The Good News/The Bad News

[GodsGrace]

Sure faith is a gift. It’s not a matter of it being a gift. It’s a matter of accepting the gift.
God desires all men to be saved. Hence, the gift is offered to all.

We were discussing Ephesians 2:8.
It is common knowledge that the gift spoken of is salvation...
not grace and not faith.

Faith is not a gift because that would mean that God has to do everything for you
and YOU contribute nothing.

The N.T. makes it clear that we also must contribute to our salvation.
Faith is generated by us,,,not by God.

God sheds His grace on all because He would want that all be saved.
But not all have faith to be saved.
If faith is a gift, then John Calvin was correct in his idea of monergism.

Faith is the instrument by which we become saved.
God calls us....we respond in faith.

Romans 3:26
for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God justifies the one who h as faith....
He does not give that person the faith,,,but the plan of salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Okay, wondering, being the most patient person I know (and humble to boot!), I will do my best to explain.

The passage you use is about predestination. Predestination, like all of TULIP, is logically tied to Unconditional Election, but is not the same thing. Predestination leads to asking "Well, in predestining people, upon what criteria does God decide who is elect?" Unconditional Election is the answer to this question. And the answer is that God chooses the elect purely according to HIs own purposes and does not consider the quality, characteristics, personality, intelligence, good looks, athleticism, etc - i.e. the condition - of the person. He does not choose the elect based on the condition of the person, thus the "Unconditional" in Unconditional Election. So, yes, the passage you quote is related to Unconditional Election, but the passage does not define it.

All of TULIP is tied to having or not having free will,,,,not unconditional election.

I'm afraid you are incorrect in how you understand UNCONDITIONAL.
It does NOT mean the condition of a person.

It means that God elects people based on NOTHING.....
NO CONDITION is set by Him.

Happily for humanity, God is a just God and h as set for us guidelines if we want to be saved.
He has set CONDITIONS for us to follow.

If we follow those conditions then we can be saved.
It is a merciful and loving and just God that I serve.

Unconditional has nothing to do with the characteristics, personality, intelligence or anything else having to do with a a person.

God is NOT a respecter of persons Romans 2:11 with Him there is no partiality, so we know what you've posted is t rue --- but has nothing to do with
Unconditional Election. And we know that God would have all to be saved ... 1 Timothy 2:4

Here is the paragraph again:
Please answer this: WHAT is God predestinating in this paragraph?



By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Source: John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 21
Paragraph 5

Like much of Reformed Theology, it is an offensive belief; it posits that a person has zero reason to see themselves as deserving God's grace. Something inside of us does not like recognizing we are absolutely unworthy of God's favor. And our natural tendencey when we see another undeserving person being shown favor is to react with "That's not fair!" We somehow think that God owes us all favor, when in actuality He owes none of us anything. Pretty offensive stuff.

If one is a Christian, they are happy to see others come to Christ for the salvation of their souls.
The above is something calvinists like to think about everyone else.
And, yes, calvinism is offensive --- To God.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is interesting. I don't wish to debate this verse as to which Greek scholar is correct as that is beyond my abilities. I just want to note that others use Greek interpretation and grammatical rules to show the opposite as demonstrated below.

MacArthur :
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith ( pistis ) is feminine, while that ( touto ) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text, since if that refers to by grace you have been saved through faith (that is, to the whole statement), the adding of and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God would be redundant, because grace is defined as an unearned act of God. If salvation is of grace, it has to be an undeserved gift of God. Faith is presented as a gift from God in 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, and Acts 3:16.

AND

“And this is not your own doing.” The word “this” must have an antecedent, which would normally be the closest preceding noun. In this case, “this” would refer back to “faith.” Paul is not saying that grace is not our own doing. That would be redundant, because if it were our own doing, it would not be gracious at all. Rather, he says that faith is not our own doing. That does not mean that faith is not found in us; it is found in us. It does not mean that it is someone else’s faith by which we are justified. It is, properly speaking, our faith, for we are the ones who have it, the ones who are exercising it. But it is not our own doing, meaning that we are not the origin of it. It is not something that we have generated by our own power, nor does it originate in our flesh. R.C. Sproul Truths We Confess

Hmmmm.... WHAT IS TRUTH? Maybe the scholars are as biased as us.

