An Article on free will

TomL, you accuse that I am of the same belief as "the council of Dort - those of your theological persuasion affirmed infused faith. ", yet I still elect not to use your word "infuse" because I use the word "control" and the word "impart" and the word "cause". Lord and God Jesus Christ controls me to proclaim my deeply rooted belief about us Christians that the love of Christ controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14).

You may elect to not use the word, but your position amounts to it

Check online

Impart and Infuse are synonymous


To impart is to control (2 Corinthians 5:14).

To control is to cause (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Saving faith in us Christians is controlled by God (2 Corinthians 5:14).
To impart is to give, which is synonymous with infuse



You wrote "Third when there is no grammatical gender match between a pronoun and referenced noun, a referent according to sense is taken" which in Greek grammar requires that the nearest preceding noun be associated; therefore, the word that and the word faith are the grammatically correct association.

Sorry that is false and doing so would violate agreement between a noun and its pronoun

As shown by the Greek scholar

For by grace (τῃ γαρ χαριτι [tēi gar chariti]). Explanatory reason. “By the grace” already mentioned in verse 5 and so with the article. Through faith (δια πιστεως [dia pisteōs]). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse 5 to make it plainer. “Grace” is God’s part, “faith” ours. And that (και τουτο [kai touto]). Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ἐξ ὑμων [ex humōn], out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (δωρον [dōron]) and not the result of our work.11 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Eph 2:8.


This speaks of salvation

Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.
Salvation is God's gift

Romans 6:23 (KJV 1900) — 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.




You persistently sever the sense of saved through faith.
Totally false

I affirm it and quote scripture which supports it


The full sense is by grace you are saved through faith in Ephesians 2:8 as detailed in post #7,315 to you.

When taken as a linguistic whole, Ephesians 2:8 results in this Truth (John 14:6) that the entirety of
  • grace is not a work of man.
  • grace is the work of God.
  • saved is not a work of man.
  • saved is the work of God.
  • faith is not a work of man.
  • faith is the work of God.
in Paul's writing of
by grace you are 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 for we are His work

In Ephesians 2:9, Paul makes amazingly clear that the gift of faith is not a work of man along with the surrounding verses of Ephesians 2:8 and Ephesians 2:10 (the accurate phrase is we are His work which includes my Christian faith) to clearly state that faith is the gift of God because we are his work (Ephesians 2:10).

The Apostle Paul is in accord with Lord Jesus Christ's sayings of "This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29).
This you just ignored which shows

One the falsity of your previous claim of severing the idea of salvation through faith

Ephesians 2:8, 9 is therefore the key passage: “For by grace [instrumental case, t chariti, by the instrumentality of grace] you have been saved [periphrastic perfect, looking at the present condition that flows from the prior act] through faith [dia plus the genitive, intermediate agency]; and this [neuter touto] not of you, the gift of God; not of works, in order that one may not boast.

and two the syntactical argument showing the pronoun "this" does not refer back to faith


There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith.” Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this.” Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it: (1) “this” (is) not of you, (2) “this” (is) God’s gift, (3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast. To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already. In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”



Picirilli, Robert. Grace Faith Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism (p. 166). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.

it would be foolish of Paul to point out faith is not produced by works when works are a result of faith

regarding your statement



you have twisted the text

Ephesians 2:9–10 (LEB) — 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that we may walk in them.

which tells us our good works not faith are a result of our creation in Christ
 
Last edited:
What the son of man shall give is everlasting life for which they must labor

And You simply assume Christ is now contradicting himself. That after telling them to labor he now says there really is no labor they must do and that God is going to do it for them

Your position is contrary to the context of the passage and ignores Christs final statement

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

They must come and believe

As was previously shown.

This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (The Word of God, John 6:29)

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out for I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day for this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 6:37-40).

he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they are having been worked in God” (The Bread of Life, John 3:21).
 
It certainly is when you speak of plagiarism. Your claim is definitionally false and creates a false impression.

That would be a lack of integrity.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll take a baby aspirin and worry over it. You should change your debate tactics. Stop pretending those you quote agree with your conclusions. Or not. Your choice. My word are my own. I don't need others to speak for me.
 
