The Source/ Origin of Salvific Faith

[TomFL]

Except for the fact it does; 2 Peter 1:1.

Afraid not

2 Pet. 1:1 —KJV
“¶ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”

First as the Greek scholar Alford notes

personam, ita nec divina electio acceptatrix est personarum”) like precious faith (faith,—i. e. substance of truth believed: faith objective, not subjective,—of equal value

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 389.

Second gift is never mentioned

 

[TomFL]

well I beg to differ unless you are saying not a single passage in the OP says faith is given/granted by God ?

how is something God gives or grants not a gift ?

Our next breath may be considered a gift

However I have Already noted granted is not the same as irresistibly causing to believe

Grant has a wide range of application to permit allow, enable or give

Again I told you it depends on the sense you mean it

If you mean God gives us ability for faith , opportunity through the gospel, and influence yes that would be a gift

But if you mean something irresistibly infused into some and withheld from other no

the bible never speaks of that

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm specifically speaking about Salvific faith in the OP. So the answer is yes from the Scriptures posted where faith and salvation are linked together coming from God and not man.

I think that the Trichotomy of the Human Being solves this; we're spiritually dead but Soulishly alive. ~ Again, don't we have to let Theology settle this?

The things we can do are of the capacity of the human soul, the things we can't do are of the capacity of the human spirit...

It's the Law of Averages. A live soul and a dead or sick spirit averaged together can never be Totally Able without Grace...

 

[civic]

I think that the Trichotomy of the Human Being solves this; we're spiritually dead bit Soulishly alive...

Agreed yet there are plenty of scriptures in the OP which state that faith is granted/given to us by God ie- a gift.

And Ephesians 2:8-10 many believe the entire " package " grace through faith along with salvation is the gift without the exclusion of faith.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So whether one is an Arminian/Calvinist its not as black and white as some would have it be in the passage.

From my perspective everything comes from God in the salvation process, not only the ability to believe in a salvific way but also that continued faith ( Gal 5:22) if one denies the meaning is salvific in 5:22 then it must mean or include the ongoing faith in the believer as the fruit which only comes from Him.

So just as there are past, present and future aspects to salvation and sanctification we also have the same aspects of our faith.

The bottom line with all of this for me boils down to ones view of Gods Sovereignty. I take the High road that God is in complete control as I believe you do as well.

The older I get in my walk the more I see Him in all things and His grace becomes more noticeable in my daily walk and my thoughts of Him. Like Paul I can see Him Exalted in everything while I am abase in everything because its all to Him that I owe everything in this life and process of salvation, faith, sanctification etc...... !!!!

If anything I see tulip and the 5 solas giving all the glory to God because we know that in us dwells nothing good. I believe those doctrines give God the greatest Glory and places man where he belongs at the mercy and grace of God for everything.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Reformedguy]

Our next breath may be considered a gift

However I have Already noted granted is not the same as irresistibly causing to believe

Grant has a wide range of application to permit allow, enable or give

Again I told you it depends on the sense you mean it

If you mean God gives us ability for faith , opportunity through the gospel, and influence yes that would be a gift

But if you mean something irresistibly infused into some and withheld from other no

the bible never speaks of that

Since you grant that grant could mean enable and God is omnipotent and omniscient could He enable someone in such a way that their coming to faith is ensured?? He would know what it would take for each individual right?

 

[ReverendRV]

Agreed yet there are plenty of scriptures in the OP which state that faith is granted/given to us by God ie- a gift.

And Ephesians 2:8-10 many believe the entire " package " grace through faith along with salvation is the gift without the exclusion of faith.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So whether one is an Arminian/Calvinist its not as black and white as some would have it be in the passage.

From my perspective everything comes from God in the salvation process, not only the ability to believe in a salvific way but also that continued faith ( Gal 5:22) if one denies the meaning is salvific in 5:22 then it must mean or include the ongoing faith in the believer as the fruit which only comes from Him.

So just as there are past, present and future aspects to salvation and sanctification we also have the same aspects of our faith.

The bottom line with all of this for me boils down to ones view of Gods Sovereignty. I take the High road that God is in complete control as I believe you do as well.

