Does Ephesians 2:8-9 Say That Faith Is A Gift Of God?

          Following are excerpts from a pamphlet published by Middletown (Connecticut) Bible Church:

          "If faith in Christ itself is God’s gift, then how do I receive this faith? Instead of asking, “What must I do to be saved?”, I must now focus on the question “What must I do to believe?” If faith is God’s gift, then how do I get this gift? Do I pray to God and ask for the gift of faith? Do I sit back and do nothing and hope that I am one of the chosen ones who will be given this gift? How do I get the gift of saving faith? It is all confusing and it takes away from where the focus of the sinner ought to be, which is upon Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

          "Some might argue that “faith is the nearest antecedent: For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves.” It is certainly true that “faith is the nearest antecedent, but since there are a great number of cases in the New Testament where the nearest antecedent is not the correct one, we should be very careful before applying this “rule.” There are other far more important considerations.

          Here is the correct rule that Greek grammar demands to be followed: PRONOUNS AGREE WITH THEIR ANTECEDENT IN GENDER AND NUMBER. THEIR CASE IS DETERMINED BY THEIR USE IN THEIR OWN CLAUSE.

          This rule argues forcefully against the identification of “faith” as the antecedent does not agree with the pronoun in gender. The pronoun “that” (verse 8) is NEUTER, and the word “faith” (verse 8) is FEMININE. IF Paul wanted his readers to understand the pronoun as referring to “faith,” then there is no reason why he could not have used the feminine form of the pronoun [here the author gives the Greek, but I don’t have that font]. This would have settled it. If Paul had used the feminine pronoun then it would be very clear and obvious that FAITH is the gift of God. Paul did not use the feminine pronoun.

          Why then did Paul used the neuter pronoun? What is the antecedent? If Paul had wanted to refer to the idea contained in the main verb (the idea of being SAVED), then it would have been perfectly normal and appropriate for him to use the neuter gender. It would have been very natural for Paul to say, “For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith and this thing that I’m talking about, namely salvation, is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God…” If Paul had wanted the pronoun to refer to the idea contained in the verb, the neuter form would be the one to use.

          We need to carefully think through Ephesians 2:8-9 in order to correctly identify the antecedent. We must ask, “What is Paul talking about in Ephesians 2:8-9? What is his main point?” It is obvious that Paul is talking about HOW A PERSON IS SAVED. The main idea of the sentence is found in the verb “ARE YE SAVED” [or “YE ARE SAVED”]. How is a person saved? Ephesians 2:8-9 answers this key question. Salvation is by grace. Salvation through faith. Salvation is not of yourselves. Salvation is the GIFT OF GOD.Salvation is not of works. Paul is not giving a dissertation on faith, but he is giving a brief dissertation on salvation. SALVATION is his main subject. Faith is mentioned because you cannot answer the question “HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?” without mentioning faith. A person is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). God’s gracious gift of salvation must be personally received, and it is received by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

          "The question the Philippian jailer asked was this: “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). Some would answer in this way: “Nothing! You can’t do anything! You are dead and totally unable to respond to God until you are regenerated. You have no part in salvation. God must do it all. You cannot exercise saving faith.” This answer might harmonize with one’s theological system, but there is only one problem. This is not how Paul and Silas answered the question! Paul and Silas told the jailer that there was something that he could do and was responsible to do: “BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ!” (Acts 16:31 and compare how Peter answered a similar question in Acts 13:37-38)."

Dietary Restrictions In The New Testament?

• Defining The Issues:

           -Professing Christian groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists and Hebrew Roots Movement maintain that the New Testament does not abolish the Mosaic distinction of eating clean meats versus eating unclean meats. Those restrictions are listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. However, these dietary laws were intended strictly for Israel. God did not give them to the Egyptians or Canaanites, for instance. This teaching ignores the historical context of dietary restrictions, which was to make the Jews a different people from neighboring countries. They centered around ritual purity.
           -Notice especially the language of Scripture passages discussing Jesus Christ's fulfillment of the Old Covenant such as Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-26, Ephesians 2:14-15, and Colossians 2:13-16. He very clearly terminated mandatory observance of Mosaic customs by His crucifixion. That in and of itself eliminates any possibility of us being under compulsion of adhering to dietary regulations. The distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abrogated by God Himself. National boundaries are of no consequence in this regard.

