I believe that salvation is a gift of God based upon no work which man may do. Long ago I was convinced of this based upon Ephesians 2:8–9: “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.” I humbly accepted this when I was young, with great wonder at the kindness of God. Another well known verse that helped shape my beliefs was John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” In the same vein, I had the short statement of Paul to the Philippian jailor memorized: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). At that early age, these verses constituted the extent of my understanding of the doctrine of salvation. I would often run them through my mind and ponder their significance. “God is so gracious,” I would say to myself. “He requires nothing for us to be saved. Nothing, that is, but faith.”
Faith alone! The great battle cry of the Reformation. As I grew in my understanding of this salvation, I added many verses and passages to my “soteriological repertoire.” Among the more significant of these were the shocking statements made in Romans 9 and John 6. These verses gave me my first exposure to the doctrines known as “election,” “sovereign grace,” or “Calvinism.” I was again humbled by what these doctrines taught. Not only does God not require anything but faith for salvation, but He is the one who is solely responsible for salvation, having predestined people before the foundation of the world. Wow! As I wondered upon such marvelous yet confusing doctrines, there was a question that continually resurfaced. If God does not require any works for salvation, and if He is in control of the process to such an extent that He predestined all of this to occur, why does He require that one thing? As Bono says in “Though I don’t know why, I know I’ve got to believe.” Why does God require something so seemingly trifle as faith?
Don’t confuse my question. I am not asking if faith is a work. That is a different issue. I am speaking of faith as a requirement. Why, if God has worked everything out to such an extent that He is the one within people who is sovereignly and irresistibly calling them to a new life in Christ, does He initiate His plans with a human response of faith? It just seemed rather trivial to me. Not that I thought faith was unimportant, just as I don’t think that love, hope, or service are unimportant. But I thought that it was a little odd for God to require anything at all.
I accepted it, living with the tension for the time. At this time, my ordo salutis (order of salvation) looked like this:
Of all the components here, the only one before justification that is the responsibility of man is faith/repentance. All of the others are brought about and accomplished solely by God. The final goal is glorification, while the primary instrument of bringing this about is faith. God predestines people before the foundation of the world, and at some point in time He calls them to respond in faith. In response to this faith, God regenerates them and they enter into a justified standing. God accomplishes everything but the final instrumental link—faith. Later I made the discovery that there are other possible models of the ordo salutis and that there is a poswesible solution to my dilemma.
Many (if not most) Reformed theologians subscribe to an ordo salutis that places regeneration before faith. Their model, using the same components, looks like this:
The reason most Reformed theologians come to this conclusion is not necessarily because they have the same difficulties that I expressed above. Their reasons are much more complex and philosophical. It is my purpose in this here to briefly evaluate the Reformed ordo salutis with respect to regeneration preceding faith.
First, I will state their position, giving it biblical and philosophical defense. Second, I will deal with problems that arise from the position. Finally, I will evaluate the position.
Statement of the Position
As stated above, most Reformed theologians believe that regeneration necessarily precedes faith. They would not, however, make the sequence a temporal one, but logical. Temporally, it may be stated that all of the events in the ordo salutus stated above happen at the same time. But Reformed theologians would see a necessary logical order in these components of salvation. John MacArthur put it this way: “From the standpoint of reason, regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance. But the saving transaction is a single, instantaneous event.” Regeneration is seen as a sovereign act of God by which He causes a person who is spiritually dead to become spiritually alive. We sometimes call this “monergism.” This act is not in anyway dependent upon man. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema puts it this way: “Regeneration must be understood, not as an act in which God and man work together, but as the work of God alone.”
Why do Reformed theologians insist upon an ordo salutis in which regeneration precedes faith? There are two primary reasons. First is because of their strong stance on total depravity. Second is because certain Scriptures seem to support the view.
First we shall deal with regeneration’s relationship to total depravity. According to Scripture, man is unable to do any good whatsoever. Jeremiah 17:9 states, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah also states that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can man change his evil heart (Jer. 13:23). Paul also states in Romans 3:10–11, “There is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God.” There are two primary Scriptures that would be used to defend this belief:
Eph.2: 1–3
“But you were dead in you trespasses and sins in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”
1 Cor. 2:14
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (emphasis added).”
The convincing argument is then made that if man is in such a position that he is evil (Jer. 17:9), does not ever seek to do good (Rom. 3:10–11), and that he cannot change his position (Jer. 13:23), how can anyone expect him to do the greatest good and accept the Gospel? Furthermore, man is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). A dead person cannot respond to the Gospel any more than a blind person can respond to light. As Best puts it, “What is good news to a dead man? As light cannot restore sight to a blind man, so the light of the gospel cannot give spiritual light to one who is spiritually blind.”