Well, I'm not going to study Greek to try to find out (I'm still working on English)

Macarthur does not have DR. before his name.
He is neither a theologian nor a Greek scholar.

It is accepted theology that the gift in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation....
which God prepared from the beginning in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Hospes]

All of TULIP is tied to having or not having free will,,,,not unconditional election.

I'm afraid you are incorrect in how you understand UNCONDITIONAL.
It does NOT mean the condition of a person.

It means that God elects people based on NOTHING.....
NO CONDITION is set by Him.

Happily for humanity, God is a just God and h as set for us guidelines if we want to be saved.
He has set CONDITIONS for us to follow.

If we follow those conditions then we can be saved.
It is a merciful and loving and just God that I serve.

Unconditional has nothing to do with the characteristics, personality, intelligence or anything else having to do with a a person.

God is NOT a respecter of persons Romans 2:11 with Him there is no partiality, so we know what you've posted is t rue --- but has nothing to do with
Unconditional Election. And we know that God would have all to be saved ... 1 Timothy 2:4

Here is the paragraph again:
Please answer this: WHAT is God predestinating in this paragraph?



By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Source: John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 21
Paragraph 5



If one is a Christian, they are happy to see others come to Christ for the salvation of their souls.
The above is something calvinists like to think about everyone else.
And, yes, calvinism is offensive --- To God.

Oh well, I tried. I guess I should have stuck with directing you to Wikipedia for the definition. Though it must make things easier when you have the option of re-defining words.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Macarthur does not have DR. before his name.
He is neither a theologian nor a Greek scholar.

I agree with Hospes. You need to use a dictionary.
Definition of theologian: A theologian is someone who studies the nature of God, religion, and religious beliefs.

To say MacArthur is not a theologian is bewildering.
I would say you are a theologian, definitely more knowledgeable than most.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Hospes
I saw Romans 2:11 mentioned above. I think the meaning of IMPARTIALITY in regards to God is distorted by most people. I have an opinion; curious to see what you think.

Question: In regards to God and IMPARTIALITY, what is your opinion? Assuming God is partial, what things/people does He show partiality to and what is it based upon?

 

[jasonc]

wow ... Thanks for the partial answer. I need you to filter the answer to a digestible quantity. Specifically, please tell me where in the 1 hour recording to look for a statement that shows MacArthur said "God created evil". (Maybe a 5 minute window with the SENTENCE(S) that give credence to your assertion).
Aside: It is difficult to prove a negative, so me stating your allegation is false won't mean much considering that length of the video.

As proof the MacArthur does NOT support your allegation that God created evil I quote from the URL: https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil

Is God Responsible for Evil?​

No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.
John MacArthur

my reformed pastor stated that last night .

 

[Hospes]

Hospes
I saw Romans 2:11 mentioned above. I think the meaning of IMPARTIALITY in regards to God is distorted by most people. I have an opinion; curious to see what you think.

Question: In regards to God and IMPARTIALITY, what is your opinion? Assuming God is partial, what things/people does He show partiality to and what is it based upon?

Thanks for asking. I like the challenge of sorting it out in my own head, especially given that I am not sure I have ever looked at it in any depth. I need to noodle on the verse in context. It does appear the isolated verse can be made mean any number of things.

Back to you later!

 

[Fastfredy0]

I need to noodle on the verse in context.

Well, I am interested in the verse (Romans 2:11), but I am more interested in your thoughts of God's partiality or impartiality in general. (I assume the verse is just about Jews and Gentiles.... that's a minor issue)

Is He partial and if so what determines His partiality and whom or what is He partial to?

