PL:
We all know that, in Calvinism, faith is considered to be a gift of God. This is a logical requirement of your belief system, after all, given your understanding of Total Depravity. A very good article refuting the entire concept can be found here:
http://www.scriptureunlocked.com/pdfs/IsFaithaGift.pdf
An audio version - not of the paper itself, but a brief presentation of the ideas found in it - is also available:
http://www.scriptureunlocked.com/audiot ... stered.mp3
As for Ephesias 2, it is very difficult to justify making faith the gift from a grammatical perspective. When we are told "it" is a gift, the word here ("it") is
touto. This is a
neuter pronoun. Against this, the word "faith" (]i]pistews[/i]) is a
feminine noun. The standard rule for pronouns is that they match their antecedant in gender and number. You can't say that "grace" (
charati) is the gift on the same grounds, as it is also feminine. The best answer is that it is the concept of salvation that is the gift. If you want to hold your position, you have to argue that salvation - including grace and faith - are all included in the gift. But, once you start getting that technical, you run into a series of problems that are hard to defend against. Obviously, many good exegetes hold your position. But, grammatically, it is not the only viable one, nor is it the best. It is, in the end, a theologically based position.
Acts 3:16 doesn't help, because the phrase
he pistis he di' autou is more literally translated "the faith [which is] through him" (see the NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.) This is because
dia with the genitive means "through." Even the NASB is a bit misleading here, because the verb "comes" isn't in the Greek. The ESV actually offers the most wooden translation: "the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health." If faith were the gift, Luke would have used the preposition
ek or
apo, which mean "from" and "out of" respectively.
1 Cor 12:9 does not help, because the context is spiritual gifts.
Some are given the gift of faith, and others are given the gifts of healing, etc. So, unless you are going to argue that those who had the gifts of healing (or any other gift), but not the gift of faith, were unsaved, this doesn't help at all.
In Gal. 5:22, faith is presented as the fruit (singular) of the Spirit, along with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, etc. Here, the word "faith" is properly translated "faithfulness," which is precisely why every major translation uses that instead of "faith." I'm sure you can see the difference in the two. The Greek here is
pistis rather than
pistos . . . "faithfulness" rather than "faith."
In Eph. 6:23 is a benediction. What is from God here is love. This love is with faith, brought about through it. This certainly isn't referring to saving faith as the gift of God. Paul is wishing these people a blessing - love with faith.
Heb 12:2 also needs no appeal to the Greek. However, there is no reason to assume that "author" of our faith means that He gave it to us. The context implies that our faith began with Him and His work. He started the whole thing by His life, death, and resurrection. He is also the perfecter of our faith, just as He Himself is perfect.
2 Pet. 1 is more complicated . . . I refer you to the paper linked above in the interest of time. We can walk through it later if you like.
In Rom. 10:17, faith is by hearing the word of God, but I don't see why that means that God gives us faith? We hear the word of God (the offer of salvation), and we accept it as true.
John 10:26-28 does not say that only the sheep have faith, as if it were given to them at that. It says that the Jews did not believe because they were not of the sheep. They were not of the sheep because they had refused the revelation already given to them, and thus had excluded themselves. No problem there . . .
2 Thess is right in that not all have faith. Atheists and non-believers don't have it. That does not say that those who do have it do so because God chose to grant it to them.
I'm actually preparing a lecture on Acts 13:48. The only way this can grammatically refer to election unto belief is if you believe that before these people were already born,
they already had possession of eternal life. That is what the word
tetagmenoi means (had been appointed). There is absolutely no way around that. The actual idea is that these people believed and the status of eternal life was being conferred upon them. It's a very grammatical argument, and I'll spare you the details for time and space.
Phil 1:26 is referring to the priviledge of suffering, primarily. To take faith as a gift is overreading the text.
James 1:17 does say that every gift is from God, but you've not established faith to be a gift.
1 Cor 4:7 refers to ministry in general, including the gifts and even salvation. In other words, these people have done nothing on their own, so they have nothing to brag about. This is far cry from saying that they had received faith, and it does not fit the context of the book or the occasion of its composure.
John 6:65 is in the same vain as discussed with the sheep passage.
And I agree that Arminians have a problem, but I don't view election as based on foreknowledge of faith, but in accordance with foreknowledge of position, as I've already explained.
So, no . . . faith is not a gift. Always fun, though
God bless
