9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Verse nine emphasizes the point of verse eight—that God saves us by faith, not works.
9 not of works,
God does not save people by their “works” (Ro 3:20, 28; 4:4, 5; 11:6; Ga 2:16; 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 3:5). Works is any kind of human effort to gain salvation. Therefore, faith is something other than works. Faith is a non-meritorious system of action.
lest anyone should boast.
Because God does not save us by works, we cannot brag that we saved ourselves by what we do. If we “boast,” we diminish what Christ did on the cross. He did it all; all to Him we owe. A “boast” is tantamount to giving self the glory for obtaining salvation: “I have been a good person. I have done many things for God.”
PRINCIPLE:
Works glorifies man; grace glorifies God.
APPLICATION:
Grace and works are polar opposites. Because God did not save us by good works, we cannot lose our salvation by bad works. Grace leaves us with no contribution of our own. Grace is what God does, so He gets the glory. If He gets the glory, then we cannot get the glory. We cannot brag that we achieved salvation by works, because Christ did all the work. He gets the glory.
Hi Grant are any of the 5 points of calvanism biblical? “P” — they believe in eternal security but it seems to be based upon doing good works consistently or continually? Calvanism or tulip seems to be unbiblical per their explanatiobs and beliefs and that man has no free will “I”. And to swy that Christ died only for the elect instead of for everybody (Jhn 3:16) is a distortion of Grace. Is 5 point calvanism heresy then? Do you have any teachings on this? Any thoughts thank you
Scott, You are right about perseverance of the saints.
Article copied and pasted: The Teaching that Faith is the Gift of God:
This teaching is based on a wrong interpretation of Ephesians 2:8–9 which says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” Many Reformed men wrongly conclude that the pronoun “it” refers to “faith.” What Paul is really teaching is that SALVATION is the gift of God. The IFCA Doctrinal Statement is accurate and clear: “We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Salvation is the gift; faith is the “hand of the heart” that reaches out and receives the gift which God offers.
The fact that SALVATION (ETERNAL LIFE, RIGHTEOUSNESS) is the gift of God is taught repeatedly throughout the New Testament (see John 4:10; Rom. 5:15,16,17; 6:23). In the New Testament the word “GIFT” never refers to saving faith, though we certainly recognize that apart from God’s mercy and gracious enabling and enlightenment, saving faith could not be exercised (John 6:44,65; Matt. 11:27; 16:16–17; Acts 16:14; etc.).
The teaching that faith is the gift of God has some very practical implications and it will affect the way a person understands the gospel and how a person presents the gospel. If faith is the gift of God, then how do I get this gift? What must I do? WHAT MUST I DO TO BELIEVE? How can I get this gift from God? First option: Do I do nothing and hope that God will sovereignly bestow it upon me? Do I do nothing and hope that I am one of God’s elect?
My comment is, (John 3:16) “whosoever believes” means that we have to make a choice(free will) to believe the Gospel. (Romans 1:20) so that people are without excuse; would suggest that we have to make a choice to trust in the cross for forgiveness of sins. If the “gift” in ephesians 2:8-9 is faith then that would seem to negate free will and john 3:16.
So pertaining to (“though we certainly recognize that apart from God’s mercy and gracious enabling and enlightenment, saving faith could not be exercised (John 6:44,65; Matt. 11:27; 16:16–17; Acts 16:14; etc.)”) how does this enabling fit in to free will. Does it mean that God draws us to enlightenment of the truth of the cross based on his foreknowledge of us being one of the elect enabling us to trust in the cross for salvation? Thanks
Scott, this is exactly the point of the doctrine of concursus that I spoke of earlier in posts with you.