That sort of thing.
I have an idea ... but I am open to change (I think).

Impartiality: treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.
(Obviously, God does not treat everyone the same when one only considers effects/outcomes ... perhaps one should concentrate on THE CAUSE)

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

Rajesh, let me try to give some input using a different passage of scripture I think you'll like:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21–23 (ESV)​

Notice that Jesus does not argue with the claims of "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" Given this, I think their claims were true: they really had done "many mighty works" in Jesus' name. By all appearances, they were walking in obedience to the Gospel yet they were ultimately tossed out of God's presence. So even with obedience one may not be saved.

What is Jesus' charge against them? "I never knew you." You see, if a person truly knows Jesus, they will obey. If a person claims to be a believer in Christ yet does lead a life characterized by obedience, then they do not know Him. On the other hand, if they lead a life with all the appearances of obeying Him, they still may not know Him and may still be lost. What is required for salvation is that a person be adopted by God as His child. Obedience will be the "fruit" of that adoption, but it is not a requirement of adoption. God does the adoption, our response is obedience. And even our obedience is a work by Him in and through us. For we are to "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in [us], both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13 (ESV) So even in what we think of as our working out of our salvation, we are to recognize at the bottom of it all is Him working in us to desire and to carry out His will. Do you see that even our obedience is a gift from God, and "not a result of works [i.e. obedience], so that no one may boast"? With St. Augustine, we pray "Give what you command and command what you will."

We are saved by faith alone and such faith will "bring about the obedience of faith" Romans 16:26 (ESV) If our obedience is a requirement of being born again and we provided that critical ingredient, then we have much to boast about in that we brought about our own salvation. Of this I am sure: God saved me, I did not.

Message was simple brother Hospes, yet appears was not well understood. The common element in Goats and Sheep judgment day vision and Matthew 7:21-23 which you cited is /are acts of Loving-kindness. Goats failed to perform acts of loving kindness, and so did the ones condemned in matthew 7:21-23, they also did not perform acts of loving- compassion which is the WILL of God , as explained by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40, Matthew 7:12. God is Love . We were sent on earth to learn to turn away from sin and turn To Love.
All those who did not / will not learn to Love will be rejected on the Last day, for they had not done the will of God.
1John 4:8 Whoever does not Love, does not know God, for God is Love "
I have not come to Christ to be saved, as seems to be a very popular theme with many believers. I have come to Christ to learn from Him, to to do the Will of God, and to Follow Him, no matter what the consequences are. Who is saved who is not, nobody will ever know until the day of judgment, when Jesus makes that call. I wish not to steal His thunder by claiming I'm saved or telling someone else they are saved. Let the Big Man do His job
He says Many are called, but FEW are chosen ( Matthew 22:14). Who are these few, nobody can know, until judgment happens. Everything else is pure speculation.
"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it " ( Jesus in Matthew 16:25)
To me the message of Bible and Christ Jesus is clear as daylight. Only those will be saved on the last day who DID the Will of God vs. their own will.
God bless all of us with His Love and Wisdom ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Oh well, I tried. I guess I should have stuck with directing you to Wikipedia for the definition. Though it must make things easier when you have the option of re-defining words.

What's wrong with you Hospes?
Can't take the truth?

What do you mean "OH WELL"....as if YOU have the truth and no one else does.

Why do you think I need Wikipedia when I have John Calvin stating what it is that YOU believe if you're reformed.

Which word am I redefining and HOW am I redefining it?
Unconditional Election sounds rather harsh, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, that's what the reformed faith teaches.

And you never did reply to my answer.
Can you?

Here it is again:
WHAT is God predestinating in the following teaching by John Calvin,,,
the man you are following.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Chapter 21
Paragraph 5
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
by John Calvin


Perhaps you should stop reading Wikipedia and learn about what you're supposed to believe
in your theological paradigm?

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree with Hospes. You need to use a dictionary.
Definition of theologian: A theologian is someone who studies the nature of God, religion, and religious beliefs.

