What is the gift?

In Ephesians we read:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Paul is contrasting a gift which is freely given with works which is what is earned. When mentioning gift, what is Paul referring to? The "gift of God" is referring back to the word "this" which refers back to words in the preceding phrase. The options as I see it are:

1. Grace
2. Salvation
3. Faith
4. The entire clause

I don't read Greek so can only offer some preliminaries on the language issues, but below I will show parallels to this elsewhere in Paul's writing.

The nouns in Greek are

• gift: doron (neuter);
• grace: charis (feminine); and
• faith: pistis (feminine).

The pronoun "this" is touto (neuter) here. The verb "saved" is sozo.

Options 3 and 4 above are often proposed as the solution. The word "this" and the word "faith" are not in the same gender but I am told that this doesn't necessary exclude option 3.

There are several verses in which Paul uses similar phraseology. Elsewhere in Ephesians he writes:

Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. (Ephesians 3:7)

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Ephesians 4:7)

And in Romans he also mentions:

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,... (Romans 3:22-24).

The parallels in Ephesians and Romans associate the gift with grace. Comparing these parallels with our passage it would be reasonable to conclude that the gift in Ephesians 2 refers to God's grace.

Earlier is Ephesians Paul writes,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

and in our passage he also says,

For by grace you have been saved through faith.

Clearly associating grace with salvation.

Now consider Paul in Romans,

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:... (Romans 4:3-6).

Paul says that wages are not a gift, but that faith is counted as righteousness apart from works. As per Paul, faith is often contrasted with works. Works result in wages not a gift. But faith results in a gift. The same contrast is in Ephesians. By grace you have obtained salvation. And this is by faith, not as a result of works. The faith here is contrasted with works as it is elsewhere in Paul. So Paul frequently says that grace is a gift and he frequently contrasts faith with works and here in Ephesians he pulls both these concepts together. Grace is a gift; and it comes by faith not works. But somehow because these words all appear together an argument is made that faith is a gift. However it doesn't fit the contrast of the passage and it doesn't fit with how Paul writes elsewhere.

Faith and works

Faith is contrasted with works when we suppose that somehow our behaviour merits God's grace. It doesn't. But to suppose that what we do does not otherwise matter is false. God saved us to do good works. The work we are to do is either general commands (eg. show hospitality) or specific tasks that God has for us. This is why James says that he shows his faith by the works he does (Jam 2:18). His works are not salvific, but they demonstrate his salvation. We must not think works are unimportant, or optional for the Christian. Dallas Willard writes in The Spirit of the Disciplines.

We have simply let our thinking fall into the grip of a false opposition of grace to "works" that was caused by a mistaken association of works with "merit". And history has only made things worse. It has built a wall between faith and grace, and what we actually do. Of course we know there must be some connection between grace and life, but we can't seem to make it intelligible to ourselves.

In fact, to not do the good works we are commanded to do is disobedience. Obedience is a necessary component of the Christian walk. Redeemed men cannot walk in disobedience. To walk in disobedience is to not be included in the elect. But to try and earn our salvation by doing good works is a failure. We cannot be completely righteous and and righteous acts do not atone for our sin. We need righteousness imputed to us. As John says, Jesus is the atonement for our sins yet,

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1Jo 2:4-6)

Lest this seem impossible, God gives us grace, and grace comes before obedience. God delivered the Israelites from slavery before they were given the Law. We receive Christ's salvation before we are to walk in obedience to him. But just as many died in the desert because of disobedience, so we should also tread carefully lest we be wanting (1Co 10:12; Eph 5).

The difference between the old and new covenant

Christianity sees itself as a continuation of what God was doing with the Jewish people. Christianity started due to Christ. Although it is seen this way, it did not start at the time of the incarnation or resurrection of Christ. We are the descendants of Abraham by faith. Christianity in a sense is at least as old as Abraham and therefore as old as Judaism. Further we see God's plan for a redeemer in Genesis 3 so the plan of Christianity dates from at least the Fall, and an argument can be made for the time of creation.