This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (The Word of God, John 6:29)

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out for I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day for this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 6:37-40).

he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they are having been worked in God” (The Bread of Life, John 3:21).
Repeating the verse does nothing to establish its meaning when you continue ignoring ther context

What the son of man shall give is everlasting life for which they must labor

And You simply assume Christ is now contradicting himself. That after telling them to labor he now says there really is no labor they must do and that God is going to do it for them

Your position is contrary to the context of the passage and ignores Christs final statement

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

They must come and believe
 
Both the first and second options are seen within Christianity

I am not arguing for the second position, only noting it is common.
Well, the third position would solve some quite important questions, on top of my head -

1. There was only one fall, not two.
2. Everyone born on this earth was seduced by the devil in Gen 3, ate from the forbidden tree and were expelled from the presence of the Lord, here.
3. A&E in Gen 3 stand model for all of mankind, we were all in Paradise.
4. Ever wondered why you were never offered the same opportunity as A&E and not fail? Well, you had, you were there and you failed.
5. No more discussions about original sin, we were sinners the moment we ate, before we were born here.

It's a theory with hardly Scriptural evidence.
 
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Jim, there is no such a doctrine as the age of accountability as taught by men on your side of the fence. All were accountable "IN ADAM"!

The age of accountability is precisely what Paul is teaching in Roman 7:7-13.

The god you proclaim condemns the whole world for the one sin of Adam. How unjust is that? My God would not do such a thing and has never said that He would. The passage, Romans 7, describes the origin of sin in the individual, what it is and where it comes from. No mention of Adam anywhere in it. No one is accountable for the sins of another.
 
So, Jim " that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" ~ is speaking concerning the new birth, not our natural conception in our mother's womb. You sound like Nicodemus speaking.
What do you think was generated that needs to be REgenerated? What was born once before but needs to be reborn?

What Jesus was telling Nicodemus was that He was not talking about the flesh; only flesh comes from flesh. Instead, He was talking about the spirit. It is the spirit that needs to be reborn, it is the spirit that needs to be born again. The spirit was born once of the Spirit, but the spirit needs to be reborn; it needs to be reborn of the Spirit.
 
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann @ProDeo
Well, the third position would solve some quite important questions, on top of my head -

1. There was only one fall, not two.
2. Everyone born on this earth was seduced by the devil in Gen 3, ate from the forbidden tree and were expelled from the presence of the Lord, here.
3. A&E in Gen 3 stand model for all of mankind, we were all in Paradise.
4. Ever wondered why you were never offered the same opportunity as A&E and not fail? Well, you had, you were there and you failed.
5. No more discussions about original sin, we were sinners the moment we ate, before we were born here.

It's a theory with hardly Scriptural evidence.

THE DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION​

A.W. Pink

Now, strictly speaking, there are ONLY TWO MEN who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired RESPONSIBILITY, and they were the first and last Adam’s. The responsibility of each of the rational descendants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them accountable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall.

Not only is the responsibility of each descendant of Adam SUFFICIENT to constitute him, PERSONALLY an accountable creature (that is, as one so constituted that he OUGHT to do right and OUGHT NOT to do wrong), but originally every one of us was also endowed, JUDICIALLY, with full and UNIMPAIRED responsibility, not in ourselves, but, IN ADAM. It should ever be borne in mind that not only was Adam the father of the human race SEMINALLY, but he was also the head of the race LEGALLY. When Adam was placed in Eden he stood there AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE, so that what he did is reckoned to the account of each for whom he acted.

It is beside our present purpose to enter here into a lengthy discussion of the Federal Headship of Adam (Though there is deep and widespread NEED for this, and we hope ere long to write upon this subject in another book.), suffice it now to refer the reader to Romans 5:12-19 where this truth is dealt with by the Holy Spirit. In the heart of this most important passage we are told that Adam wasTHE FIGURE of Him that was to come” (v. 14), that is, of Christ. In WHAT sense, then, was Adam “the figure” of Christ? The answer must be, In that he was a Federal Head; in that he acted on the behalf of a race of men; in that he was one who has legally, as well as vitally, affected all connected with him. It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus is in 1 Corinthians 15:45 denominated “the last Adam”, that is, the Head of the new creation, as the first Adam was the Head of the old creation.