           -This is not a matter of selectively picking which passages to regard as binding over our lives, but properly recognizing their application. It is sound procedure to put the Mosaic dietary restrictions into their rightful context. Moreover, they fit into a broader system of theology, which helps us to appreciate their true significance. While Christianity emerged from Judaism, both remain separate religions. They have different teachings about the Mosaic system. Reintroducing dietary restrictions contradicts every principle on which the gospel stands.

           -Those who desire to reinstate customs of the Old Testament fail to realize that doing so undermines the gospel itself. If we are going to adhere to dietary laws, then why not also revert to performing animal sacrifices? After all, the Law demands perfect obedience (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10-11). No one is able to do so, which is why it condemns us in the first place. The Law of Moses was given as a whole, and was, therefore, intended to be obeyed as a whole (Deut. 6:24; 8:1; 12:28; 27:1; 28:1;58; 31:12; 32:45-47). If Mosaic dietary restrictions are still in effect, then why do the New Testament gospels or epistles never warn us against eating certain kinds of food?

• Jesus Declared All Foods To Be Clean:

           -"because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man." (Mark 7:19-20)

            *That would logically refer to meat as a general category. Christ was speaking in very broad terms. His point is that corruption stems not from outside us, but from within. The inference to be made from this is that eating meat cannot defile us spiritually. This has been set in stone by God Himself. Thus, no man has the authority to change this reality.

• God's Vision To Peter About Cornelius:

           -"But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.” (Acts 10:10-16, emphasis added)

            *In the vision that the apostle received, God commanded him to kill four-footed animals and eat their flesh. The point being made is that Peter was to be accepting of Gentile converts into the faith. His reaction was one of shock, since he was a Jew. This was obviously something new to him. This text is relevant in that Gentiles do not observe Jewish dietary laws, nor are they to be forced to do so (Galatians 2:13-14).

• The Apostle Paul On Eating Meats:

           -"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." (Romans 14:1-3)

            *Those who teach that the dietary laws of the Mosaic system are still in effect have violated the very foundation of Christian teaching. They are not exhibiting a charitable spirit by trying to make other believers act the same.

           -"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died." (Romans 14:14-15)

            *One may individually choose to forgo eating animal flesh for the sake of conscience, but cannot legitimately impose such convictions on others. God has given us liberty to choose on this matter. Those who persist in condemning the consumption of meats are doing so not on the basis of divine commandment, but human tradition.
           -"Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense." (Romans 14:20)

            *Obviously, in the Apostle Paul's mind, there are more important matters than what one eats. He focused more on preaching the gospel and godly living. Paul doubles down on his teaching by stressing that there is no food which we may not eat. Compare with 1 Corinthians 8:8.

• Commanding That Others Abstain From Eating Meats Is Heresy: 

           -"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5)

            *Why is this heresy? It calls into question the goodness of God, who created the things that we eat. It reveals a lack of thankfulness on our part, which is an insult to God. He called His creation good, and so did Paul. Further, this gives authority to the apostle's teaching because it shows that he upheld the Old Testament as authoritative. He pronouncement echoes that made by God regarding creation in Genesis. This challenges the more extreme position of some who altogether deny the authority of the Apostle Paul. Those who assert that Mosaic dietary restrictions are in place today have fallen into the same error as the early Gnostics spoken of here. Things are made even worse when somebody's arrogance is dressed in pious language. It is wicked to denounce as unclean the things that God Himself has sanctioned for us to use.

Identifying The Underlying Causes Of Emotional Pain Is Important

"Rather than seeking to deaden, ignore, or elevate the importance of our emotions, we should allow them to speak to us about our hearts. Because God gave us the ability to experience emotions, we want to be very cautious about ignoring what they may be telling us. We want to carefully consider whether dampening the awareness of our feelings through the use of medication (or alcohol) is the best road for us to take to better health. Medicines or alcohol may make us feel better for a time, even if our "heart problem" is not addressed. For example, we know that morphine dulls the pain of a broken arm. It does not heal or reset the bone, and it does not fix the root cause of the pain. The same is true about medicines and emotional pain. In order to resolve such pain, we need to deal not with the symptoms, but the root cause of the pain."

Elyse Fitzpatrick and Laura Hendrickson, M.D., "Will Medicine Stop the Pain?," p. 32

The Facts About American Slavery

"Politically correct media and school textbooks give the impression that slavery has primarily been a sin committed by white people who enslaved blacks. The fact that only about 25 percent of the Americans in the South had slaves before the Civil War is commonly not mentioned, nor is the fact that (according to the United States census of 1830), for example, 407 black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, alone owned black slaves."

Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, p. 273

Is It Possible For Christians To Be Possessed By Demons?

We know from Scripture that it is impossible for genuine Christians to be possessed by demons because they are owned by God Himself (1 Corinthians 7:23). He is sovereign over creation, and nothing can snatch us from His hand. As Jesus declared, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:29). Demons, therefore, have no control or dominion over us.

God has redeemed us with the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 20:28). The cost of our redemption was the precious blood of Jesus, signifying the immense value God places on us as His children. This redemption means that we have been bought at a price and now belong to God. Consequently, demons have no claim over us; we cannot be taken possession of by them.

The God who indwells us is greater than the forces of this world (1 John 4:4). The Holy Spirit's presence within believers signifies God's ownership and protection. The Spirit empowers us, guides us, and assures us of our standing as God's children (Romans 8:15-16). Demons, being part of the created order, are subject to God's authority and cannot possess a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As Paul writes, "For you are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians 6:16), and there can be no fellowship between the Holy Spirit and demons.

Christ's victory over demonic powers is comprehensive and conclusive. Colossians 2:15 tells us that Jesus disarmed the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them by triumphing over them through the cross. This victory is not only historical but also active in the lives of believers. As we stand firm in Christ, we are reminded that He has already defeated the enemy, and this victory is ours to claim through faith.

Understanding that Christians cannot be possessed by demons has significant practical implications. It provides believers with a sense of security and confidence in their spiritual walk. This assurance allows Christians to focus on their sanctification process, growing in holiness without fear of demonic possession. However, believers must remain vigilant, recognizing that while they cannot be possessed, they can still be oppressed or tempted by demonic forces. Continual reliance on God's strength and the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Scripture reading, and fellowship are essential in maintaining spiritual health.

Does God Hate Sinners?

        "The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)

        God's Law is perfect. It is a reflection of His character and nature. He cannot allow sin and rebellion into His kingdom. God absolutely despises iniquity. He judges sinners. He punishes sinners. Sin stems forth from the human heart. His wrath is a reality. God cannot simply ignore or overlook our sin. This biblical truth should give rise to a state of concern in people. However, there is good news which counterbalances the bad news of humanity being condemned by God for sin.

        God is loving and gracious. He is patient. At the same time, our Creator is holy and just. He is provoked to wrath by our unrighteousness. God's love and hatred are perfect. He hates without sinful intent. To be hated of God means to be under His wrath and judgment. Those whom He loves are those who have found favor in His sight. It was out of His unfathomable love for us that He sent His only begotten Son into this world to make atonement for our sins:

        "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10)

        There exists a debt of sin against God, who is holy, that needed to be settled (Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56). No man in his fallen condition could possibly fulfill the necessary demands to make restitution. Thus, Jesus Christ took on human flesh so that we could be reconciled to God. He is without sin. An infinite debt requires a ransom of infinite value.

        "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

        Jesus is the tangible manifestation of God's love for humanity. He came to bring spiritual life to us. Therefore, those who desire to have fellowship with God must be restored to harmony with Him through faith in Christ. We must have our sins forgiven. We must have our sins removed. God took the initiative to save us, even though we had no merit on our part.

        How can a God of love hate at the same time? God is love, but love is not God Himself. That is not all there is to God. There are many aspects of His character. He is a complex being. God's provisional love for sinners is not incompatible with His righteous judgment. He has every attribute perfectly. If we are Christians, then God is not only our King but also our Father.

         God does indeed love us, but it is more than warm feelings. He has provided a means for us to escape divine condemnation. The richness of His mercy is unsearchable. He desires reconciliation with sinners, especially those who believe on Christ for salvation. Nevertheless, we should not take these truths lightly. We should abhor sin, just as He does. We should reject it, regardless of the cost. In fact, the command for us to love our enemies is rooted in God's provisional love for sinners.

         We are justified by God's grace through our faith in Christ's atonement for sin. We cannot merit our salvation. God desires that all men come to salvation (Acts 17:26-31). He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He has no desire in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:10-11). It is not God who sends people to hell. People end up there because that is the eternal destiny that they chose for themselves. There is a day coming in which every man will give account of himself to God.

How Miracles Illustrate The Foolishness Of Atheism

        Atheists quickly rule out the possibility of miracles because a consistent naturalistic worldview does not allow them to embrace the validity of supernatural realities. In other words, these people automatically deem false anything that is not observable to the five human senses. This is done by atheists in their attempts to eliminate God from the equation of life. Following is a handful of basic points to keep in mind within the context of atheism and the miraculous.