To say MacArthur is not a theologian is bewildering.
I would say you are a theologian, definitely more knowledgeable than most.

Trust me FF, I'm no theologian.
If you think this, you certainly do not know what a theologian is and what they know.

And a person does NOT learn about a religion from Wikipedia or a Dictionary.
That you and Hospes entertain this idea is rather distressful - especially in view of the
fact that you want to post to others what YOU think Calvinism is --- I suppose, maybe,
you have invented your very own brand of it.

It would be like me turning the evangelical world upside down in doctrine and then
claiming to be an evangelical.

Doesn't work that way.

 

[Hospes]

What do you mean "OH WELL"....as if YOU have the truth and no one else does.

I mean "Oh well, I give up trying to break through your fierce commitment to redefining Unconditional Election in a way that no one else does, even Wikipedia."

Which word am I redefining and HOW am I redefining it?

Unconditional Election. Somehow in your zealous anti-Calvinist paradigm, you tenaciously cling to the notion of predestination being synonymous with Unconditional Election.

And you never did reply to my answer.
Can you?

Here it is again:
WHAT is God predestinating in the following teaching by John Calvin,,,
the man you are following.

God is predestining all people to be elect or reprobate. Somehow you think this is a real question? (I think not; any person that has a rudimentary grasp of English can see what Calvin is asserting.) My guess is it is a "gotcha" question in which you may respond in indignant horror at the notion that the Potter may do as He sees fit with His own pots.

PS -I have to literally fly and will possibly be out of the discussion for a few days. Try to not load me up with too much material to refute.

 

[GodsGrace]

I mean "Oh well, I give up trying to break through your fierce commitment to redefining Unconditional Election in a way that no one else does, even Wikipedia."

Unconditional Election. Somehow in your zealous anti-Calvinist paradigm, you tenaciously cling to the notion of predestination being synonymous with Unconditional Election.

God is predestining all people to be elect or reprobate. Somehow you think this is a real question? (I think not; any person that has a rudimentary grasp of English can see what Calvin is asserting.) My guess is it is a "gotcha" question in which you may respond in indignant horror at the notion that the Potter may do as He sees fit with His own pots.

PS -I have to literally fly and will possibly be out of the discussion for a few days. Try to not load me up with too much material to refute.

What I highlighted above is called Unconditional Election.
Here is the definition from Wikipedia,,,,your favorite source:


Unconditional election (also known as unconditional grace) is a Reformed doctrine relating to predestination that describes the actions and motives of God prior to his creation of the world, when he predestined some people to receive salvation, the elect, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation, for their transgressions of God's law as outlined in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. God made these choices according to his own purposes apart from any conditions or qualities related to those persons.[1]


"He predestined some to receive salvation
these are the elect of God

and the rest He left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment."

IOW,,,,the rest He "passed over", as YOU might like to say, and left them alone to go to hell
through no fault of their own except that God predestined them that way because that's what He wanted.

BTW,,,,I don't do gotcha questions.

You can refute all you want to....
Anyone reading along that has a rudimentary grasp of the English language will see
that my statements are soooooo correct.
And I'll take John Calvin over Wikipedia any day --- even if the description of Unconditional Electtion
was different...which it was not.

Have a good flight.

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

HA...

I kind of like the above post.... but it comes across a bit religious. For example - Jesus did and said only what the Father said and picked up His the cross, but do we really think that there was "No greater joy" than going through what Jesus did at the cross?????

Picking up our cross, our instructions, might not be as bad as His cross, but following the instructions the Lord gives you doesn't just give you "No Greater Joy"!! That is just saying something that sounds good and shows that we really don't know what we are talking about - meaning we really don't know Him like we pretend.

OH Yes - There are times of "NO GREATER JOY", but it is not all like that!!