“Let us borrow a simple illustration. God did not deal with mankind as with a field of corn, where each stalk stands upon its own individual root; but He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk. If you strike with an axe at the root of a tree, the whole tree falls—not only the trunk, but also the branches: all wither and die. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him. At one fatal stroke Adam was severed from communion with his maker, and as the result “death passed upon all men.”

“Here, then, we learn what is the formal ground of man’s judicial condemnation before God. The popular idea of WHAT renders man a sinner in the sight of heaven is altogether inadequate and false. The prevailing conception is that a sinner is one who commits and practices sin. It is true that this is the CHARACTER of a sinner, but it certainly is not that which primarily CONSTITUTES him a sinner. The truth is that every member of our race enters this world a guilty sinner before he ever commits a single transgression. It is not only that he possesses a sinful nature, but he is directly “under condemnation.” We are legally constituted sinners neither by what we are nor by what we are doing, but by the disobedience of our federal head, Adam. Adam acted not for himself alone, but for all who were to spring from him.

“On this point the teaching of the apostle Paul is plain and unambiguous. The terms of Romans 5:12-19, as we have shown above, are too varied and distinct to admit of any misconception: that it is on account of their sin in Adam, men, in the first instance, are accounted guilty and treated as such, as well as partake of a depraved nature. The language of 1 Corinthians 15:22 is equally unintelligible except on the supposition that both Adam and Christ sustained a REPRESENTATIVE character, in virtue of which the one involved the race in guilt and ruin, and the other, by His obedience unto death, secured the justification and salvation of ell who believe in Him. The actual condition of the human race, throughout its history, confirms the same: the apostle’s doctrine supplies the only adequate explanation of the universal prevalence of sin.

“The human race is suffering now for the sin of Adam, or it is suffering for nothing at all. This earth is the scene of a grim and awful tragedy. In it we see misery and wretchedness, pain and poverty, decay and death, on every side. None escape. That “man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward” is an indisputable fact. But what is the explanation of it? Every effect must have a previous cause. If we are not being punished for Adam’s sin, then, coming into this world, we are “children of wrath,” alienated from God, corrupt and depraved, and on the broad road which leadeth to destruction, for NOTHING AT ALL! Who would contend that this was better, more satisfactory, than the Scriptural explanation of our ruin?

“But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?

“Consider the alternative. “The race must have either stood in a full grown man, with a full‑orbed intellect, or stood as babies, each entering his probation in the twilight of self-consciousness, each deciding his destiny before his eyes were half‑opened to what it all meant. How much better would that have been? How much more just? But could it not have been some other way? There was no other way. It was either the baby or it was the perfect, well‑equipped, all—calculating man—the man who saw and comprehended everything. That man was Adam” (G. S. Bishop). Yes, Adam, fresh from the hands of his creator, with no sinful ancestry behind him, with no depraved nature within. A man made in the image and likeness of God, pronounced by Him “very good,” in fellowship with heaven. Who could have been a more suitable representative for us?

“This has been the principle on which and the method by which God has acted all through. The posterity of Canaan were cursed for the single transgression of their parent (Gen. 9). The Egyptians perished at the Red Sea as the result of Pharaoh’s wickedness. When Israel became God’s witness in the earth it was the same. The sins of the fathers were to be visited upon the children: in consequence of Achan’s one sin the whole of his family were stoned to death. The high priest acted on behalf of the whole nation. Later, the king was held accountable for the conduct of his subjects. One acting on behalf of others, the one responsible for the many, is a basic principle both of human and divine government. We cannot get away from it; wherever we look, it stares us in the face.

“Finally, let it be pointed out that the sinner’s salvation is made to depend upon the same principle. Beware, my reader, of quarreling with the justice of this law of representation. This principle wrecked us, and this principle alone can rescue us. The disobedience of the first Adam was the judicial ground of our condemnation; the obedience of the last Adam is the legal ground on which God alone can justify the sinner. The substitution of Christ in the place of His people, the imputation of their sins to Him and of His righteousness to them, is the cardinal fact of the gospel. But the principle of being saved by what another has done is only possible on the ground that we are lost through what another did. The two stand or fall together. If there had been no covenant of works there could have been no death in Adam, there could have been no life in Christ.

