John UK wrote: 1) Lurker, your post of 2/21/2020 10:08PM was a great blessing to me, so I render you thanks for taking the time to think about it and draw conclusions.
2) Tell me bro, do you think there is a difference between the faith which comes as a fruit of the Spirit, and the faith which is a gift of the Spirit?
1`) Your welcome, John, and thanks for saying so.
2) Honestly I haven't really considered it before. I guess I've always believed faith is faith and don't see a reason to believe otherwise. But if you have some thoughts I'd be willing to listen.
John for JESUS wrote: Thatâ€™s exactly my point! The Gentiles hadnâ€™t entered eternal life yet. Yet it was still something they possessed and could look forward too, just like Paul. It was the only thing in Eph 2:8 that was not finished.
I'm sorry, J4J, but eternal life is not mentioned in Eph 2:8-9.
Upon further research into the text and consulting trusted commentators, I'm of the persuasion that "that" refers to everything preceding it including faith.... the mechanics of salvation. Greek linguistics seems to demand it be understood that way. And context must be considered as well, especially being dead in sin before God quickened to life in mercy.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) A fruit of the Spirit is to trust God more. It doesnâ€™t mean people are unable to believe in Jesus when confronted with the gospel.
2) By Godâ€™s grace we receive eternal life through faith. The salvation we receive is not because of anything we did, but because of Jesus Christ. Therefore there is nothing to boast about! As I explained earlier, grace was already bestowed upon the Gentiles in Ephesians and they already believed, the only thing left that could have been considered present tense was their salvation. Having been saved, they had not yet entered into eternal life. Eternal life is the gift of God.
2) If that be so then poor Paul never received the gift of God. You see, J4J, Paul never claimed eternal life as a present possession but looked forward to it in hope.
Titus 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.
Perhaps Paul was a one off...
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Earlier I said I'd post some thoughts regarding the gift of God. Needless to say that anything good in the life of a Christian can be thought of as a gift from God. That goes without saying. But the bible is very specific concerning the gift of God:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive **the gift of the Holy Ghost.**
That's it! Every good thing in our lives flows from the indwelling Holy Spirit, the fountain of living waters. Every perceived gift flows from the Holy Spirit. Even things that some perceive as originating within themselves flows from the Holy Spirit as Paul wrote:
Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, **faith**, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
There are simply too many good things written about faith to foolishly presume it originates from within a carnal, unregenerate mind unto justification of life (Rom 5:16-18). No amount of wrangling with Ephesians 2:8-9 will accomplish anything until first the gift of God is recognized and that all good fruit proceeds from the indwelling Holy Spirit..... including faith.
B. McCausland wrote: Apologies accepted, Lurker. IMHO oftimes there is excesive fuss made of things which are plain, say things whose main sense is obvious, and the grieving is that sometimes man is trying to be wiser than God, or try to play 'god', or simply speculate upon things which are not totally given but inferred throughout the revelation of Scripture. It is my personal understanding that often we should admit that the words of Christ: "...it is not given unto you to know ... " should be our contented lot. My apologies if you, and/or others here differ on this, being then cause for misunderstanding, with the potential to develope into idle contempt which is not my intend. Again my apologies if this if misconstrued in any other way than the reason for which it is shared. Regards
I was blessed by your comment and want you to know that. Far too many discussions go bad because of misunderstandings and frustration which lead to personal attacks. I know I have been guilty of the same in the past and still struggle with it. I remember many such instances with you personally and for that I apologize too. I trust you will forgive me.
. . .
I want to address the matter of God's gift but it will have to wait till later.
John for JESUS wrote: I keep hearing that salvation isnâ€™t even in the verse, then what does the word â€śsavedâ€ť mean? The Gentile believers received salvation by grace, through faith! That salvation they received was not because of anything they did to earn it, it is the gift of God. Grace was what they were shown and faith is what they had in order to be saved, those things were in the past for them. However, the gift of God is what was happening right now. Whatever you think â€śitâ€ť is must be something that was still considered the gift of God. Grace was already shown and faith was already something they had in order to be saved. The only thing current tense would be their salvation, which was still their gift from God.â€¬
I believe J4J's post demonstrates much better than I could explain what happens when the rules of grammar are abandoned for a complex text such as Eph 2:8. Personal bias is free to draw out a meaning contrary to the Author's intent.
Thanks for the clarification and accept my apology for misunderstanding.
. . .
Rom 5:15 the grace of God, and the gift **by** grace..
Rom 5:16 the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith...
B. McCausland wrote: 1) Poor man in the street if he cannot make out the difference between the 'that' and the 'it' to understand the sense of Ephesians 2:8. !?!? --- 2) *** "Salvation is of the Lord" ***
Run a concordance search for the word salvation and it will suffice.