The older I get in my walk the more I see Him in all things and His grace becomes more noticeable in my daily walk and my thoughts of Him. Like Paul I can see Him Exalted in everything while I am abase in everything because its all to Him that I owe everything in this life and process of salvation, faith, sanctification etc...... !!!!

If anything I see tulip and the 5 solas giving all the glory to God because we know that in us dwells nothing good. I believe those doctrines give God the greatest Glory and places man where he belongs at the mercy and grace of God for everything.

hope this helps !!!

I totally agree, the Bible is enough for us to believe the Doctrines of Grace; Sola Scriptura mandates we can come to the truth without Systematic Theology. But for the type of Posters we have here, Theology couldn't hurt...

 

[preacher4truth]

Afraid not

2 Pet. 1:1 —KJV
“¶ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”

First as the Greek scholar Alford notes

personam, ita nec divina electio acceptatrix est personarum”) like precious faith (faith,—i. e. substance of truth believed: faith objective, not subjective,—of equal value

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 389.

Second gift is never mentioned

Lol! None of what you offer proves or even hints at your "afraid not." Goodness sake, you dont even read what you post and assume those you quote support you (not Scripture, you!)?

You're merely looking at the word faith, which, if you paid attention to your own quote is not subjective. Um, do you even know what that means?

Secondly it speaks of faith being obtained, which means given by Divine allotment literally.

Given. By. Divine. Allotment.

Uh oh! Looks like God is Sovereign over that too!

But you just can't be wrong, even when your supplied quotes deny your claims, so it is and will be no surprise that you will reject this faith was given by Divine allotment.

It is gifted.

It is not worth debating you when you're disingenuous, don't even comprehend your supplied quotes, and will ignore, disregard, and argue your way out of plain teachings of plain Scripture. In your theology your god is sovereign over everything, all, even your next breath as you alluded to in another response, but not in salvation.

My post is for the benefit of those who want to praise God for the faith, grace, and salvation gifted them, something which is altogether rejected by Tom no matter how clear Scripture is.

Oh, one last thing Tom's quotes in Latin from his own supplied source refutes his own argument. It is "non ipsi sibi pararunt" speaking of the faith obtained, and means in English "prepared for themselves, not by them." This literally, from his own supplied quote refutes him. Their faith is not by them.

This is why it isnt profitable to engage him as he will simply twist and reject plain Scripture and clear refutation. Tom has placed himself above Scripture, it must succumb to him, not him to Scripture. Tom, you need brought to repentance. Brought to, not decided to.

 

[TomFL]

Lol! None of what you offer proves or even hints at your "afraid not." Goodness sake, you dont even read what you post and assume those you quote support you (not Scripture, you!)?

You're merely looking at the word faith, which, if you paid attention to your own quote is not subjective. Um, do you even know what that means?

Secondly it speaks of faith being obtained, which means given by Divine allotment literally.

Sorry but you apparently do not understand what was written

personam, ita nec divina electio acceptatrix est personarum”) like precious faith (faith,—i. e. substance of truth believed: faith objective, not subjective,—of equal value

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 389.

Substance of truth believed that refers to the body of doctrine

not the subjective faith a person may have

subjective
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.Contrasted with objective.

objective
[əbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Contrasted with subjective.
   
   
   The core body of faith is of course established by God
   

Men don't make it up God established it


You have got it all confused

 

[civic]

Sorry but you apparently do not understand what was written

personam, ita nec divina electio acceptatrix est personarum”) like precious faith (faith,—i. e. substance of truth believed: faith objective, not subjective,—of equal value

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 389.

Substance of truth believed that refers to the body of doctrine

not the subjective faith a person may have

subjective
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.Contrasted with objective.

objective
[əbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Contrasted with subjective.
   
   
   The core body of faith is of course established by God

Men don't make it up God established it


You have got it all confused

as if Alford is any kind of authority - the appeal to authority fallacy.

Alford is not only Wrong regarding faith he is wrong regarding the identity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. He wrongly identifies it as the Father and not the Son.

So much for him as a reliable source. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

BTW- I could care less whether he is an Arminian, Calvinist, Trinitarian or unitarian.

 

[ReverendRV]

as if Alford is any kind of authority - the appeal to authority fallacy.

Alford is not only Wrong regarding faith he is wrong regarding the identity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. He wrongly identifies it as the Father and not the Son.