“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). Here is cause for humiliation which few think about. We are members of a cursed race, the fallen children of a fallen parent, and as such we enter this world “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18), with nothing in us to prompt unto holy living. Oh, that God may reveal to you, dear reader, your connection with the first Adam, that you may realize your deep need of clinging to the last Adam. The world may deride this doctrine of representation and imputation, but that only evidences it to be of God. If the gospel (the genuine gospel) were welcomed by all, that would prove it was of human manufacture; for only that is acceptable to fallen roan which is invented by fallen man. That the wise of this world scoff at the truth of federal headship, when it is faithfully presented, only goes to manifest its divine origin.

“By the offence of one judgment came upon all men TO CONDEMNATION” (Rom. 5:18). In the day that Adam fell, the frown of God came upon all His children. The holy nature of God abhorred the apostate race. The curse of the broken law descended upon all Adam’s posterity. It is only thus we can account for the universality of depravity and suffering. The corruption which we inherit from our parents is a great evil, for it is the source of all our personal sins. For God to allow this transmission of depravity is to inflict a PUNISHMENT. But how could God punish all, unless all were guilty? The fact that all do share in this common punishment proves that all sinned and fell in Adam. Our depravity and misery are not, as such, the appointment of the Creator, but are instead the retribution of the judge.

“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). The word “made” in that verse calls for a definition and explanation. It does not refer directly and primarily to the fact that we inherit from Adam a corrupt and sinful nature—that we learn from other Scriptures. The term “were made sinners” is a forensic one, and refers to our being CONSTITUTED GUILTY in the sight of God. A parallel case is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” Clearly those words “made him [Christ] to be sin” cannot refer to any change which our Lord underwent in His nature or character. No, rather the blessed Savior so took His people’s place before God that He was treated and dealt with as guilty: their sins were not IMPARTED, but IMPUTED to Him.

“Again, in Galatians 3:13—we read that Christ was “MADE a curse for us”: as the substitute of God’s elect, He was judicially regarded as beneath the condemnation of the law. Our guilt was legally transferred to Christ: the sins we committed, He was regarded as responsible for; what we deserved, He endured. In like manner, Adam’s offspring were “MADE sinners” by their head’s disobedience: the legal consequences of their representative’s transgression were charged to their account. They were judicially constituted guilty, because the guilt of Adam’s sin was charged to them. Hence we enter this world not only with the heritage of a corrupt nature, but “under condemnation.” We are by nature “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), for “the wicked are estranged from the womb” (Ps. 58:3)—separated from God and exposed to His judicial displeasure.

No finite creature, and still less a fallen and depraved one, is capable of measuring or even understanding the justice of the infinite God. Yet this we may ask: Which appears to be more consonant to human conceptions of justice—that we should suffer through Adam because we were legally connected with him and he transacted in our name; or that we should suffer solely because we derive our nature from him by generation, though we had no part in or connection with his sin?

In the former we can perceive the ground on which his guilt is charged to our account; but by the latter we can discover no ground or cause that any share of the fatal effects of Adam’s sin should be visited upon us. The latter alternative means that we are depraved and wretched without any sufficient reason, and in such an event our present condition is but a misfortune and in no wise criminal. Nor is God to be blamed: He made man upright, but man deliberately apostatized. Nor was God under any obligation to preserve man from falling. Finally, let it be remembered that our salvation depends upon the self-same principle and fact: if we were cursed and ruined by the first Adam’s disobedience, we are redeemed and blessed by the last man’s obedience.
 
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann @ProDeo
The age of accountability is precisely what Paul is teaching in Roman 7:7-13.

The god you proclaim condemns the whole world for the one sin of Adam. How unjust is that? My God would not do such a thing and has never said that He would. The passage, Romans 7, describes the origin of sin in the individual, what it is and where it comes from. No mention of Adam anywhere in it. No one is accountable for the sins of another.
Jim, I'll come back and address your errors later today, time will not permit me to do so now, because I need time.

This statement here: "No one is accountable for the sins of another." Proves to me, and I trust it will to others as well, that you have no clue as to sinners being made the righteousness of God on the behalf of Jesus Christ, your statement has serious ramification asto your understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Better to hear it from me than from the God of Heaven in that day.
 