Perhaps riding a bike is a good comparison. Riding a bike can be great fun, but what if you fall? In those moments you have greater harm because you were going faster when you fell. And what about if you stay on the bike and come to a hill? Then the going gets tough and take a lot of hard work - not so much fun then! And bikes sometimes break down and then you feel a bit stranded. Oh - I suppose the bike gets you where you need to go faster than walking, and the downhill grade on a bike can be fun... you might also get in good shape riding a bike, but it's not all as fantastic as it is sometime made out to be. So perhaps comparing a walk with the Lord to riding a bike is a good comparison, but lets be honest. We do know Him, right? Some times I wonder with some of the things I read.

Jer 20:2 Pashhur had Jeremiah the prophet beaten and put him in the stocks that were at the upper Benjamin Gate, which was by the house of the LORD.

Yeah - Jerimiah must have felt he got on the wrong bike!

Jer 20:7 O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed.
I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me.

Have you never felt that way after doing what the Lord told you??

I remember the first thing He had me doing when I got to know Him, and that was telling people at work about Him. It was awesome, and I saw Him do some amazing things, but they fired me. Just ten minutes before they fired me I found out that someone I prayed for had their wrist healed by the Lord, and He was indeed giving me great joy while I was being told they were firing me, but to make it sound it is all just fantastic is just wrong.

Brother K2Christ , the examples you provided are indeed pertinent and worth pondering on. I thank you for stating those examples ?
The joy of obedience ( and the source of that joy) that I mentioned is explained beautifully ( I guess as always ) by Christ Himself ---where n WHEN does the joy come from, He tells us in clear words-- I would request your attention on these words of Jesus from John 15:10-12
"IF you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. I have told you these things so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Submit the post in respect and love ( both of which I learned from Christ ---he is bringing about a paradigm change in my DNA itself! From judgment, intolerance, greed and even lust--- my apologies for sharing this---He is changing me ( albeit very gradually) and helping me to walk over to Loving compassion, tolerance, benevolence Truth and charity. I do not get offended in a flash as I used to. the desperate desire to chase money is also gradually disppaearing . I bless MOST who reject or hurt me! I am SHOCKED that I even do that! How can that be, I wonder... Answer is simple.... it's not me.... It's Jesus who is doing it through me. BUT my contribution is I surrendered wholeheartedly to Him and His will( after a lot of fierce fight with my ownself and my punishing pride lol!). He is outside of me and inside of me ( through the Spirit) . Where in the entire universe is He not ( Jeremiah 23:24). where can I hide or run from him..... It is then that i realized the only way was..... S.U.R.R.E.N.D.E.R ---- a complete and absolute surrender, and even that my big n bloated ego wouldn't allow!?
Christian walk was never easy as sometimes taught ( Matthew :38 ). It was a walk similar to Christ's walk to the Cross of Calvary. I'm doing a terribly heartbreaking walk brothers, and I suppose many among you as well. Don't wish again and again to keep mentioning the heart-wrenching circumstances I am dealing with, not to speak of an outright rejection of me by my own... family.
BUT this walk is the MOST beautiful n amazing thing that I have ever experienced in my 58 years as a human
I end this post with the words of John the Baptist in John 10:30: "Jesus must increase and I must decrease"
I hope n pray by the time I enter my grave, only HE is left in me..... and I'm completely consumed.
God bless all. I pray and spray love and blessings on all ???

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, isn't Mounce writing that "the entire salvific process" is a gift and that "faith obviously is a part" of the salvific process? Faith being a part of the process and the entire process a gift, then isn't he asserting faith is a gift?

Also, when I read FF Bruce, he is asserting the same as Mounce. Specifcally, that the entire salvific process is a gift, which is in agreement with Reformed Theology.

I realy don't intend to sound pedantic, but you seem to be asserting that faith is not a gift and yet you're quoting two Greek experts that are positing it is a gift. I'm truly confused, so what am I not getting? Am I not understanding your position?

Hospes,

I was dealing with the exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 to demonstrate that both faith and grace, being feminine nouns, cannot refer to the neuter antecedent, touto (that/which). Yes, both faith and grace make up salvation as the gift of grace. However, nowhere in these 2 verses is there anything that teaches irresistible grace.