Finally, a non-spiritual person cannot receive the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). How can anyone be expected to receive the Gospel, which is spiritual, in an unconverted state? The person must first become spiritual—the person must first be regenerated. Sproul sums up the logic, “If original sin involves moral ability, as Augustine and the magisterial Reformers insisted, then faith can occur only as the result of regeneration, and regeneration can occur only as a result of effectual or irresistible grace.” A good illustration to describe this way of thinking is physical birth. As a baby cries out only after it is born, so also believers cry out in faith only after God has regenerated them.
There are also many other Scriptures that seem to explicitly teach that regeneration comes before faith.
Acts 16:14
“A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond [regenerated her] to the things spoken by Paul” (emphasis added).
Lydia, here, is portrayed as a woman who had her heart opened to receive the Gospel before she received it.
John 1:12–13
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born [regenerated], not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis added).
The will of man is here shown to be uninvolved in the regenerating process of God.
Rom. 9:16
“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs [or strives], but on God who has mercy” (emphasis added).
Again, the will of man is taken out of the picture in the saving process of God.
Problems with the Position
The problems connected with believing that regeneration preceds faith are primarily biblical. Even Erickson, a moderate Calvinist who does not subscribe to the Reformed ordo, states, “It must be acknowledged that, from a logical standpoint, the usual Calvinistic position makes good sense. If we sinful humans are unable to believe and respond to God’s gospel without some special working of his within us, how can anyone, even the elect, believe unless first rendered capable of belief through regeneration? To say that conversion is prior to regeneration would seem to be a denial of total depravity.” Erickson and others, however, do oppose the Reformed ordo. Bruce Demarest, another moderate Calvinist, supports the opposite position that regeneration is initiated by faith, “God grants new spiritual life by virtue of the individual’s conscious decision to repent of sins and appropriate the provisions of Christ’s atonement.” Those who, like Erickson and Demarest, affirm this would even state that regeneration is entirely a work of God, and that man cannot, by nature, respond to the Gospel. Therefore, some initial, or preparatory, work of God is necessary to make man able to respond to the Gospel. Erickson and Demarest believe that this preparatory work is God’s effectual calling, not regeneration. In response to this calling, man initiates faith and conversion, and then he is regenerated.
In this scheme, the effectual calling can be likened to the Arminian understanding of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is the way that Arminians can hold both to total depravity and human choice. Even they recognize that man, left in his natural condition, must be made alive in some sense in order to have the ability to respond to the Gospel. The only difference between Erickson and Demarest’s scheme is that the spiritual awakening brought about by the calling is always effectual whereas previenient grace is not.
Nevertheless, the reason why those Calvinists who stand with Erickson and Demarest as well as Arminians would stand opposed to the Reformed ordo is because certain Scriptures seem to suggest that faith is a necessary component for regeneration. Norman Geisler, in his book Chosen But Free, emphatically denounces the Reformed position stating, “As anyone familiar with Scripture can attest, verses allegedly supporting the contention that regeneration preceds faith are in short supply.” He then goes on, “It is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it.” Among the passages he sites are:
(1) Rom. 5:1
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Faith is here stated to be the source of justification. But most Reformed theologians place justification after faith as well (see chart). They do not equate regeneration with justification. Geisler seems to have misunderstood the Reformed position at this point.
(2) Luke 13:3
“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
But this does not speak to the issue of regeneration. Geisler’s statement, “Here repentance is the condition for avoiding judgment,” would also be affirmed by those who hold the Reformed position, for they would state that repentance logically preceds justification which results in salvation. Therefore, this verse presents no conflict with the Reformed ordo. Again, Geisler seem to have misunderstood the Reformed position.
(3) 2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
This, again, cannot be used to suggest either ordo. It is difficult to see why one would use such a verse to support their position. The verse could have as well stated, “God wills all to be regenerated.” This would not prove that regeneration comes before faith!
(4) John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
This verse does teach that belief in Christ is the instrumental act in salvation, but it says nothing about when the act of regeneration occurs in the process.
(5) Acts 16:31
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
The order here is presented as faith first, then salvation. An initial, unbiased reading of this verse would suggest to anyone that faith is a condition of salvation. Of all the verses put forth above, only the last presents some merit in suggesting that faith precedes salvation, but not regeneration. I will explain below.
