I am sorry I have not had a new post of for several months. It has been a mix of life being very busy and also not really having anything new to post about. I try not to post unless I have something I feel worth sharing and that has not been talked about (much) anywhere else.
In this post I want to talk more about the Protestant favorite proof text, Ephesians 2:8-9. I have talked about this text before (HERE) on how to most effectively interpret it, on its face, without having to complicate the discussion. As a recap, simply put, when Paul says "not of works so that no one may boast," we can do a simple substitution to see what "works" means here: Paul cannot mean "sinful works" here, because sinful works do not save and don't allow anyone to legitimately boast. Paul cannot mean "good works" here because if someone can do good works they they should be saved and they should be able to boast, so there is no reason for Paul to attack good works. Paul cannot mean "works inspired by the Holy Spirit," because Paul would not denigrate the work of the Holy Spirit nor would Paul say in the same breath "you are saved by faith inspired by the Holy Spirit but are not saved by works inspired by the Holy Spirit," and thus we must also rule out that meaning. This leaves us with logically only one possible reading, that the "works" here are neutral, or only perceived to be good, or were only good under certain circumstances, and these would be "works of the law," such as circumcision, kosher, and Sabbath keeping. These "ceremonial works" were being used by the Jews to "boast" that they were better than the Gentiles, as proof that God loved them more by making them be born as Jewish. The Jews didn't say they earned it, but rather than they were privliged to be born Jewish. This fits precisely with the context, of Eph 2:11-22, which Protestants intentionally ignore. The whole "chapter" of Ephesians 2 is actually only about eight sentences long, so basically two short paragraphs, so it is disingenuous for Protestant Biblical Scholars to take only one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore the context. This paragraph you just read you made sure to read it all so you would see my message, without taking me out of context.
This takes me to the new information I would like to share. I have talked with Protestants who say that in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says salvation/faith is a "gift" from God, that this means it was not given because of anything you did. Protestants say gifts cannot be merited nor earned. Protestants say gifts cannot be given through the sacraments. As with most of Protestant "theology," it sounds good when presented but is not actually based on Scripture. Let's consider how the Bible uses the term "gift" to see that this Protestant claim is at the very least unsubstantiated. The Greek word for "gift" (doron see HERE) is used about 19 times in the New Testament and about 150 times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). The term is overwhelmingly used to refer to sacrificial animals offered as "gifts" given to God. What about giving a sacrifice to God suggests that God does not deserve that gift? When the wise men brought Jesus a "gift" of gold (Mat 2:11), surely we only give gold to someone who deserves it? The connotation is overwhelmingly that when a person gives a "gift" they are expecting to receive some benefit from it, whether it is to appease God or to win some favor. In Matthew 8:4, Jesus tells a healed man to "go offer the gift that Moses commanded," which is an animal sacrifice at the Temple, as if to say God did merit the gift of thanksgiving for healing the man. Other than that kind of evidence, whether the person or God "merits" the gift is not really ever addressed; it simply really isn't the focus. Paul uses this specific term "gift" only once, as far as I can tell, so it wasn't really a "theme" term he used often.
Some interesting verses in the "deuterocanonical books" are also worth looking at. In Tobit 2:14, Anna does a good job at her task, so her happy customers give her not only wages but also a goat as a gift on top of that. We would not say the gift was absolutely free and no relation to her job. Basically like giving a tip at a restaurant, it is a gift but it is tied to the service as well. And in 2nd Maccabees 15:16, we read: "Then Jeremiah gave Judas a gold sword, saying: This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies." We see Judas was found 'worthy' to fight on God's behalf, receiving the "gift of God" as this sword, for him to use properly.
A slightly different term "dorea" (HERE) which comes from the Greek word doron is found in Eph 3:7 where Paul speaks of "the gift of God's grace," which would suggest it is basically equivalent to doron. Yet when we look we see dorea found in Acts 2:38, where Peter famously says: "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This text seems to link the sacraments directly to getting a gift from God! This would directly refute the Protestant thesis on its face! And in Acts 8:17-20, Peter says the "gift of God" is given through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Again, this would seem to refute the Protestant claim. Similarly, if we grant that Hebrews 6:4-6 is speaking of the Eucharist when it says "tasted the heavenly gift," it also shows you can abuse or lose the gift of God. In Daniel 2:6, the king is willing to give "gifts" to anyone who can interpret his mysterious dream, which suggests a meriting of sorts, even if they don't strictly merit it.
While I'm sure much more in depth analysis can be done, I think it has been shown clearly that the Protestant side often makes too many assumptions that aren't in the text, or not sufficiently proven, and even contradicted by how the Bible uses the term elsewhere. It is absolutely possible to have done something to be worthy of a gift, including receiving the Sacraments.