I urge you to read, "Arminius on the Gift of Salvation."

Please note how the gift of salvation is received:

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13 ESV).​

There is no irresistible salvation, whether by faith or grace, proclaimed in these 2 verses. There cannot be any salvation until a person receives Jesus and that includes believing in his name.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi OzSpen. I'm a bit confused. If I understand you correctly, you are saying faith is not a gift of God. But the Greek scholar you quote, Dr Bill Mounce, writes

When Greek wants to refer back to a general though, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.​

So isn't Mounce asserting that faith is a gift?

Notice what Mounce stated: "the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift." That includes grace and faith but it does not refer to irresistible grace or forced faith.

John 1:12-13 (ESV) state:

What does it mean to believe in "the name" of a person - Jesus?

on his name] The construction ‘to believe on’ is characteristic of S. John: it occurs about 35 times in the Gospel and 3 times in the First Epistle; elsewhere in N.T. about 10 times. It expresses the very strongest belief; motion to and repose on the object of belief. ‘His Name’ is a frequent phrase in Jewish literature, both O.T. and N.T. It is not a mere periphrasis ["a roundabout way of expressing something" (source)]. Names were so often significant, given sometimes by God Himself, that a man’s name told not merely who he was, but what he was: it was an index of character. So ‘the Name of the Lord’ is not a mere periphrasis for ‘the Lord;’ it suggests His attributes and His relations to us as Lord. Perhaps the name of Logos is specially meant here; and the meaning would then be to give one’s entire adhesion to Him as the Incarnate Son, the expression of the Will and Nature of God. Comp. John 3:18, John 20:31 (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Can I ask you this about Eph 2:8

through which is dia means instrument.
I was taught that faith is the instrument Grace is applied.
Does this line up with your understanding, or do you think I was taught wrong?

If faith is the instrument, is it our faith which we received from God, or is it Gods faith imposed upon us, or is it our faith void of Gods interaction. Personally, I lean to the first option.

SB,

One of the great blessings the Reformers taught us was the analogy of faith. We don't interpret any Scripture in isolation. See my explanations at #86 and #92.

Dia pisteos (through faith, v. 8) is as you suggested and A T Robertson summarised so concisely, "'Grace' is God's part, 'faith' ours." This is confirmed in John 1:12 (ESV). The root for both "faith" and "believe" is the same: pisteuo.

There are 4 interesting verses in Acts 16 that help answer your question:

30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized (ESV).​

There is a crucial command in v. 31 that tells us the instrument that brings salvation: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." "Believe" as a command means "[You] believe." So belief/faith comes from "you". I believe. That is made possible to all people because,

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31 ESV).​

He does not state, that "he commands all of the elect to repent" because it is possible for "all people" to repent.

I agree with you that Eph 2:8-9 and John 1:11-12 teach that faith is the instrument that God has made available to all people to accept God's grace. It's obvious to me from Scripture that people have the ability to choose for or against God. This is taught in both OT (Josh 24:14-27 ESV) and NT (John 3:16-18; Rom 10:9 ESV ).

May you have a blessed New Year. It's already 10:13am New Year's Day in Brisbane.

Oz

 

[jerry63935]

To say MacArthur is not a theologian is bewildering.

he is just a man who has studied our faith is not to be in the wisdom of man. but in the power of God . i know lots preachers i have deep respect for. but they are just Men prone to be wrong

 

[OzSpen]

he is just a man who has studied our faith is not to be in the wisdom of man. but in the power of God . i know lots preachers i have deep respect for. but they are just Men prone to be wrong

That's why we need to follow an Acts 17:11 (NIV) version of Christianity: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

If this is what the Berean Jews had to do with Paul's teaching, you and I have no less a responsibility in listening to our preachers, John MacArthur, other radio and TV preachers, and the teachers on forums.net.