1) Apparently I am that poor man in the street so perhaps you'd be kind and compassionate enough to enlighten me. That is, unless your comment is just another of your subtle insults. Your response, if any, will tell the tale of your intent.
2) Actually I did just that even before I posted my last. Just as a good attorney will never ask a question in a courtroom that he doesn't already know the answer to, I rarely state something I've not already researched, am confident of and am willing and able to defend from scripture.
As for "Salvation is of the Lord"...., of course and amen. However, where does the bible say it is a/the gift of God? It doesn't and the proof is your inability to find anything to say so.
Furthermore, seems I need to remind you again that: 1) The word "salvation" isn't even in the text of Eph 2:8-9... 2) "that" and "it" must be a/the gift... 3) "that" and "it" are pronouns which must refer to nouns... 4) saved is a verb.
B. McCausland wrote: " ... by grace are ye saved through faith; and *that* not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" Will it not be better to take that particular *that* in the verse represents the whole sentence preceding, (say the sentence saying 'by grace are ye saved through faith') which summarizes the whole of the matter, instead of trying to slot the sentence apart in segments to see which one is the gift? When considering the whole context of scripture every element of that sentence points to a gift, with each element having a determined function to make the whole work towards the common end.
Good thought. However, "that" and "it" are pronouns which should refer to either or both of the antecedent nouns "grace" and "faith". "Saved" is a verb and as such can't be an antecedent of "that" or "it" regardless of the temptation to rewrite the bible and call it salvation which is a noun. If salvation is what the HS had in mind then it could have been better written thus:
For by grace is your salvation through faith......
But it's not.
Finally, both faith (implicitly) and grace (explicitly) are named as gifts from God but, to my knowledge, salvation is not. If I'm mistaken I'd welcome the evidence.
John for JESUS wrote: Not that any of you are right, because you are not, but even if it said faith was a gift, a gift can be received or rejected. It doesnâ€™t prove God overforces people to believe against their will. Sorry!
Oh my! Do I sense a chink in your armor?
Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Two possibilities here, J4J. This is not the day of His power or the rejecters of His gift are not His people.
James Thomas wrote: Good points and thanks for the correction Lurker.
I see I used too broad a brush with my comment regarding faith as it is the work of God(John 6:45) hence Paul saying we are His workmanship (Eph 2:10) created in Christ Jesus.
Partly a correction and partly wishful thinking that someone may take heed. Anyway...
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Both grace and faith are feminine nouns. "That" is a pronoun and refers to a noun. "Saved" is a verb so "that" can't refer to it.
Furthermore, "that" is a gift which gift is a neuter noun.
And finally, "that" in not of works.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Seems to me that Paul provided the exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9 right there for anyone willing to connect the dots.
Faith is not of works. Faith is a gift (see my prior post). Faith is righteousness. Faith justifies. Faith is life. Faith fulfills the second law covenant of Deuteronomy 28-29. Faith enables the possessor thereof to "love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut 6:5) and live.
James Thomas wrote: But like I said before, nowhere will you see Faith as the gift and salvation is not even mentioned in Eph 2:8.
Regarding faith as a gift, you're right; it's not found as a named gift but indirectly it is:
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Here the gift is 'by grace' meaning part of grace.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Here the gift is 'unto justification'.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith...
So scripture indirectly names faith as a gift. I think the controversy comes from seeing different gifts in scripture rather than seeking the one gift from which all proceed; grace:
1 Tim 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with **faith and love** which is in Christ Jesus.
Faith loves God (Deut 6:5) and love loves the brethren (Lev 19:18) thus fulfilling the great commandments which is life (Luke 10:25-28) and both are in Christ, full of grace and truth.
John for JESUS wrote: Esau was of the seed of Isaac. Iâ€™m not sure of your point with that.
J4J, Jacob and Esau were twins. Both came out of the womb of Rebekah and were sons of Isaac. Esau was firstborn but rejected by God so His blessings and promises passed to Jacob. Together they serve as the basis for many figures throughout the bible such as wheat and tares, sheep and goats, children of the promise and children of the flesh, elect and reprobate.
Perhaps your time would be better spent studying the whole bible rather than attempting to defend the indefensible with what appears to be a limited comprehension of the whole. The greatest story ever told resides therein and you are depriving yourself of it.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... â€¬ We who have believed were all tares until we obeyed and believed the gospel.
â€śBut God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.â€ť â€â€Romansâ€¬ â€6:17â€¬
Gentiles believers were of the seed of Esau and were converted to the seed of Jacob? I remember you agreeing the leopard could not change his spots. You need to make up your mind.
I don't know about you, J4J, but as a born again Gentile Christian, I was what is known as "not a people of God" (1 Peter 2:10). Therefore I count my seed from Abraham as Paul wrote:
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
I am numbered with that great multitude that no man could number:
Rev 7:9-10 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Thanks for the discussion. I'm grateful for for the opportunity to get to the bottom of Isaiah 6:9-10.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... No, the leopard canâ€™t change itâ€™s spots, but God can and does change a sinner into a new creation after they believe.
