Tag: Enjoying God Ministries

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (IV)

This is my fourth post in response to an essay written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/.  As noted before, this article was sent to me by my dear Calvinist friend Colleen who believes that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Eph 2:8-9

  • For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one should boast.

Mr. Storms puts forth an argument that because of word gender, the gift referred to in this passage can’t be faith or grace but is instead, “salvation in its totalality, a salvation that flows out of God’s grace and becomes ours through faith.”  I emphatically agree – By His grace, God’s free gift to us is salvation which we obtain through faith.  Amen, brother – sing it!

However, Mr. Storms derives the following statements from this passage:

  • Salvation is a gift of God to his elect
  • Faith is as much a gift as any and every other aspect of salvation

Because I lack Greek knowledge and the structure of language, I feel at a disadvantage.  To that end, it is somewhat difficult and awkward to respond.  However, as I look at various translations (KJ, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc), it is apparent that none of them draw out these Calvinistic thoughts.  Why didn’t any of these Bible translators include the Calvinism?  Could it be that these Bible translators didn’t see the Calvinism inherent within the passage?

The NIV punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six segments.  I don’t know if that’s significant or not, but it’s an easy way to look at these verses.

  • For it is by grace you have been saved.  This is a demonstrative statement without ambiguity.  We are saved by grace.  The author doesn’t say we are saved by grace AND faith.
  • Through faith.  My trusty Webster’s Dictionary tells me that the word “through” is not only a preposition, it is also a “function word” used to indicate any number of things such as movement, time, means, completion, exhaustion, as well as to indicate acceptance or approval.  Could it be that God’s “approved way” of us receiving His grace (the free gift of salvation) is through faith?  There’s no indication here that God gives faith to some and withholds faith from others.  The best definition of the word ‘faith’ that I know of comes from Heb 11:1 which says, “ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
  • And this not from yourselves. Notice that the author uses the singular word “this” and not the plural word “these”.  I believe that the author is referring only to grace here.
  • It is the gift of God.  Again, notice that the author uses the singular word “it” and not the plural word “they”.  This would again seem to indicate that only one thought – in this case, grace, is being referenced.
  • Not by works. Self-explanatory – good deeds won’t cut it.
  • So that no one can boast.  Self-explanatory so shut-up about how nifty you think you are.

In conclusion, Eph 2:8-9 does not appear to support Calvinist thought that God chooses (elects) some for salvation.  These verses don’t support the notion that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others.  Rather – what seems self-evident from a simple reading of the passage is:

We’re saved by grace.

We’re saved by grace through faith.

Put another way, we’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Does 2 Peter 1:1 Support Calvinism Afterall?

This is my third response to a Sam Stones essay, Faith and Repentance (http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/). Mr Storms claims that the phrase “have received” is more accurately interpreted as “to obtain by lot”.  Lacking any Greek knowledge and seeking clarity on this subject, I asked Pete Parker, a pastor and friend at Woodcrest Church in Eagan MN, to apply some of his Greek knowledge and understanding.  With Pete’s permission, here’s an abridged email exchange:

Dear Pete,

I hope that you can help with a Greek question I have on 2 Pet 1:1 which reads: “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

My question pertains to whether the phrase “have received” is more accurately translated “to obtain by lot”.  Does the difficulty of translating Greek to English leave the English reader lacking the true meaning of what the author intended?  A Calvinist friend claims this verse actually helps to justify and strengthen Calvinist belief in election wherein salvation is because of Him who calls (Rom 9:11).  However, you being a Calvinist, I’m guessing you already know that!

Thanks,

Bob

Dear Bob,

I did a little study this morning and I would have to agree that most references I’ve checked would render the phrase, “have received a faith” to be best translated, “to receive by lot or divine will.” (Luke 1:9; John 19:24; Acts 1:17).  Lot casting was a way in which God could providentially control earthly circumstances to reveal His will.  To receive by lot or divine will seems to infer:

  • Something not attained by personal effort.
  • Something not attained by personal skill.
  • Something not attained by personal worthiness.
  • Something that came purely from God.

As you can imagine, Calvinists really like this verse!

While the majority of the “language experts” agree that the Greek phrase is best rendered “to receive by lot or divine will”, I also tend to trust the various translators – who interestingly enough don’t use the phrase “receive by lot or divine will” in any translations.  Perhaps that phrase doesn’t convey the main point of the verse – Peter wanting his readers to know that their faith was as precious as his was.