So how does the new covenant we have in Christ differ from the old covenant of Moses?

We live in the age of grace and not the age of the law, but this is not the difference. Paul states that the law was given to show the transgression. The Israelites were unable to keep it.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass (Romans 5:20)

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made (Galatians 3:19)

We live post resurrection but this is not the difference. We are saved thru the blood of Christ, but then so were the patriarchs. All men are saved thru Jesus, even those who lived before his death and resurrection. The blood of bulls and goats was unable to atone for sin (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus blood however can atone for any man:

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)

We live by faith but this is not the difference. Abraham was justified by faith and this before the Mosaic Law. Habakkuk tells us that the just shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4). Faith was the criteria for salvation even under the Mosaic Law. Of course since the time of Christ we are aware of who our salvation is thru.

The change is power. We have been given the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to follow God. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke of this during the age of Law.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33)

And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:38-40)

And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20; see also 36:26-27).

Hebrews confirms this

This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds (Hebrews 10:16).

The new covenant is marked in time by the death and resurrection of Jesus. And this event is imperative to our salvation: both before and after the incarnation. This is the central event of the Christian faith. But the change in covenant is not the age of grace, nor the fact that salvation is thru Jesus, nor the necessity of faith: these were and continue to be fundamental to salvation. The new covenant is a new heart, an ability to know and live these things by the power of God's Spirit whom he gives without limit (John 3:34).

A market for abortions

I would question the veracity of this article but she is acknowledging her own despicable activities. Not only did she make her living through the death of innocents, to maximise her profits she encouraged people create life solely to destroy it.

“We had a goal of 3-5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18, because we all work on a straight commission inside the abortion industry,” she said. With every customer, Everett became a little richer.

But in order to reach her financial goal, Everett said she first had to create a “market for abortions.”

And maximising pregnancy means encouraging promiscuity from a young age.

“My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on.”

Not only is her occupation predicated on sin, its intent was to cause people to sin; something Jesus condemns with strong words,

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat 18:6)

Fortunately she responded to God's intervention in her life.

My life changed when I came to know the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ in 1983.

Horrendous destruction had been done, but we worship a God of immense grace.

Masculine Christianity

John Piper says this about masculinity within the church,

When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here's what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Here Piper recommends that to have godly leadership that protects and provides for the church the men need to have

1. tender-hearted strength
2. contrite courage
3. risk-taking decisiveness
4. readiness to sacrifice

Food for thought. Not certain these are strong characteristics in me. Reassuringly Piper affirms such things are only obtainable thru God's grace.

A very clumsy servant

I found Watchman Nee's analogy of the clumsy servant a useful analogy to understand Romans 7. Nee states that Romans 6 is about the freedom from sin and Romans 7 about freedom from the Law. He also discusses the analogies Paul uses concerning these things: Master and slave with regard to sin, and husband and wife with regard to the Law. I have read the chapter, but not the book (yet). Nevertheless, I found the analogy helpful.

Hat tip: Alan Haughton.

From Chapter 9: The Meaning and Value of Romans Seven. The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee (Nee Tao Shu).

What The Law Teaches

Many Christians are suddenly launched into the experience of Romans 7 and they do not know why. They fancy Romans 6 is quite enough. Having grasped that, they think there can be no more question of failure, and then to their utmost surprise they suddenly find themselves in Romans 7. What is the explanation?

Prevenient grace and freedom

An interesting conversation was carried out in the comments of a recent post which I followed with some interest. It was my most commented post thus far.

Starwind asked Robert a couple of questions (which he asked in several ways thru-out the comments)

1. If prevenient grace has enabled salvific "importances" (e.g. trust, obedience, humility, etc.) in the spirit as necessary to enable a faith response, but not sufficiently to prevent resistance and regardless the spirit resists and chooses disbelief based on non-salvific "importances", then what are those non-salvific "importances" upon which resistance was decided and why don't believers likewise sucumb to their insufficiencies and resist faith?
2. If necessary prevenient grace is regardless not sufficient, from whence comes the sufficiency that chooses faith?