In this post I want to talk more about the Protestant favorite proof text, Ephesians 2:8-9. I have talked about this text before (HERE) on how to most effectively interpret it, on its face, without having to complicate the discussion. As a recap, simply put, when Paul says "not of works so that no one may boast," we can do a simple substitution to see what "works" means here: Paul cannot mean "sinful works" here, because sinful works do not save and don't allow anyone to legitimately boast. Paul cannot mean "good works" here because if someone can do good works they they should be saved and they should be able to boast, so there is no reason for Paul to attack good works. Paul cannot mean "works inspired by the Holy Spirit," because Paul would not denigrate the work of the Holy Spirit nor would Paul say in the same breath "you are saved by faith inspired by the Holy Spirit but are not saved by works inspired by the Holy Spirit," and thus we must also rule out that meaning. This leaves us with logically only one possible reading, that the "works" here are neutral, or only perceived to be good, or were only good under certain circumstances, and these would be "works of the law," such as circumcision, kosher, and Sabbath keeping. These "ceremonial works" were being used by the Jews to "boast" that they were better than the Gentiles, as proof that God loved them more by making them be born as Jewish. The Jews didn't say they earned it, but rather than they were privliged to be born Jewish. This fits precisely with the context, of Eph 2:11-22, which Protestants intentionally ignore. The whole "chapter" of Ephesians 2 is actually only about eight sentences long, so basically two short paragraphs, so it is disingenuous for Protestant Biblical Scholars to take only one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore the context. This paragraph you just read you made sure to read it all so you would see my message, without taking me out of context.
This takes me to the new information I would like to share. I have talked with Protestants who say that in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says salvation/faith is a "gift" from God, that this means it was not given because of anything you did. Protestants say gifts cannot be merited nor earned. Protestants say gifts cannot be given through the sacraments. As with most of Protestant "theology," it sounds good when presented but is not actually based on Scripture. Let's consider how the Bible uses the term "gift" to see that this Protestant claim is at the very least unsubstantiated. The Greek word for "gift" (doron see HERE) is used about 19 times in the New Testament and about 150 times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). The term is overwhelmingly used to refer to sacrificial animals offered as "gifts" given to God. What about giving a sacrifice to God suggests that God does not deserve that gift? When the wise men brought Jesus a "gift" of gold (Mat 2:11), surely we only give gold to someone who deserves it? The connotation is overwhelmingly that when a person gives a "gift" they are expecting to receive some benefit from it, whether it is to appease God or to win some favor. In Matthew 8:4, Jesus tells a healed man to "go offer the gift that Moses commanded," which is an animal sacrifice at the Temple, as if to say God did merit the gift of thanksgiving for healing the man. Other than that kind of evidence, whether the person or God "merits" the gift is not really ever addressed; it simply really isn't the focus. Paul uses this specific term "gift" only once, as far as I can tell, so it wasn't really a "theme" term he used often.
Some interesting verses in the "deuterocanonical books" are also worth looking at. In Tobit 2:14, Anna does a good job at her task, so her happy customers give her not only wages but also a goat as a gift on top of that. We would not say the gift was absolutely free and no relation to her job. Basically like giving a tip at a restaurant, it is a gift but it is tied to the service as well. And in 2nd Maccabees 15:16, we read: "Then Jeremiah gave Judas a gold sword, saying: This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies." We see Judas was found 'worthy' to fight on God's behalf, receiving the "gift of God" as this sword, for him to use properly.
A slightly different term "dorea" (HERE) which comes from the Greek word doron is found in Eph 3:7 where Paul speaks of "the gift of God's grace," which would suggest it is basically equivalent to doron. Yet when we look we see dorea found in Acts 2:38, where Peter famously says: "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This text seems to link the sacraments directly to getting a gift from God! This would directly refute the Protestant thesis on its face! And in Acts 8:17-20, Peter says the "gift of God" is given through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Again, this would seem to refute the Protestant claim. Similarly, if we grant that Hebrews 6:4-6 is speaking of the Eucharist when it says "tasted the heavenly gift," it also shows you can abuse or lose the gift of God. In Daniel 2:6, the king is willing to give "gifts" to anyone who can interpret his mysterious dream, which suggests a meriting of sorts, even if they don't strictly merit it.
While I'm sure much more in depth analysis can be done, I think it has been shown clearly that the Protestant side often makes too many assumptions that aren't in the text, or not sufficiently proven, and even contradicted by how the Bible uses the term elsewhere. It is absolutely possible to have done something to be worthy of a gift, including receiving the Sacraments.
 | |
| The scene of Tobit 2:14, where Anna is found to have the "gift" of a goat for doing a good job at her task |
1 comment:
Hey, you are back!
The whole chapter clearly works with the whole gentile x jew division from this time, reading it fully them it is hard to see these verses as doing the work that the protestant common use needs.
And, of course, the whole insistence that our sacraments are works is quite strange. That their efficacy is 100% from God is just the first thing that any cstholic source says.
Post a Comment