is correct. Greek, as used in the New Testament, requires that pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender and number.

So my question is: How do the Calvinist respond to this argument? Does this not completely obliterate their assumption that man can not have faith without it being gifted to him by God's grace?

[Paidion]

Barnes in his commentary on the verse makes the same point, that the Greek word "τουτο" ("this"), being neuter, cannot refer to the word "faith". But then to what does it refer? It can't refer to "grace" either since that also is feminine. Barnes suggests that it refers to salvation. But the Greek word for salvation is feminine as well.

My thought is that the whole process of being saved from sin by the enabling grace of God though faith is indeed the "gift of God", and the Greek word for gift, "δωρον", is neuter. Thus "τουτο" ("this") refers to "δωρον."

[jeremiah]

How do the Calvinist respond to this argument? Does this not completely obliterate their assumption that man can not have faith without it being gifted to him by God's grace?

they have a response. i can't remember it right now but i've got it on a podcast somewhere, i'll post it for you when i find it. i do know it's a grammatical argument. i'm not a calvinist but i would say no, this doesn't in the least obliterate their assumption, they point to other texts that unequivocally describe faith as a gift from God (1Cor 12). i think it then comes back full circle to the original question of the nature of faith towards God. like i said, when i find it i'll post it up for you, but in my opinion this argument only leads to arguing in circles, and should be avoided when debating with a calvinist ..
grace and peace...

[wwalkeriv]

Thanks. And, by the way, I figured this out the hard way (that arguing this point just goes in circles with Calvinists). My Calvinist friend had no argument for this scripture, but pointed me to other passages. It seems to me, and maybe this is unloving to say, that Calvinist have another gospel all together. Not that they are necessarily unsaved, just that they all have been taught a system by which to interpret everything they read in the bible. I guess a lot of us do that to some degree.

[jeremiah]

hello wwalkeriv,

i'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this. i found the response the next day, but then spent the next week looking for confirmation of it without finding any. so i got distracted.

basically the response is this: a secondary rule with pronouns in this case of eph. 2:8,9 the neuter pronoun "that" or "this", which doesn't match the gender of faith,grace, or saved**, is enveloping all that came before it.
**(dan wallace says "kai touto" in this case, has an adverbial force with no antecedent, rendering it "and especially" )

i guess they are saying in this case where there is only one neuter pronoun but multiple and unmatched gender antecedents, then the pronoun is therefore lumping them all together. which is what i was trying to find confirmation on but all i found was a bunch of online arguing of whether faith is a gift or not . in other words, not only is there disagreement over whether faith is a gift or not, but there are also a few different schools of method in determining the proper grammatical breakdown of this passage. surprise, surprise...

generally after this they will point to phillipians 1:29, acts 18:27, or john 6:65 to make their case that salvific faith is indeed gifted to us.

i know this isn't much to go with but i hope it helps somewhat.

grace and peace...

[wwalkeriv]

Jeremiah,
Thank you for taking the time to follow up.

[Paidion]

...they point to other texts that unequivocally describe faith as a gift from God (1Cor 12).

What are these other texts? You mention only I Cor 12, and that one is definitely equivocal. This passage speaks of the various charisma which come from God. The fact that one of these is faith, does not imply that people cannot have faith apart from charismatic faith. For example, whenever one sits down in a chair, he has faith that it will hold him up. It doesn't HAVE to hold him up. I have seen someone sit in a chair that immediately collapsed under him!

And what about the expression of wisdom? Are all expressions of wisdom charismatic? Isn't it possible to express wisdom in a natural way? Even non-Christians sometimes do it, don't they?

Then this passage also speaks of the expression of knowledge as a charisma. Surely people express knowledge at times apart from the charismatic knowledge mentioned in this passage.

In a similar manner, one should not be surprised if people have faith apart from charismatic faith — even faith in God!

[jeremiah]

good morning paidion,
right, my understanding is more along the lines you laid out above. i should have been more clear, in saying "unequivocally", i meant as in the mind of calvinists i listen to or have spoken with. i do believe faith is a gift from God, but not really in the hard sense that calvinists will push it. my responses above weren't an affirmation of their understanding, just my attempt to charitably represent the response i've heard them give.

grace and peace...

[jriccitelli]

To me Calvinism employees a very cult like redefinition of common words, the words will, choose, repentance, and faith for instance. A common translation of these biblical words into 'any' language would emphasize an action on our part in order for the words to make sense.

In English and in most other languages these words describe processes humans make on their own, the Calvinist would have to have his own dictionary meaning to understand the meaning of these words. If choose and will do not mean something you have of your own, then, it may mean God does not have a will of His own either.

There are three words (concepts) in this verse Paul 'could' be referring to, so, since we know Salvation and Grace are gifts of God then it must be these that Paul is referring to.
Biblical verse and reason squarely back this up, where trying to turn Faith into a gift is a real twisting of language, scripture, and reason.

I still like listening to RC Sproul (probably only because of the famine of deeper bible teaching available on the radio) but I had to almost vomit this past week over Sprouls constant and seemingly admiration, love, and devotion to Calvin, Augustine, and Jonathan Edwards, it is as if Sproul was attributing divinity to Edwards on his show this week. I do not find either 'the Theologian' or Edwards all that very enlightening because they were 'wrong'! Proving the axiom true that "There are mistakes only a Theologian could make"

I see that God 'increases' our faith 'in the sense' that God gives us more reason, collectively, and personally (revelation of His work in our own lives), to believe and trust Him. We still make the 'choice' to trust Him 'more' of our own will, but His 'doings and help' in our lives are a gift from God. My faith increases ever so as I begin to see His faithfulness and continued goodness to me and my wife, and to those who are trusting Him, it is still our decision to put more trust in Him, and less in ourselves. As I could, and do sometimes, still choose not to.
I could go on… but I will stop, God willing.

[Paidion]

Good post, JR! Thanks.

Okay, thanks for the explanation, Jeremiah. Now I understand.