You brought up Matthew 13:14-15 as a prooftext in support of your view so let's not wander away from it just yet.
Jesus cited from Isaiah 6:9-10. I had a good idea what it was all about but read what Matthew Henry had to say. The blinding took place prior to the Babylonian captivity and sure enough, God did blind them lest they would repent of their evil upon the distress of going into captivity. God sealed them in their eternal fate through Isaiah's preaching. Instead of repenting they hardened their hearts, shut their eyes and closed their eyes so there was no remedy. That was God's plan and that because they were tares except for a remnant which He redeemed in mercy at the end of captivity.
Parts of this Isaiah text are quoted four times in the NT writings so it has bearing beyond the Babylonian captivity.
The part you are avoiding like the plague is the blinded Jews were tares, they were always tares and there was nothing they could do before or after the blinding to change it. They were of the seed of Esau, not of the elect seed of Jacob. It's all about election and nothing about free will.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... â€śMake the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.â€ť â€â€Isaiahâ€¬ â€6:10â€¬ This is why Jesus spoke in parables. He didnâ€™t want them to understand after first rejecting Him. The decree by God is if you believe, you will receive eternal life. Your text donâ€™t have anything to do with a supposed inability to believe. Rather, they prove that a blindness must take place to keep them from believing and it happens only after God determines those who rejected Him will be punished in that manner.
So if I understand you correctly, the tares growing amongst the wheat could have believed of their own free will and converted themselves to wheat but they refused so God blinded them so they could not become wheat but would be gathered into bundles come judgment day and cast into the fire.
I'm not mocking you, J4J, just taking your theory and applying it to another biblical truth to see if it rings true. Let's try another:
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker, Itâ€™s not fatalistic if they were given a chance to believe and chose not too! [â€¦] It shows that sinners can believe if they choose too and must be made blinded as to not believe, otherwise why blind them at all?
I think if you'd read Isaiah 6:9 to the end of the chapter you'd see that all but a remnant of the Jews had their eternal fate decreed by God even though it wouldn't be executed until judgment day. And the reason is simple. They were never know by God, never loved by God with an everlasting love. They were never part of the Israel of God. They were always tares amongst the wheat. They were always vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. So don't try to pawn off your story that they could have believed before they were blinded as I'm not buying it.
As for the remnant mentioned in Isaiah 6:13, I believe Paul speaks about them:
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel [Is 10:22], Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.
Rom 11:15 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Election: the decree made from choice by which God determined to bless certain persons through Christ by grace alone.
John for JESUS wrote: â€¬ It is always unbelievers and the disobedient who are later blinded because of their prior rejection of the truth. Makes one wonder why people who supposedly are unable to believe to begin with must be made blind and unable to perceive what they canâ€™t understand anyways? Unless that is all wrong!
You brought it up so how do you answer it? Why does God need to blind unbelievers and the disobedient to the truth when they already reject it? Seems redundant.
John for JESUS wrote: â€śSo then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.â€ť â€â€Romansâ€¬ â€10:17 Faith comes by hearing the word of God and not by magic spells.
And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles:
**Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.** Deut 29:2-4
Clearly Moses forgot to takes his meds that morning, right J4J?
When Jesus walked the earth, Israel was a subject nation of Rome because they had rejected their God and chose rather to have a heathen king to rule over them. They paid oppressive taxes to Caesar but the money didn't go to their welfare but rather to provide amenities to the citizens of Rome and to increase the corruption and debauchery of the ruling class while depriving the God fearing remnant the opportunity to give with a joyful heart. And of course the Christ rejecting Jews were in full agreement with the arrangement.
His popeyness is leaning on world governments to do the same thing. While his words are couched in feigned compassion for the poor and oppressed the end result will be total domination and oppression with all strings leading back to Rome. Such are the ambitions of the enemies of God, including our very own Democrats.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I pondered what was said and reached the following conclusions There is a Biblical principle that at the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses things shall be established. 4 to 5 people testified to BMac that her words were less than appropriate and she stuck to her guns, that speaks volumes Sister BMac has said or implied that my posts are consistently divisive and even deceitful. No one that knows me thinks that of me and this is not the common feedback I get here, so I reject that evaluation In light of what has been said however I will by the grace of God. Post less Give greater consideration to how what I say will be perceived
In my opinion you do not deserve the treatment you have gotten from B. I have no idea what's up with her but she seems to be taking advantage of your uncommonly gentle nature to dominate over you and shut your voice down. If you post less or even quit then she has achieved her less than honorable objective. I'd encourage you to post whatever and whenever you want and simply ignore her but you do what makes sense to you.