So much for him as a reliable source. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

BTW- I could care less whether he is an Arminian, Calvinist, Trinitarian or unitarian.

Praise the Lord you're as well studied as you are...

 

[TomFL]

as if Alford is any kind of authority - the appeal to authority fallacy.

Alford is not only Wrong regarding faith he is wrong regarding the identity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. He wrongly identifies it as the Father and not the Son.

So much for him as a reliable source. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

BTW- I could care less whether he is an Arminian, Calvinist, Trinitarian or unitarian.

Alford is in fact an authority on the Greek New testament

John Piper appeals to him for insight into the Greek text

Unfortunately Sharps rule was not given the precedence in his day as it is now

In any case there are still no text which state Faith is something irresistibly given to some and withheld from others

BTW the Calvinist commentary

like precious—“equally precious” to all: to those who believe, though not having seen Christ, as well as to Peter and those who have seen Him. For it lays hold of the same “exceeding great and precious promises,” and the same “righteousness of God our Saviour.” “The common salvation … the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jud 1:3).

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 516.

 

[civic]

Alford is in fact an authority on the Greek New testament

John Piper appeals to him for insight into the Greek text

Unfortunately Sharps rule was not given the precedence in his day as it is now

In any case there are still no text which state Faith is something irresistibly given to some and withheld from others

BTW the Calvinist commentary

like precious—“equally precious” to all: to those who believe, though not having seen Christ, as well as to Peter and those who have seen Him. For it lays hold of the same “exceeding great and precious promises,” and the same “righteousness of God our Saviour.” “The common salvation … the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jud 1:3).

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 516.

Tom it’s not even a sharps rule issue it’s a theological issue. Titus 2:13 can only refer to the Son and the Father is never ever tge One who is coming again with parousia and epiphanea. It is always the Son.

I prove this 24/7 against unitarians all the time and it’s irrefutable.

I don’t even need Sharps rule to defend its the Son being identified as our Great God and Savior.

 

[ReverendRV]

Tom it’s not even a sharps rule issue it’s a theological issue. Titus 2:13 can only refer to the Son and the Father is never ever tge One who is coming again with parousia and epiphanea. It is always the Son.

I prove this 24/7 against unitarians all the time and it’s irrefutable.

I don’t even need Sharps rule to defend its the Son being identified as our Great God and Savior.

Is this an example of using 'Shared Beliefs' to win a debate? Since TomL is a Trinitarian, he should agree with your point. How does this create a dilemma for him?

Sorry for it going over my head...

 

[civic]

Is this an example of using 'Shared Beliefs' to win a debate? Since TomL is a Trinitarian, he should agree with your point. How does this create a dilemma for him?

Sorry for it going over my head...

My main apologetic is the Trinity and Deity of Christ. I actually study it in some form every day for the past 40 years

 

[ReverendRV]

My main apologetic is the Trinity and Deity of Christ. I actually study it in some form every day for the past 40 years

I'll follow the discussion then to see how you are applying it to this Thread...

 

[civic]

I'll follow the discussion then to see how you are applying it to this Thread...

I’m 10x better at defending them and the Resurrection as I am Calvinism

 

[ReverendRV]

I’m 10x better at defending them and the Resurrection as I am Calvinism

Admittedly that is ten times more important...

 

[TomFL]

Tom it’s not even a sharps rule issue it’s a theological issue. Titus 2:13 can only refer to the Son and the Father is never ever tge One who is coming again with parousia and epiphanea. It is always the Son.

I prove this 24/7 against unitarians all the time and it’s irrefutable.

I don’t even need Sharps rule to defend its the Son being identified as our Great God and Savior.

Regarding Tit 2:13

At 2Peter 1:1 his comments are

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 390.

he strongly supports Christ as God and savior

 

[TomFL]

Is this an example of using 'Shared Beliefs' to win a debate? Since TomL is a Trinitarian, he should agree with your point. How does this create a dilemma for him?

Sorry for it going over my head...

Concerning Titus 2:13 Alford supports Christs deity

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 390.

 

[civic]

Regarding Tit 2:13

At 2Peter 1:1 his comments are

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 390.

he strongly supports Christ as God and savior

Can you provide a link ? Thanks