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann @ProDeo
What do you think was generated that needs to be REgenerated? What was born once before but needs to be reborn?

What Jesus was telling Nicodemus was that He was not talking about the flesh; only flesh comes from flesh. Instead, He was talking about the spirit. It is the spirit that needs to be reborn, it is the spirit that needs to be born again. The spirit was born once of the Spirit, but the spirit needs to be reborn; it needs to be reborn of the Spirit.
What needs to be born again? The soul of man~it need a new man, after the image of the Son of God, not one thing from the old man is even considered to be used in this new birth! The new birth is a New Creation, leaving the old man totally along~the old Adam!

Again, I'll go in depth on this after I return from a trip, time will not allow me to do justice so that you cannot gainsay what I have to say,

Jim, it is "you" and those on your side of the fence that truly believe and teach that the flesh (the old man) is not that dead, and is able to do certain spiritual acts that are pleasing to God, not me! The spirit of man, or his mind/heart is corrupt in the old man, a totally new creation must take place, one that Jesus Christ secured for God's children~a truth you do not love and rejoice over because this truth totally removes any work on your part produced by your old, wicked, sinful, stinky flesh.

Later....RB
 
In Christian theology, the tripartite view (trichotomy) holds that humankind is a composite of three distinct components: body, spirit, and soul. It is in contrast to the bipartite view (dichotomy), where soul and spirit are taken as different terms for the same entity.

No,I don't think that is really what tony Warren is saying in that article. He draws a distinction between the two. But I don't think he quite gets it. The Hebrew word for soul, i.e., nephesh, is not the same as the Hebrew word for spirit, i.e., ruach. It is true, however, when speaking of human beings, they are often used interchangeably in the OT. The same is true for the Greek words for soul, i.e., psuche, and for spirit, i.e., pneuma.

The soul is an expression for the physically alive being, whether man or animal. The physically alive being has a body of flesh, whether man or animal. The spirit is almost universally reserved for man. Thus an animal is a soul, a living being, that has a body. But man is a soul, a living being, that has a body and a spirit. Thus, when speaking of the human being, soul and spirit can be used interchangeably in most situations, even though, strictly speaking, they are not the same entity.

As near as I can find, of all the 200+ verses in the OT where we find the word for spirit, only in Ecclesiastes 3:21 does it speak of the spirit of the beast. But in considering all of Ecclesiastes 3, I am not certain that in verse 21 that beast is really referring to animals. See for example verse 18 where it refers to [some] children of man as beasts, that is, the wicked. It seems a strange usage.
 
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann @ProDeo

What needs to be born again? The soul of man~it need a new man, after the image of the Son of God, not one thing from the old man is even considered to be used in this new birth! The new birth is a New Creation, leaving the old man totally along~the old Adam!
Please explain in detail what you mean by New Creation. Even your preferred KJV never speaks of the new creation, but rather a new creature.
Again, I'll go in depth on this after I return from a trip, time will not allow me to do justice so that you cannot gainsay what I have to say,

Jim, it is "you" and those on your side of the fence that truly believe and teach that the flesh (the old man) is not that dead, and is able to do certain spiritual acts that are pleasing to God, not me! The spirit of man, or his mind/heart is corrupt in the old man, a totally new creation must take place, one that Jesus Christ secured for God's children~a truth you do not love and rejoice over because this truth totally removes any work on your part produced by your old, wicked, sinful, stinky flesh.

Later....RB
I will say that your version of the flesh (the old man) never does even one thing that pleases God, no matter if he obeys every last commandment of God his entire life but fails in one commandment once. But I await your more in depth response.
 
You may elect to not use the word, but your position amounts to it

Check online

Impart and Infuse are synonymous



To impart is to give, which is synonymous with infuse


Infuse essentially conveys "To put into or introduce as if by pouring".


Impart essentially conveys "To grant a share of; bestow".


Cause essentially conveys "make, create, produce".


Control essentially conveys "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct".

Lord and God Jesus Christ controls me to proclaim my deeply rooted belief about us Christians that the love of Christ controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14).

You deny that the love of Christ controls you caused by your free-will.