Evaluation of the Reformed Position
If one is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of total depravity, understanding that man is unable to come to God on his own, he or she must insist that there must be some initial act of God by which He enables a person to accept the Gospel in faith. The Reformed position explained in this study, in my view, is the most consistent and biblically defendable position. The option that God’s effectual calling is that which enables a person to come to faith and thereby be regenerated is attractive but difficult to substantiate. The Scriptures do not anywhere indicate that faith comes before regeneration. In fact, one may state that salvation in the general all-encompassing sense (predestination, atonement, calling, regeneration, faith, and justification) is completed after faith, and therefore remain faithful to the plain reading of the text that suggests faith is before regeneration. For he or she would not then be suggesting that faith is before regeneration, but that faith logically occurs before the savific process is complete. In other words, the word salvation would be used to describe the entire complete package with all of the ordo (excluding sanctification and glorification) included. This would be a good way to explain the last Scripture (Acts 16:31) stated above and remain consistent to the Reformed position.
But Scripture nowhere suggests that faith initiates regeneration in the restricted since. Grudem’s statement is helpful at this point:
“The reason that evangelicals often think that regeneration comes after saving faith is that they see the results . . . after people come to faith, and they think that regeneration must therefore have come after saving faith. Yet here we must decide on the basis of what Scripture tells us, because regeneration itself is not something we see or know about directly: ‘The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit’ (John 3:8).”
Previously I mentioned my dilemma concerning God’s requirement of faith and nothing else for salvation. This study has helped me to get a better handle on the issues that are involved. I have come to the conclusion that I am in agreement with the Reformed camp concerning the ordo salutis. I believe that regeneration is a sovereign act of God by which He places a new life within a person so that the person naturally responds in faith. At the same time, I am not entirely dogmatic about this. I hope that as I continue to study Scripture, I will gain more insight.
Charles Wesley painted the picture beautifully of the Reformed ordo salutis in one stanza of the great hymn “And Can It Be.” (Though, I know, he was must certainly speaking about prevenient grace.)
Long my imprisoned spirit lay [alienation from God]
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night [total depravity].
Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray: [regeneration (Reformed) or prevenient grace (Arminian)]
I woke—the dungeon flamed with light! [enlightening]
My chains fell off, my heart was free, [salvation]
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. [faith]
391 replies to "Does Regeneration Precede Faith?"
Hodge, (reply to #46)
To keep it simple, there is a point of time when a person is unsaved and unregenerate. At the point of time that God sends the Spirit of His son into a man’s heart (Gal. 4:6), he is saved: he has just been “made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace he has been saved (Eph. 2:5). He continues in the state of being saved as long as Jesus remains in his heart. Jesus has promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us, therefore Jesus Christ saves us and is our guarantee for the remaining aspects of salvation. Jesus Christ coming to live inside of a man gives him the life of the New Birth.
The Bible details many things which transpire prior to the New Birth. God sends preachers to proclaim His truth. These are sowers. The seed is sown in the hearts of men. It is not typical to see seed produce a harvest the day it is first sown. Jesus says there are some who do not understand the word and the evil one comes to steal away what has been sown in his heart (Matt. 13:19). Luke tells us why the enemy steals the seed, “so he will not believe to be saved” (Luke 8:12). 1Cor. 3 tells us of men who help to water, while God is causing the increase. God also sends reapers. God gives His gifts to those who receive it in faith. God has promised to save those who call upon the name of the Lord. They are saved when God sends the gift of His Son into their heart, giving them eternal life in the New Birth.
…
There are many more details giving in the Word, that you must ignore to hold to doctrinal presuppositons.
H said: Except that according to the NT the OT saints also received salvation through faith.”
That is irrelevant. The promises we are talking about are OT promises of regeneration to the New Covenant community! So one does not receive that promise unless part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is entered by faith. Therefore, faith precedes regeneration because it brings one to be part of those who receive the promise of regeneration.
H said: The text seems clear, and ironically, it actually does give us a logical order. God regenerates SO THAT His people are able to obey His commands. The person who posits a faith that does not have regeneration as its logical precedent is saying that the gospel command can be obeyed before regeneration is given. So the greatest command of all–the one that actually saves as opposed to any other command–the hardest one to obey–can be obeyed pre-regeneration. That’s not what I would take from this.”
But you undermine your own argument in your very statement of it! You say that “God regenerates SO THAT *His people* are able to obey His commands” asterisks my emphasis). However, unbelievers are not his people. Regeneration is for those who are his people, those who are in the New Covenant. And the commands in view are the New Covenant commands. I don’t think you have reckoned with details of these types of texts and how they ironically show that faith precedes regeneration.
H said: “Yes, it would, which is why the faith must be unmerited as well. It must be gifted instead of something we produce. If it isn’t then we set up a contradiction in the Bible. We gain X when we have Y. X is not merited. Therefore, Y must not be something we perform to get X. Otherwise, X is merited by Y, since not all are given Y, but only those who have X.”
