You are wrong in the claim that v.8 is about word order. It is not. It's about connecting the genders of words to determine what goes with what. In v.8, both salvation and gift are feminine genders, while faith is masculine. So the gift is salvation, not faith.
However, the point of v.8 is that salvation is through faith. That means the faith is there first. You can't go 'THROUGH' something unless that something is there.
v.5 clearly equates regeneration with being saved. They go together, proven by the FACT that there are NO instances in the Bible of a saved person who wasn't born again, or a born again person who wasn't saved.
I don't know what that means.
Nope. Eph 2:5 and 8 prove that both salvation and regeneration are THROUGH faith. The faith comes first.
Also demonstrated in 1 Cor 1:21 - God is pleased to save those who believe.
But you see cause and effect where there isn't any.
I can't imagine how or why you say this. When a person believes the gospel promise is WHEN they are saved and born again. Maybe you didn't read my post careful enough.
FreeGrace2: God doesn't give spiritual birth to unbelievers. Calvinists don't believe that. And they don't have any verse that supports their claim.
They have infected evangelicals with false doctrines.
I don't care what Calvin wrote. I'm going on what pastors who are reformed claim.
Why would I think or claim he said or wrote that anyway? WHEN a person believes the gospel promise, they are believers, and God regenerates them.
Faith before salvation/regeneration.
WillB said:
The point at issue which you raised is about faith and salvation in which you claim that faith precedes salvation.
FreeGrace2: The Bible teaches that faith precedes salvation.
Eph 2:5 is the verse that equates "being made alive" or regeneration, with being saved. They are synonymous.
Then, in v.8 Paul wrote that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. That word proves that faith precedes salvation.
WB: Your argument on this point in relation to verse 8 is the word order but if you were being consistent you would have to apply that very same principle and say that verse 5 ‘proves’ being saved comes before faith …and that of course would not make sense.
Click to expand...
FreeGrace2:
You are wrong in the claim that v.8 is about word order. It is not. It's about connecting the genders of words to determine what goes with what. In v.8, both salvation and gift are feminine genders, while faith is masculine. So the gift is salvation, not faith.
WB: You’ve misunderstood me again as I am not the one arguing about the order of words to support a view – it is you who is doing that ….as your very own words and the manner in which you have ordered them make that point clear.
FreeGrace2: However, the point of v.8 is that salvation is through faith. That means the faith is there first. You can't go 'THROUGH' something unless that something is there.
WB: The point I’m making – and which is made by others (and you have agreed that faith is a gift of God – unless you’ve changed your mind) – is that the moment a person has been gifted faith it automatically follows in that instant that he is saved.
You don’t agree. So do tell me – and others following this thread – WHEN salvation comes to the person gifted with faith? 1 day later? 7 days later? 1 year later? WHEN? And what facts and evidence can you produce to support your view?
As you seem determined to reject my exposition of Scripture you may just want to consider the following from the highly respected source:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/which-comes-first-in-the-ordo-salutis-faith-or-regeneration
v.5 clearly equates regeneration with being saved. They go together, proven by the FACT that there are NO instances in the Bible of a saved person who wasn't born again, or a born again person who wasn't saved.
So when we’re thinking about it, we realize that, logically, regeneration grounds our faith.
I don't know what that means.
But when we are regenerated, we come to believe.
Nope. Eph 2:5 and 8 prove that both salvation and regeneration are THROUGH faith. The faith comes first.
Also demonstrated in 1 Cor 1:21 - God is pleased to save those who believe.
So there is not a gap that we would be able to detect between being born again and coming to believe.
But you see cause and effect where there isn't any.
WB: When a Christian evangelizes to an unregenerate person there are two possible outcomes.
FreeGrace2: Of course.
WB: First, the unregenerate person can reject the message - and remain unregenerate i.e. spiritually dead.
Or Second, the unregenerate person can believe the content of the message and have faith in Jesus Christ in which case he is no longer spiritually dead ....he's been made alive i.e. born again - and is saved which is the consequence of the free gift of faith by God to that person.
FreeGrace2: Then what's the argument here? I'm with you all the way. It is WHEN a person believes the gospel promise that they are saved AND born again.
WB: That’s exactly the very point I’ve been arguing FOR and which you’ve been arguing AGAINST when you say “faith precedes salvation.”!!!!!
Click to expand...
I can't imagine how or why you say this. When a person believes the gospel promise is WHEN they are saved and born again. Maybe you didn't read my post careful enough.
FreeGrace2: God doesn't give spiritual birth to unbelievers. Calvinists don't believe that. And they don't have any verse that supports their claim.
WB: You’ve got a bee in your bonnet about Calvinists for some reason.
They have infected evangelicals with false doctrines.
Show me precisely where in the writings of Calvin he asserts God gives “spiritual birth to unbelievers.”
I don't care what Calvin wrote. I'm going on what pastors who are reformed claim.
Why would I think or claim he said or wrote that anyway? WHEN a person believes the gospel promise, they are believers, and God regenerates them.
Faith before salvation/regeneration.
WB: Your entire argument has inconsistencies and contradictions and it seems to me the reason behind this is your clear antipathy for your perceived view of what Calvin and ‘Calvinists’ believe. But when asked to quote specific examples you cannot do so and make the ‘defense’ of placing your faith in “what pastors who are reformed claim.”
As for me, I choose to not put my faith in any humans knowing too well the default to err and so I put my faith in God inspired Scripture.
So, I think we’ll call it a day as you are, it seems, wedded to your dogmatic view.