Sorry that is false and doing so would violate agreement between a noun and its pronoun

As shown by the Greek scholar

For by grace (τῃ γαρ χαριτι [tēi gar chariti]). Explanatory reason. “By the grace” already mentioned in verse 5 and so with the article. Through faith (δια πιστεως [dia pisteōs]). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse 5 to make it plainer. “Grace” is God’s part, “faith” ours. And that (και τουτο [kai touto]). Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ἐξ ὑμων [ex humōn], out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (δωρον [dōron]) and not the result of our work.11 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Eph 2:8.


This speaks of salvation

Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.
Salvation is God's gift

Romans 6:23 (KJV 1900) — 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.





Totally false

I affirm it and quote scripture which supports it



This you just ignored which shows

One the falsity of your previous claim of severing the idea of salvation through faith

Ephesians 2:8, 9 is therefore the key passage: “For by grace [instrumental case, t chariti, by the instrumentality of grace] you have been saved [periphrastic perfect, looking at the present condition that flows from the prior act] through faith [dia plus the genitive, intermediate agency]; and this [neuter touto] not of you, the gift of God; not of works, in order that one may not boast.

and two the syntactical argument showing the pronoun "this" does not refer back to faith


There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith.” Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this.” Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it: (1) “this” (is) not of you, (2) “this” (is) God’s gift, (3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast. To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already. In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”



Picirilli, Robert. Grace Faith Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism (p. 166). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.

it would be foolish of Paul to point out faith is not produced by works when works are a result of faith

regarding your statement



you have twisted the text

Ephesians 2:9–10 (LEB) — 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that we may walk in them.

which tells us our good works not faith are a result of our creation in Christ

Your confused "it would be foolish of Paul to point out faith is not produced by works" because Paul clearly conveys the work of faith in us Christians is caused by the work of God with:
by grace you are 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 for we are His work

Even the work of faith is covered by we are His work (Ephesians 2:10), and all good works by us Christians are controlled by we are His work (Ephesians 2:10).

You most certainly do persistently sever the sense of saved through faith from the full cohesive sense of by grace you are saved through faith as a full concept associated with that in Ephesians 2:8, and the proof is in your "the syntactical argument showing the pronoun "this" does not refer back to faith" combined with your "Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part". Your severance is deception.

In Ephesians 2:8, Holy Spirit inspired Paul makes amazingly clear that God's gift of faith is not a work of man with faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God because Greek grammar requires that the case/gender/count mismatch in the verse forces the closest two words of faith and that to bind in agreement.

The Apostle Paul is in accord with Lord Jesus Christ's sayings of "This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29).
 
@ProDeo

After Peter's sermon at Pentecost 3000 souls repented.

They repented because they had been saved by Christ and He gave them repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Peter preached Christ gave repentance as Saviour and that caused them to repent.
 
No,I don't think that is really what tony Warren is saying in that article. He draws a distinction between the two. But I don't think he quite gets it. The Hebrew word for soul, i.e., nephesh, is not the same as the Hebrew word for spirit, i.e., ruach. It is true, however, when speaking of human beings, they are often used interchangeably in the OT. The same is true for the Greek words for soul, i.e., psuche, and for spirit, i.e., pneuma.

The soul is an expression for the physically alive being, whether man or animal. The physically alive being has a body of flesh, whether man or animal. The spirit is almost universally reserved for man. Thus an animal is a soul, a living being, that has a body. But man is a soul, a living being, that has a body and a spirit. Thus, when speaking of the human being, soul and spirit can be used interchangeably in most situations, even though, strictly speaking, they are not the same entity.

As near as I can find, of all the 200+ verses in the OT where we find the word for spirit, only in Ecclesiastes 3:21 does it speak of the spirit of the beast. But in considering all of Ecclesiastes 3, I am not certain that in verse 21 that beast is really referring to animals. See for example verse 18 where it refers to [some] children of man as beasts, that is, the wicked. It seems a strange usage.
My view -
Spirit - the part that allows us to communicate with our Creator.
Soul - our unique personality.
 
@ProDeo



They repented because they had been saved by Christ and He gave them repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Peter preached Christ gave repentance as Saviour and that caused them to repent.
You conveniently snipped :

Rom 10:17 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Bah.
 
Back
Top Bottom