I also wonder if the use of this Greek verb primarily emphasizes that this precious faith is a “free gift” from God that we cannot earn more than secondarily emphasizing that God gives it out by divine will.  Perhaps it’s best to interpret the whole “casting of lots” idea as a visual way to determine God’s will on a subject.  I sense God allowed the practice of casting lots to show the people His will on a subject in that it wasn’t the luck of the draw but God who controlled how the draw turned out.

Pete

Dear Pete,

I appreciate your time and effort.  Yes, no doubt Calvinists really like 2 Pet 1:1 and those I meet on the “battlefield” (actually, we write on each other’s blogs) occasionally bring up Greek or Hebrew words and interpretation.  Of course, I’m at a distinct disadvantage here.  Nevertheless, I maintain that one literally has to “have faith” in whatever translation they’re using (KJ, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc) and believe that those translators had a solid understanding of vocabulary, nuance of the language and customs of the day to adequately translate our modern Bible versions.

Your finding that “have received a faith” is best translated “to receive by lot or divine will” is, well, troubling to one with open theistic tendencies.  Sam Storms uses the same references you noted.  Still, I find it difficult to believe that those references support the notion that 1 Pet 1:1 is best interpreted “to receive by lot or divine will”.  I guess I don’t see the connection between receiving by lot or divine will and:

  • High Priests use Tarot cards (I just made that up) to determine who sits in the “big chair” (Luke 1:9).
  • “Rolling dice” to determine whether Matthais or Barnabus would replace Judas as an apostle (Acts 1:17).
  • Guards “flip a coin” to determine who gets Jesus’ clothes after He was crucified (John 19:24).

I don’t doubt that those things happened – they’re recorded events in the Bible after all.  However, I don’t interpret those things as God actually applying His will in those events – well, except for Jesus’ clothing as that was the fulfillment of prophesy.  Anyway, I’ve always thought God wanted none to perish and all to come to repentance – if only I could actually find a verse to support that concept!  Well, must tarry forth.  Thanks, again, Pete.  I appreciate your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Bob

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (II)

This is my second post in response to an essay entitled Faith and Repentance written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/.  This article was sent to me by my dear friend and ardent Calvinist Colleen in support of her contention that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Mr. Storms references 2 Pet 1:1 as another verse that speaks to the issue of faith as a gift of God.  The verse reads;

  • “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Storms states that the Greek word translated “have received” is related to a verb that means “to obtain by lot” and states, “Thus, faith is removed from the realm of human free will and placed in its proper perspective as having originated in the sovereign and altogether gracious will of God. For it is not by chance or the luck of the draw that some come to saving faith, but by virtue of the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

That got me to thinking – how do various versions of the Bible prior to the ESV and NIV translate 2 Peter 1:1?

  • KJ (1611) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • ASV (1901) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • RSV (1952) Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
  • NASB (1971) Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
  • NIV (1978) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
  • ESV (2001) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

That then begs the question, what is the definition of the word “obtain’?  For that, I look to my trusty Webster Dictionary which says:

  • To hold on to
  • To gain or attain usually by planned action or effort

And, what does my trusty Webster Dictionary say is the meaning of the word “received”?

  • To come into possession of
  • To acquire

One obtaining salvation by accepting Christ as their savior appears to be another way to say that as soon as you accept Christ as your savior, you have received salvation.  It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that the original Greek probably does support both “have received” and “have obtained” as there doesn’t appear to be a significant difference between the applications of these words.

Regrettably for Mr. Storms’ argument, there is no implication with this verse that it is God who is doing the “bidding” (pun intended because I was looking for something involving gambling) and determining who will be saved and who will be damned.  So, what then is the reason to believe that 2 Peter 1:1 means anything other than the Gentiles had received the same faith as the apostles?  What am I missing?  More importantly, what are Greek scholars and Bible translators missing for surely, if Mr. Storms is correct, the NIV he quoted from (or any other version for that matter) would have been written to include this Calvinist concept.

I can’t help but conclude that Mr. Storms is guilty of twisting the clear intent of this verse to better support Calvinism.  Mr Storms, there’s no reason to alter, add to, or otherwise interpose the meaning of this verse.  If you wish, I’d be happy to provide you with verses I find troublesome for Calvinistic interpretation.  2 Peter 1:1, however, does not appear to be a verse supporting Calvinistic arguments.