Faith/receiving a free gift is inherently non-meritorious. But then, although that is enough for it to be non-meritorious, it is something that is gifted in that we cannot do it on our own, but God must enable us to do it. So it is also not something we “produce” or “perform” in a meritorious way (in the same way receiving a free gift is not producing or performing reception in a meritorious way). But it is something we “do” — “and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:30-31; NASB). See continuation in next post . . .
Continuing from last post: Your reasoning contradicts Paul’s: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:4-5; ).
H said: Did Joseph’s brothers work toward bringing about the deliverance of Egypt/Israel in their throwing him into a pit? Yes, they did. Did they purpose to do that? No, they did not. It was God working through them that did it, yet they were doing it.”
That does not seem to explain very much for this discussion. God can use our actions to accomplish things we did not intend. It does not change the biblical truth that God responds to our faith by justifying us, regenerating us, saving us, etc.
H said: “So I’m trying to make a biblical distinction here. Men seek God in the sense that their thoughts and actions lead to their moment of faith/regeneration/entrance into salvation; but they do not purpose to seek God. It is God who is doing it. So there is a distinction between what men are doing and what men are purposing to do.”
But unbelievers do purpose to seek God. If you deny that, it seems you are just denying the obvious to uphold your theology. But I believe God is also doing it in that he resistibly influences them to do it.
H said: “I think the Romans text is talking about what men do in and of themselves.”
I agree. Hence, prevenient grace can enable people to seek God and not conflict with this text not the doctrine of total depravity.
H said: “They do not seek God (purposely). So perhaps we should use the terminology that God leads them to Himself more than they are seeking him because that seems confusing to you.”
I think it is more that your theology can’t really accommodate the obvious fact that many people seek God before they get regenerated. It is because God is leading them to do so, but that does not mean they are not doing it nor that God is irresistibly causing them to do it.
Folks, there are rules. No multiple posts. One at a time. Otherwise, what good is character limits?
H said: I’m glad it doesn’t matter because both you and Jim are wrong here. I’m not saying that only faith is the antecedent of touto. My point is that it is neuter and the neuter, when not having a specific antecedent, refers back to the entire phrase. So the whole point I am making is that ALL of it is the gift: the grace, the faith, and the salvation we are given. None of it is from ourselves. Grace is a gift. Faith is a gift. Salvation is a gift. And it’s all the one gift, in the one package, as I’ve been arguing. Both Grudem and Dan verify this as the best option, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about, unless you though I was saying pisteos is the sole antecedent.”
Dan Wallace does *not* say that is the best option (at least in his grammar), but also lists another that the more advanced Greek resources take, that kai touto is adverbial and modifies the verb “saved”! I agree with them.
See coninuation in next post . . .
CMP said: “Folks, there are rules. No multiple posts. One at a time.”
Oh, sorry. I was not quite sure how that was supposed to work. I was going to post more reponses to Hodge. But I’ll stop now and perhaps just space out the responses. Sorry again!
I need to stay out of the conversation now, but do want to clarify one thing:
“Dan Wallace does *not* say that is the best option (at least in his grammar), but also lists another that the more advanced Greek resources take, that kai touto is adverbial and modifies the verb “saved”! I agree with them.”
I’m sorry, but this is false. Maybe I have an old version, but Dan specifically says that the option I cited is “more plausible” than the other two options mentioned; and then he continues to say that the adverbial option (the fourth option mentioned) has surprisingly made little impact on much of the exegetical literature. BDAG and BDF simply assume it, but as Dan cites, there are only four examples of an adverbial use in the NT as opposed to fourteen or fifteen out of the 22 times this occurs are conceptual, as I have taken it. The adverbial use does not make sense here. It would be extremely forced. OK, I’m out.
Ok, your charge that my comments were false is certainly false, and this is easy to set straight. It is true that Dan specifically says that the option I cited is “more plausible” than two other options mentioned; and then he continues to say that the adverbial option (the fourth option mentioned) has surprisingly made little impact on much of the exegetical literature. He mentions that BDAG and BDF assume it, which must be taken as the considered judgment of these two of the most advanced and authoritative Greek resources. But Wallace does not say he favors the option you take, and his conclusion says that syntactical considerations tend toward the conceptual referent option *or* the adverbial option. He does not state that he favors the cocneptual referent option. It is very surprising that you asserted my comments were false. They were exactly as I said they were. Anyone looking at Wallace’s grammar would see that.
