Calvin never says in his commentary (at least in Ephesians or Romans) that faith is not a gift from God as Oslen erroneously charges. At least not that I could find. Calvin simply states that faith is something man must initiate. Perhaps you may wish to find a more objective source or at least check the references.
The real question seems to center around whether it is a “gift of God”. (Everyone has been arguing this for the last 150 posts but I’m a little dense.) The question in my mind is that if it doesn’t say this in Ephesians does it say it somewhere else?
One of the more interesting verses that I came across is:
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
We know saving faith is a response to God’s word from Romans. Additionally faith is exercised by those “who have been appointed to eternal life”. No one else. This is consistent with:
Joh 6:36-37 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
We are unable to believe until the Father gives us to our Lord Jesus. While faith is man’s exercise it cannot be implemented until we are appointed by the Father to eternal life. It is through His appointment our faith becomes active according to Acts. Since not everyone believes we know everyone is not appointed and cannot exercise faith. Nor can one believe and then not believe since under Acts they would not fit the definition of appointment. I should also mention that Acts is pretty clear that if you ARE appointed you will believe-there is no choice of whether to believe or not.
I can only conclude that, under the scriptures presented, our faith is a gift from God since our salvation is a gift from God; appointed by the Father.
I'm glad to hear that we're on common ground on this issue.
Calvin never says in his commentary (at least in Ephesians or Romans) that faith is not a gift from God as Oslen erroneously charges.
Sorry, should have included Olsen's citation: John Calvin, Commentaries, trans. Pringle, vol. XXI, pp. 228-9.
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
There are two ways to answer this verse. First is simply to say that here Dr. Luke was simply acknowledging God's predestination of the elect. That's not a problem for me. Only in the distortions of certain Calvinists have we "Arminians" ever denied predestination--the argument between us is, and always has been whether God's predestination is based on His foreknowledge rather than His whim.
In addition, context is key. Two verses before, Luke writes, "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, 'It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles'" (v. 46). Ergo, God had not rejected them or predestined them to eternal death--they had rejected Him, and condemned themselves to eternal death. This coincides with what I have been saying all along: That God must take the initiative in offering salvation, but that Man may choose not to trust God and so reject it.
For the second way of looking at this passage, I'll refer back to Olsen again:
Although I have not found any source which considered the fact that tetagmenoi, being a perfect participle form, can be either middle or passive, this is of great significance in our exegesis. . . The middle voice, being reflexive, could be rendered, "as many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed" or "as many as had arranged (positioned) themselves toward eternal life believed." The first rendering is suggested by the usage in 1 Cor. 16:15: "The household of Stephanas . . . have devoted themselves for the ministry of the saints." . . . Gerhard Delling in TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) concurs with that general understanding in reference to Acts 13:48: "The idea that God's will to save is accomplished in Christians with their conversion is obviously not connected with the thought of predestinatino (IV, 192, ff.), but rather with that of conferring status (->31, 20ff.); cf. ouk axious Ac 13:46" (TDNT, VIII, pp. 28-9). Delling here is pointing to a contextual argument, so let us move on to examine the context. (pp. 244-245)Here, Olsen goes on to point out the very same verse that I did above and how it relates to his interpretation of this passage. He goes on:
The contrast Luke makes between these words of the apostles and his own statement in 13:48 is clear. Since the Jews had put themselves in a position hostile to eternal life, the apostles were very explicit by the use fo the reflexive pronoun ('yourselves') to attribute the cause to their attitude. Then Luke in explaining the opposite response of the Gentiles would be most likely intending a reflexive middle voice, rather than a passive, in attributing the cause of the Gentile's faith to their attitude, which in 13:42 was evidenced in their pleading with the apostles to come back on a second Sabbath to give the word of God. The parallel is striking. (ibid.)He concludes by pointing out that his exegesis of this passage is "not new or novel. This was proposed by Dean Henry Alford a century and a half ago . . . He references Bengel and DeWette as supporting his view . . ." (p. 246). (Pardon me for not quoting the Alford citation, but this is getting long as is.)
Bottom line: Either way, Luke is not advocating absolute predestination here in the Calvinist sense, nor does he or Paul indicate that choosing to trust God for salvation is itself the gift of God, though to continue quoting Olsen, "I do not question the Holy Spirit's initiative in opening the sinner's heart to the gospel message, but believe that it is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8-11), which is neither irresistable nor immediate" (ibid.).
Now regarding John 6, I would reiterate the first answer above, since again predestination isn't the problem between us--it's what it's based on. All God gives the Son will come to the Son. So, who does the Father give the Son? I direct you again to John 3:16--the Father gives the Son all who would trust in Him.
Furthermore, there's an immediate context that needs to be considered: Verse 45 says, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Really? So how did they hear from and learn from the Father before the Son came to them, and before the Holy Spirit dwelt in them as He does in the Church?
The only answer that makes sense here is that Jesus was speaking to the faithful remnant of Israel which God had always and continues to hold for Himself (see Rom. 11:1-6)--in other words, those who knew Adonai from the Tanakh, but not yet Yeshua. These are those who had put their faith in Adonai, who had kept His Torah, who had repented from their sins, and who were looking forward to the coming of His Messiah. Many of these were disciples of John the Baptist some months before Jesus began His ministry. Having learned and trusted in the Father, the Father gave them to His Son, who promised not to cast any of them out.
In other words, the whole context of the passage seems to be a lot more local than it has generally been taken. Therefore, we should be careful and keep that in mind in drawing out theology from it.