        There are indeed rare, extraordinary phenomena, whether they be recovery from near impossible medical emergencies or survival without injury from natural disasters. There has even been drastic character transformation in formally malicious people who converted to Christianity. Consider the example of the Apostle Paul who was a murderer prior to his conversion. It would be more reasonable to attribute such incidents to divine providence than to mere chance.

        We should not make the hasty generalization of dismissing authentic miracles along with counterfeits. Authentic experiences serve as evidences for God being very much at work throughout creation. The real issue is that we lack faith in Him. That is a tendency of our fallen nature. The issue that carries the greatest weight is whether miracles are even possible.

        Empirical evidence is not the only form of available evidence. There is also eyewitness testimony. One need not assume without proof that the New Testament writings are historically fraudulent, especially when it has so much manuscript evidence favoring its veracity. Something is termed miraculous only when no other explanation exists that is scientific.

        Scientific experiments tell us how nature regularly operates under certain conditions, not that miracles are an impossibility. Thus, there are both natural and supernatural explanations. It is because of our scientific knowledge that we can discern whether an occurrence is a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural laws, but rather transcend them. God has the power to temporarily suspend scientific laws for His own purposes because He created them.

        Furthermore, it is a highly unscientific to assume that God does not exist because such a colossal argument requires that one obtain infinite knowledge about everything. This cannot be done by beings who are finite by design. He is beyond the limited scope of nature. A test-tube will never be capable of coherently explaining the fullness of reality.

        If the God of the Bible does exist (which we maintain that He does), then the case is closed. He can indeed work miracles. Whether one believes in the possibility of miracles is ultimately a matter of underlying philosophical presuppositions about this world. Even if there were no supreme deity governing the universe, atheism would still have no reason to exist or proclaim itself to be true. The concept of moral truths would be no different than our personal appetites.

Human Love Can Become Corrupt

"We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 8

True Love Entails Self-Sacrifice

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 121

Is The Office Of The Pope A Fulfillment Of Moses' Seat (Matthew 23:1-2)?

           "After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)

          Moses' seat was a symbolic expression of teaching the Pentateuch. Further, it pertained more to civil law than issuing religious dogma (Exodus 18:13-27). It was applied to the Jews as the standard of judgment. Moses was judge; the priesthood constituted a theocracy. These leaders did not continually make up new laws, but rather upheld the laws that God had originally given to His people through Moses. They could teach only to the extent of what the Law said. If the chair of Moses was a prophetic anticipation of papal authority being bestowed by Christ to Peter, then why were many men able to utilize it at the same time rather than a signle ruler who presides over everyone else?

            The New Testament never associates some chair of Peter with the seat of Moses, nor does it speak of him as having apostolic successors. Even if there was historical evidence for a tradition of successors from Moses' seat (which we have none so far), it would not follow that there exists a logical connection between that and a succession of Roman bishops. Neither is there any evidence suggesting that the Jewish people attributed a charism of teaching infalliblity to their leaders. In fact, we know from the gospels themselves that the scribes and Pharisees promulgated doctrinal error. They were called by Jesus Christ "blind guides" and accused of "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:1-9; 23:16).

           Whatever teaching from the writings of Moses and the Prophets that the scribes and Pharisees had faithfully taught, Christ instructed His audience to obey. Their teachings in that regard were authoritative. However, He told them to not emulate the moral and doctrinal errors of the religious leaders (Matthew 23:3). These men made themselves appear extremely pious in their daily religious practices before others, but God knew that their hearts were far from Him. He knew that the scribes and Pharisees were only seeking flattery from the public. Their reward was received while still on earth. If anything at all, we should take this passage of Scripture to be a warning against pride.

           Negative parallels exist between the scribes and Pharisees back in the days of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry and the modern Church of Rome. Catholics appeal to a traceable lineage to lend credence to the veracity of their arguments, yet Jesus and John the Baptist rejected the scribes and Pharisees who made similar arguments (Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:36-45). The Church of Rome claims to possess divine oral tradition, yet Christ strongly rebuked the religious leaders of His day who made identical claims (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:7-13). Roman Catholic officials unashamedly wield religious titles of honor, yet Christ expressed emphatic disapproval of people who reserved such for themselves (Matthew 23:8-12). Just as the critics of Jesus asked by what authority He performed miracles (Luke 20:2), Roman Catholic apologists ask the same question in regard to us making interpretations of Scripture.