Arminian,
Sorry about that. My bad. I misread your comments. I thought you were citing Dan as agreeing with you. Dan’s comments seem to sway in my direction, not the adverbial direction. BAGD and BDF are just two resources. They’re not the most authoritative, unless you’re talking to a second year Greek student. They are just scholars trying to place verses in categories. As Dan says, they give no argument as to why they categorize it this way, and it seems obvious to me that they do so because they can’t explain why a neuter is used that does not modify another neuter in the context. The majority of its use is conceptual and that makes the most sense here. The adverbial use is flat out odd, and shows that it is forced here. So I apologize for saying that your use of Dan was false. It’s your argument that’s bad, not your references. 😉
BTW, I should say that I think most exegetes don’t bring the adverbial use up because I think it is fabricated. I don’t think it’s a real use. If you look at the four instances, Rom 13:11; 1 Cor 6:6, 8; 3 John 5, each is really conceptual. We are getting an adverbial feel semantically from emotive force of the context, but in reality, kai touto still refers back to the entire phrase preceding; so even if taken adverbially, it is not without antecedent, and cannot be used to escape the fact that Eph 2:8-9 speaks of grace, faith, and salvation as all the one gift. But I would further protest that is would forced here.
No problem Hodge. Now without question, BDAG is the most authoritative lexicon among NT scholars. This does not mean it is unquestionable, but that it is the top scholarly NT Greek lexicon. And BDF is one of the most widely rgarded grammars. Moises Silva recommended it as the top NT Greek grammar resource. Tyhe fact that these resources do not discuss the issue in their citation of Eph 2:8 is more likely because they consider it clear, attesting to the strength of it as an occurrence in their. And if you know these resources, they are concise grammatical reference works and are not given to much discussion or actual argumentation. And you will have to excuse me if I follow these top scholarly Greek authorites, including Wallace, that there is an adverial usage of kai touto (whether or not it is the usage in Eph 2:8) over your judgment. Also, let me point out that in Wallace’s note 55 he indicates that he does not think Paul thought faith a gift, contradicting your take on the grammar.
If taken adverbially, kai touto modifies the verb, not the phrase.
Also, even if it refers to the whole phrase, this would not make each element a gift in way you claim. For one thing, Wallace speaks of this option as touto referring to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. But putting it that way makes salvation the head concept and the gift, and “by grace through faith” the reason and means by which it is obtained. In such a case, the means to obtaining the gift are not a gift in the same way as the gift being obtained. They may be called a gift in the sense that Arminianism views faith as a gift, that people are enabled to do the means to obtaining the gift. A simple illustration should demonstrate this, which I wil give in one more post, hopefully not transgressing Michael’s reminder.
Illustration: If I say that I gave you a gift of $10 by unmerited favor (i.e., because of my unearned favor toward you ) through you accepting the money from me, and that this freely-given-through-acceptance gift was not from yourself, that simply would not mean that each element was a gift not of yourself. It would mean that the $10 was a gift not from yourself, and that it was given out of unmerited favor and through your acceptance without any suggestion that your acceptance of it was somehow irresistibly caused. The “each element a gift in a package” explanation has become popular among Calvinists, but it does not really work.
BTW, Wallace’s indication that he does not think Paul thought of faith as a gift suggests your understandinf of the conceptual option is wrong if Wallace favors that option, or that he favors the adverbial option. either way, your view of it is not likely, even if it is a cocneptual referrant.
Here is Dan Wallace’s grammar online regarding this issue. The link seems to come up in the middle of the discussion on Eph 2:8 so you need to scroll back up a bit.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=Dan+Wallace+faith+a+gift&source=bl&ots=DwJiqc8B_F&sig=DnWHv8mccyUIGishS_k-bGdlaW0&hl=en&ei=5zZwTYV_hPqwA5Ss4cwL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The $10 would be the object of belief in that example. Someone would have to have faith/belief that if they stretched out their hand, that you would place a crisp $10 bill in their hands. This faith/belief would be something that comes from them and may be predicated on any number of factors- they way you look, smell, sound…
So say two twin brothers, Robert and Ben, were there and heard you say that you will give $10 to any and all people, simply just stretch out the hand and you will give them $10. Robert thinks to himself that you look like you have the money, you smell like you have showered recently and you sound convincing enough so out goes his hand. You quickly place a crisp $10 bill in his hand and he smiles. Ben thinks that you’re crazy; no one in these times would just “give” $10 to someone, so he refuses to stretch out his hand and consequently he does not get the $10.
Maybe Robert would wait till you leave, but say he doesn’t and just looks at his twin brother in…
amazement. “Man you are dumb; why not just take the money? You are a fool, no wonder you had to repeat first grade.”
Since the belief/faith originates solely inside them without you doing anything, it becomes a meritorious work. This is why Arminianism is such a man centered view. They pretend to give lip service to the bible when claiming that they view faith as a gift, but as your example clearly showed it really is not a gift at all. It is something that is native to corrupt man and you have something clean come from something unclean. You make a mockery of the bible and Christ’s words.
“your example clearly showed it really is not a gift at all”
How, exactly, did you just demonstrate that the $10 wasn’t a gift at all?
