Yes, I looked at the citation. Calvin simply states that he does not believe this particular text indicates that faith is a gift from God. I cannot conclude from Calvin’s citation that he doesn’t believe faith is a gift as Mr. Olsen has done.
The does beg the question as to what exactly is “the gift of God”. Calvin states that he believes it is the “gift of salvation” as what Mr. Olsen and others have claim. I’m not prepared to accept that interpretation as the beginning context of Ephesian 2 is talking about God’s grace. Be that as it may I wouldn’t dispute that salvation is what Paul is referring to here as “the gift of God” as well. This is too far into the Greek for my limited knowledge.
”There are two ways to answer this verse. [Acts 13:48] First is simply to say that here Dr. Luke was simply acknowledging God's predestination of the elect. In addition, context is key.”
It’s convenient to pick apart the Greek when it suit ones purpose and then try to explanation away the Greek with some other method when the verse is far more troubling. Acts clearly says:
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles1484 heard191 this, they began rejoicing5463 and glorifying1392 the word3056 of the Lord2962; and as many3745 as had been1510 appointed5021 to eternal166 life2222 believed4100.
I’ve left the Strong’s concordance numbers in so you could look them up. You will find that “appointed” means “ordained”, “appointed”, “assigned”. If this was a simple acknowledgement of God’s predestination of the elect then it would have been better stated, “…and as many as believed had been appointed to eternal life.” A small but significant difference. But that is not what it says. Luke, if anything, is noted for his thoroughness and attention to detail in the scriptures. I doubt if he made a mistake. He knew exactly what he was saying.
”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.
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. .
Your interpretation of John 6 makes no sense to me at all. If God the Father gives the Son everyone as you suggest, then everyone will come to Christ and our Lord Jesus will not cast them out. But then you back petal and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that this is talking to the “faithful remnant” but then that would mean only the will be given to Christ by the Father. I don’t need to go into the Greek with this one.
I think you misunderstand Olsen's quote, since he is dealing strictly with that single passage and it's proper exegetical interpretation. Regardless, we're agreed that Ephesians 2:8-9 by itself does not teach that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is the gift of God which much be recieved by trusting Him, correct?
I’m not prepared to accept that interpretation as the beginning context of Ephesian 2 is talking about God’s grace.
I apologize if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing where that would pose a problem. "Grace" in Greek is charis, which literally means simply a gift--hence the word "charismatic" to refer to someone who emphasizes the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their Christian walk. Could you explain where you see a contradiction?
I’ve left the Strong’s concordance numbers in so you could look them up. You will find that “appointed” means “ordained”, “appointed”, “assigned”.
Yes, but the problem is that Strong's simply gives us the base word without reference to tense, voice, or mood. Without determining the voice, we cannot be sure whether the verb is done to the subject (passive), done by the subject (active), or done by the subject to himself (middle). You are assuming that the verb "appointed" is in the passive voice, which it may be. However, given the original Greek, the context, and the parallelism of the passage, there's no reason why we cannot regard Luke as using the middle voice here.
I'm just pointing out what I did in the case of Ephesus--sometimes the English does not do a good job at accurately transmitting the precision of the original Greek. Heck, look at how many Greek words for various kinds of love (e.g. agape, eros, phileo) we translate back into a single word. That's a problem with all translations, not just in the Bible. However, in this case, it happens to open up the verse to an alternative translation and interpretation that is decidedly inconsistant with the Calvinist POV.
But in any case, if you don't like the digging into the original Greek that Olsen does, just go with my first option, that Luke is acknowledging predestination without explaining (as Paul does in Romans 8:29) on what God bases His election. Since elsewhere we read of people believing without reference to a predestination, that just brings us back to what I suggested many posts ago: That both the eternal POV (predestination) and the temporal POV (free will) are equally valid in the eyes of Scripture, and that we have to acknowledge both in order to really understand Scripture, without getting hung up on the paradox.
If God the Father gives the Son everyone as you suggest, then everyone will come to Christ and our Lord Jesus will not cast them out.
Not at all. I believe to some extent or another, the Holy Spirit draws the whole world per Jn. 16:8-11. However, the Holy Spirit can be and is resisted (Ac. 7:51). Therefore, if this passage is intended with a global application (which I'm not sure that it is), the Father only "gives" those to the Son who do not reject His call. Again, I embrace both God's predestination (based on His foreknowledge) and Man's free will.
But then you back petal and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that this is talking to the “faithful remnant” but then that would mean only the will be given to Christ by the Father.
Okay, let's do this interactively then, if you don't mind the questions back and forth: Who were those who learned from the Father before coming to the Son in Jn. 6:45? How did they learn from the Father without seeing Him (v. 46)? If they had died before the Son had appeared so that they could meet Jesus and put their faith in Him, would they have gone to Heaven? Why or why not?
As I hope you'll see, I'm not so much backpedaling as I am opening up the discussion on an alternative interpretation, while not relying on it as my principal line of attack. Simply put, it's because the idea occured to me just now as I was reviewing the passage, and I don't know if it'll hold up yet. I'm inviting you to take a swing at it, but I'm not abandoning the interpretation on this chapter that I've held for years just yet. Basically, I'm making sure that the second stepping-stone is steady before I take my foot off the first one.
It's just one way that I go about testing and refining my theology. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will, but I find that having others picking out flaws in an idea that I'm considering is a good way to see if it needs to be discarded or how it needs to be refined.
Position X: All the Father decrees to become believers.
Position Y: All the Father sees becoming believers.
One is not more logical as an answer than the other. Both make perfect sense.
Therefore, the best choice for me is the choice that most aligns with scripture.
Each position above is an adequate answer to the verse: All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. .