Here are some initial thoughts, though I think answering by analogy is more helpful to comprehension than answering thru logical syllogisms. The questions are difficult for me to give a straightforward answer to because I think they contain assumptions that the Arminian may deny.

My understanding of prevenient grace (though I have not studied it, so perhaps my perspective on prevenient grace!) is that because of our fallen nature humans would not choose God even though they have some freedom of choice. But God is turning the hearts (will and desires) of men back to himself. While this may entail an enabling on God's behalf, I see it more as a wooing. And this is not limited to some men, God woos all men while they are alive (mostly).

Thus the focus is not on how we are able to follow God, rather will we choose to follow God. So perhaps God's prevenient grace is (logically) sufficient to be able to make God following choices it is not (logically) sufficient to become saved. Similarly working legs in a live adult are sufficient to be able to run, but a not sufficient to choose to go for a run.

Because we are talking about resisting God, I do not think the term "sufficient" helpful.

When a man chooses to follow God he is responding to God, but the salvation event comes from God, not from the man, nor does the man contribute to his salvation in any meaningful manner.

So the statement "prevenient grace has enabled salvific "importances" necessary to enable a faith response, but not sufficiently to prevent resistance" mixes 2 different concepts. It implies that God's grace is measured. It suggests that more prevenient grace would mean that man is unable to resist. I claim that grace is always able to be resisted. The nature of love, and wooing is that no amount of them can prevent resistance.

To the second part of the question, the non-salvific importances. I take this to mean things that man takes into consideration for salvation but do not indeed save him. In choosing God I think many things affect man's choice. How strongly God woos him, the examples of godly people in his life, the temptation to sin.

Our desires compete between long term pleasure and short term pleasure. Sin and righteousness. Yielding to temptation depends on degree of perceived pleasure, previous yielding, our resistance, our requests to God to help us, tiredness, knowledge of consequences, past experiences. All these feed into our decision to follow God, or not. But because men love wickedness, many choose to reject God.

So what is it specifically within our spirit that means 2 men with similar inputs choose opposite paths?

I see nothing deeper than our will. Our choice to obey righteousness or wickedness. Nothing compels us. This is part of the imago Dei in us. In the same kind of way that God can make free, non-necessary choices, so can we. God can create, or not create. And he could have created a variety of worlds, all of which are good. This freedom that exists within God he imparts to us.

Best Friday

On this good, indeed the best of Fridays, we remember the darkness of the cross; the great evil of the crucifixion. Yet in this evil world that Adam made so, only thru the evil of men could our justification come.

This hymn captures the centrality of the cross to history, in fact the unimportance of all other things in comparison. And it well describes the deep love of Christ for us. It was penned by Isaac Watts, a prolific hymn writer. I was not familiar with the fourth verse.

Jesus you did not deserve the suffering you endured. We thank you that you have delivered us from death. You are our Lord and we gladly say so. Help us offer you our souls, our lives, our all!

When I survey the wondrous cross

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Walk the (grace) line

I intermittently watched the movie Walk the Line recently. It is about Johnny Cash (1932–2003). I did not know that much about him other than he was a Christian and I have heard a few of his songs.

I am cautious about how much one can rely on a movie for biography; at times "artistic licence" seems to be a euphemism for "flagrantly disingenuous." Nevertheless, it told of his his addiction to (prescription) drugs and possibly alcohol; and his marriage break-up due to this and possibly his infidelity.

He subsequently recovered from his addictions and also married singer June Carter. He remained married to her until her death 35 years later.

The story reminded me of a prayer by a fellow parishioner. His own marriage had dissolved many years ago following his indiscretions. He subsequently remarried. He apparently prayed a few years ago during an open prayer meeting something along the lines of, "Lord, thank you that you are a God of second chances."

These are excellent examples of God's grace in people's lives. The God we serve is a God of redemption, of the returning prodigal, of mercy and goodness toward a race of sinners; a God of second chances.

As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live;... (Ezekiel 33)