I must have missed that.
If you missed it, then might I suggest that you read it again.
While reading ask yourslef if the $10 is in view OR the faith/belief.
Re: Calvin’s (the poster here) comments, this is what some Calvinists are forced to resort to, denying that a free gift is a free gift and claiming that accepting a free gift is actually earning it. They turn things on their head and redefine basic concepts to practically their opposite.
You said that his $10 example “clearly [shows] it really is not a gift at all”. But all you did was show that people can accept or reject a gift, and that certain factors influence that decision.
You in no way showed that the $10 (or its analog) was therefore “not a gift”, or that it was something that the twins earned through work.
This line of argument will bear you no fruit.
But keep going.
This discussion is more complicated than needed. God, when a man puts his faith in you is that a meritorious act? No. Rom 3:27 ” Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.” Chapters 3 and 4 exaustively says faith is needed and it doesn’t come with merit. It’s trusting someone who’s true. If you trust a bridge that’s unsafe that faith won’t save you. The merit is in the object of faith. All Calvinist and Arminians could put down their swords on this question. Faith doesn’t fit in the category of merit. No mental gymnastics are needed. Rather: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” This is true, and it’s not merit.
Arminian,
I’m sorry, but you are trying to force way too many things into the grammar. Salvation is the head concept, but that does not negate the means as also a part of the head concept as the gift. But in any case, the adverbial use here is just a stretch that seeks to justify your theology. It’s not how most exegetes take it.
BDF and BAGD/BDAG are the top grammar and lexicon because there isn’t anything else to rival them, not because they’re the best they could be. Both BAGD and BDF were written in the fifties, before linguistics were really applied to language study, and everything was thrown under categories that were largely ad hoc when the other categories didn’t fit. So they’re not really the most authoritative in the sense that they should be taken as innocent before proven guilty. Instead, they ought to be held suspect until proven right. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why BDAG had to be completely rewritten and reworked (with the acknowledgment that…
tons of work still needs to be done). So your citing them as ending the debate, to me, is something that is amateurish (and I don’t mean that in an insulting way). I just mean that it displays a reliance on others in the field because the work can’t be evaluated by you. If you can, why cite to me an authority without an argument from the texts? The data is trumps all experts. And Dan is the one who brings up the fact that both authorities discuss it without argument. I don’t think he’s saying that to say that we should assume it as a given.
I’m not aware where Dan makes the claim you say he makes. FN 55 in my copy discusses a ms issue. Do I have an earlier copy? I wasn’t aware of a revision, but maybe there is one.
“But putting it that way makes salvation the head concept and the gift, and “by grace through faith” the reason and means by which it is obtained.”
Then why did Paul not state the phrase differently? Why use a neuter? He could have used a nominal form of salvation and modified it directly. He doesn’t do that. He does this because he wished to say that it was all gifted to us AND NOT OF OURSELVES, which I take it is the element that causes you to reject the most likely interpretation. The faith wouldn’t be of us, enabled or not, but from God alone. Hence, in this context, no prevenient grace to wake the dead men in v. 1. It is all gifted to us because it all must be gifted. I seriously doubt Paul is attempting to say otherwise and forgot to mention the prevenient grace needed to have faith here. So what do we get when reading just this passage? A salvation, grace, a faith, that is gifted to us and is not of ourselves. That’s the most common use of the grammar and likely meaning.
“This discussion is more complicated than needed. God, when a man puts his faith in you is that a meritorious act? No.”
And everyone agrees. The problem is that faith does merit something because those who don’t have it don’t receive what those who do have receive. So the very reason faith does not merit anything to us is because it’s not our faith. It’s given to us rather than produced by us. So the question isn’t whether we have merited something through faith, but why when meriting the application of salvation to ourselves through the exercising of faith it isn’t something we have merited.
OK, I really need to bow out now. I just wanted to clarify the grammatical issue, with which I’m sure Arminian still does not agree, but so be it. Thanks again.
Hodge, I did not cite those grammatical authorities as ending debate, but as support, which seems to threaten you. It also seems odd that you suggest that I can’t assess the data; I can, but it is almost like you’re trying to score debate points with that uncalled for implciation. It’s also bizarre for you to suggest that the adverbial option is a stretch to justify my theology when it is the view of 2 of the weightiest scholarly Greek authorities, and Wallace lists it as one of the likeliest options. Are you sure you’re not stretching to try and preserve your theology? Moreover, I have said that I would not have a problem with Eph 2:8 calling faith a gift. It is a matter of being true to the text.
And I should have said Wallace’s note 53, which also argues for the very view of faith being non-meritorious I have been and is at odds with the view you have been articulating.
Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in. 🙂
Arminian,
You are using “the weightiest scholarly Greek authorities” (now they’re getting even bigger than before) as a conversation stopper. Let’s see some evidence rather than citing crusty old sources that need to take their place in history as relics of mid-twentieth century scholarship or be completely redone. If you cite them as a starting point, no problem; but if as an authoritative decree on grammar and lexicography, then no thanks.
I disagree that you have no problem with it. There is a huge problem if faith is gifted in the same way grace and salvation are because it displays that it is NOT OF YOURSELVES. Faith, in the Arminian system, is of enabled man, is it not? It is man’s reception of the gift, no? He may be enabled by prevenient grace, but he is still doing it.
I see now Dan’s FN 53. I disagree that faith is not meritorious because it is reception. It is the gift, not the reception of the gift, so I…
Hodge, you basically ignore what I pointed out for how reference to the phrase would work. You actually seem to object to my point, which is relatively objective and practuically undeniable from a grammatical point of view that a conceptual referrant to the phrase woulod make salvation the head concept and the gift, and “by grace through faith” the reason and means by which it is obtained. Notice that these are prepositional phrases modifying the verb. I even gave you a concrete example that shows how this works.
Asking why Paul was not clearer is a pretty weak argument. You beg the question, assuming that your view of the grammar (which I again point out is wrong in its view of the implications the grammar would have even if the referrant is conceptual) is the clear and obvious one when there is serious scholarly question. It is typically a weak argument to assume how an author *should* have expressed himself.
& BDAG has been thoroughly revised recently undermining your commts
would reject that notion, as it confuses reception with the gift itself. If the conceptual interpretation is accurate, it refers to faith as a part of the gift, not just its reception. The fact that faith is not meritorious on our part, again, is because we aren’t the one’s producing it, not because it doesn’t actually merit something. It merits the pleasure of God, does it not? It credits to us righteousness, does it not? I see no reconciliation of these concepts unless Eph 2:8 is taken as it most likely is to be taken, i.e., as conceptual, communicating that faith is gifted as a part of the whole package of salvation.
I said that they are 2 of the wieghtiest (meaning they are among the weightiest), which you granted at one point. But now you try to minimize them as much as you can because they stand as Greek authorities against your view. Now they are “crusty old sources that need to take their place in history as relics of mid-twentieth century scholarship .” That’s pretty outrageous, as these sources are cited frequently by current works of scholarship and BDAG is part of basic scholarly education. But is may show how desperate you are at this point. Someone cites Greek grammatical/lexical authorites, standard reference works, and you just challenge them as having any real value. And I did not cite them as ending debate, but as I said, as support, But you challenege even my own knowlegde of my own motives. That also should be a red flag to how deserate you might be getting when there is solid scholarly evidence against your view.
Arminian,
“You have been arguing through posturing, and this from yourself”
Is “this” not including the posturing? Of course it is. It includes the means through which you have been arguing. “This” refers to it all. What is from yourself is arguing through posturing. I’m sorry, but your understanding of the grammar seeks to parse too much to get what you want. You cannot divorce the means from the head simply upon that basis, and then say that touto only really refers to the head. That is absurd. This is like saying that in Romans 10:6, touto only refers to the one ascending as the head and therefore does not include the prepositional phrase “into heaven,” as part of the “this.” But touto doesn’t refer to an ascension anywhere, but one into heaven. The fact that you have prepositional phrases mean nothing. The point of the passage is that the gift of God is the faith-graced salvation that is not of ourselves, not salvation that comes through a non-gifted grace and…
For anyone interested, here is that note from Wallace:
“On an exegetical level, I am inclined to agree with Lincoln that “in Paul’s thinking faith can never be viewed as a meritorious work because in connection with justification he always contrasts faith with works of the law (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 9, 10; Rom 3:27, 28)” (A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC] 111). If faith is not meritorious, but is instead the reception of the gift of salvation, then it is not a gift per se. Such a view does not preclude the notion that for faith to save, the Spirit of God must initiate the conversion process.”
Arminian,
What is desperate is for you to attack me for questioning your line of reasoning and using sources without argumentation. Scholarly education, real scholarly education, doesn’t use sources as points in argumentation. You didn’t use them in support of a grammatical argument, where you cited data. You didn’t give an argument of this nature at all. So citing them to make a theological point that you don’t support with further grammatical argumentation, and then scolding me for calling you out on it, is a bit odd. I have high respect for all of these works, but they are to be held in suspect (and I do this with everything they say, not just when it has to do with my theology). I don’t trust grammars and lexicons anymore, as I have come to realize that many of them are in error, either in methodology or in their assumptions of the evidence. That doesn’t mean they’re not good starting points, but no one should end there.
Now you’re citing Dan on a theological conclusion he’s making rather than a grammatical point. This is why I don’t trust this line of reasoning. Dan is concluding that since he is inclined to agree with Lincoln concerning faith as non-meritorious (something with which we all, as Prots, agree), then it must be that faith is reception of the gift instead of the gift (something I reject because it does not necessarily follow and is not what the passage would be saying in the conceptual view). If only salvation were in view, it would have been stated differently. I don’t see that as a bad argument when this use of touto fits Paul’s line of argumentation perfectly, and in your use, prevenient grace must be added to the text in order to come to Paul’s conclusions.
H said: “You have been arguing through posturing, and this from yourself”
The problem with example is that unlike the one I gave, it does not match the details of Eph 2:8. You have the means being done by the same person doing the main verb. But very criticaly, in Eph 2:8, the main verb is done by God, but the means referred to by “through faith” is somethnig we do. Almost everyone agrees that faith is somethi,g we do. Whether you think that God irresistibly causes it or not, God does not believe for us. He does not believe in Chris, but we do. So you just are not attending to the details of the text and the grammatical construction. Your example from Rom 10:6 also misses the point. Apart from what I just pointed out, it does not match the specifics of the prpositional phrases idnetifying the reason and means by which it the head concept is obtained.
Arminian,
Perhaps you’re blinded to your own assumptions, so let me point them out for you. 😉
1. You are interpreting the text based on your assumption that different actors are at play. The first, God giving us salvation. The second, we who exercise faith. I don’t believe that it is Paul’s intention to differentiate based upon whether we participate in grace, faith or salvation. This argument, therefore, is a stretch, and claiming that I’m not paying attention to the details because of it, is in fact, more posture than proof.
2. You are differentiating between the head and the means simply because you want to say that the head is modified by touto rather than the means; but this is begging the question. If the head is solely modified and the means not referenced by touto, then this is not a conceptual use, but the adverbial use. My point is that it is the conceptual use, and therefore, modifies the whole thing, each and every element as one package. So it’s not
Hodge,
Sometimes the clay is baked.
a faith received salvation. That is a speculation based upon the idea that faith cannot be the gift but reception of the gift as something that does not gain merit. I reject that idea. Faith doesn’t merit precisely because it is a gift.
So all you are doing is arguing grammar based upon your theological assumptions. Let go of these assumptions, look at all of the other uses of touto and kai touto, and see if it does not refer to the entirety of what is said rather than just the head concept.
it is a stretch to observe that God is the one who saves and we believe and that God does not believe for us? Perhaps it is you who are blinded to your own presuppositions for your own theological stance, which causes you to cast off any data or evidence that stands against your interpretation.
H said: “If the head is solely modified and the means not referenced by touto, then this is not a conceptual use, but the adverbial use.”
Not true. the whole phrase can be referred to as a whole, but then it is left to be seen how the dynamics of the phrase works. I gave an example of this. Your objections cannot eliminate the fact that the prepositional phrases idnentify the reason and means by which the head concept is obtained. You say I differentiate between the head amdn means because of the result I wnat to get. But perhaps it is more likely that you are ignoring the objective distinction because it contradicts your treasured theology of the verse.
“Not true. the whole phrase can be referred to as a whole, but then it is left to be seen how the dynamics of the phrase works.”
Which in this case would be adverbial. Please show me how the conceptual view differs from the adverbial in this passage.
“But perhaps it is more likely that you are ignoring the objective distinction because it contradicts your treasured theology of the verse.”
I haven’t ignored the distinction at all. I’ve been agreeing with it. I deny that it is to be taken the way you are taking it. If Paul wanted to refer to our being saved as a gift, he would have likely used the masc demonstr., and the means would have remained in tact. It would say exactly what you are trying to get out of it. He didn’t, however, because he wanted to show that it is all a gift, not just our salvation, but also the means.
The conceptual refers to the phrase as a whole, and the adverbial specifically modifes the verb. It does not matter if they practically come to the same basic sense. There are plenty of examples of diffferent grammatical constructions yeilding the same basic semantic sense. often there may be a slight difference in emphasis, at other times virtually no difference. Similar senses cannot legitimately count against different constructions. In this case, the concetpual referrant would lay greater stress on the concept of a grace by faith salvation, whereas the advernial sense would lay greater stress on the saving action of God and/or our state of salvation.
John Calvin on Ephesians 2:8 (Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians)
For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.
Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.
John Calvin on Eph. 2:9
“Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of grace, he now affirms, that “it is the gift of God. Instead of what he had said, “Not of yourselves,” he now says, “Not of works.” Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases, — not of yourselves, — it is the gift of God, — not of works, — he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone, — is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, — and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.”
Source
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.iii.iii.html